April 4, 2012                         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                 Vol. XLVII No. 19


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Speaker is very pleased today to welcome to our galleries the provincial wheelchair curling team that represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012 Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship on March 18-25 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Their members include: their Skip, Joanne MacDonald; their Third, Felix Green; their Second, Lanie Woodfine; and their Lead, Cecilia Carroll; along with their Coach, Leslie Anne Walsh.

Welcome to our gallery.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Lewisporte, the Member for the District of Humber Valley, the Member for the District of St. Barbe, the Member for the District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for the District of Terra Nova, and the Member for the District of Port au Port.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to a wonderful lady in my district, Lucy Ann Rowe. Lucy was born in Joe Batts Arm on Fogo Island, on October 1, 1910. She is 101 years old.

She currently resides at Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte. I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Rowe this past fall, and I also had the honour of introducing Mrs. Rowe to our Premier.

She was married to James Oliver Newman, a WWI veteran and together they raised five children. She also has sixteen grandchildren, thirteen great-grandchildren, eight great-great-grandchildren and one great-great-great-grandchild.

Lucy was a devoted member of the Church of England and for many years was a Sunday school teacher and a church organist. Her hobbies include reading, crocheting, knitting and she watches no television.

She moved to Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte in her 100th year. She takes no medication and she attributes her long life partially to the fact that she takes two cod liver oil or two seal capsules every day.

Members of this House of Assembly, would you please join with me in recognizing Mrs. Lucy Rowe and congratulating her on her long life.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend Donna Giles from Deer Lake, who has been instrumental in bringing autism awareness to the forefront for school children and residents in the Deer Lake region.

Donna is known locally as an advocate for autism and sits on the Board of Directors for the Western Chapter of the Autism Society, Newfoundland and Labrador. With the diagnosis of her son, Cody, at the age of three, Donna, her husband and their daughter have learned first-hand the unique challenges of living with autism.

It is through the eyes of her now twelve-year-old son that Donna has embraced her role in the awareness campaign and has been the main organizer for many community events, such as: the annual flag raising for World Autism Day; annual Autism Awareness Walk; education awareness in local schools; community swims and other social events; assisted with annual camps for families living with autism.

Mr. Speaker, autism awareness being brought to the forefront by individuals like Donna has enabled communities like Deer Lake to embrace all residents regardless of their disability or ability.

Mr. Speaker, April 2 was World Autism Awareness Day. I ask all members in this hon. House to join with me in commending Donna for her commitment to autism awareness in the Deer Lake area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize CURRA, the Community-University Research Alliance based in Norris Point in my district. CURRA is led by principal investigator Barbara Neis.

CURRA is a five-year research program geared to assist West Coast communities and organizations in the development of strategies for the recovery of fish stocks and sustainability of fishery communities.

The mandate of this program is to unite researchers from Memorial University and Sir Wilfred Grenfell College with stakeholders and community organizations to collaborate in the training of researchers in community-based research and in promoting community liaising with researchers. I have seen the tremendous work that CURRA has done and the benefit this work has been to the researchers and communities involved.

Part of the CURRA initiative is the Bonne Bay Marine Station, which is a prized community asset in the area. CURRA will be holding the upcoming international symposium entitled: Rebuilding Collapsed Fisheries and Threatened Communities, to be held in Bonne Bay in early October – some twenty years after the cod moratorium. This is a multi-stakeholder event and I encourage all MHAs to attend this event in my district.

Our fishery is the lifeline of all our rural communities and CURRA and Memorial University should be commended for addressing the challenges of a collapsed fishery and for bringing stakeholders together to ensure our fishery remains a strong part of our future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this House to acknowledge an outstanding young man from my district. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Donovan Taplin, a Level III student at St. Michael's High on Bell Island who this past week was offered the prestigious 2012 national Loran Award. The nationwide candidate's pool was comprised of nearly 4,000 applicants.

The scholarship, which includes summer programs and mentorship opportunities, is valued at up to $75,000. In an announcement made only hours ago, Mr. Speaker, Donovan has also been awarded the national TD Canada Trust Scholarship valued at $70,000.

Donovan has been a participant in both the Students on Ice Expeditions to Antarctica and the Arctic, and is the communications director of the Students on Ice delegations to the 2012 Earth Summit, which will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June.

Donovan has been a very active volunteer on Bell Island with the school's student council, Tourism Bell Island, the Accordion Idol, Radio Bell Island, and many other groups. Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of having Donovan as one of my team members in a fundraising hockey tournament this past fall, and found him to be an exceptional, well-rounded young man.

I ask all members of this House to congratulate Donovan on his many accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a hockey team on their recent accomplishment, and while this hockey team is not technically from my district, a good portion of their fans hail from there. The team of which I speak is, of course, the Clarenville Caribous.

On April 1, the Caribous beat the Grand Falls Cataracts, winning four games straight, the series ending 4 games to 1. This was the third Herder championship in four years, and that is in addition to the team winning the prestigious national championship, the Allan Cup, in 2011.

As I have heard from you, Mr. Speaker, in a conversation we had just recently, the Clarenville Caribous have achieved senior hockey supremacy in this Province.

I would ask all members of this House of Assembly to join with myself and the Speaker in congratulating the Caribous senior hockey team on another hugely successful season.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the forty-eight years of service the Port au Port Economic Development Association has been providing to its catchment area.

The Port au Port Economic Development Association is a not-for-profit, community-based volunteer organization that works toward implementing short-term and long-term economic planning in the region. This is accomplished by facilitating the identification of local needs, acting as a forum for the exchange of ideas on how to address these local needs, and the development of local leadership.

PAPEDA, for instance, co-ordinates and hosts the Port au Port Agricultural and Craft Fall Fair, a highly successful annual event that showcases local businesses and farmers' products and services. This year, Mr. Speaker, will mark its forty-fifth anniversary.

PAPEDA also manages I would say to be one of the most picturesque parks in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Piccadilly Head Regional Park, which is greatly enjoyed by visitors, tourists, and local residents alike.

Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members of this House to join with me in applauding the efforts of the Port au Port Economic Development Association for their coordinated community work that has benefitted the area for almost fifty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills and the Minister Responsible for Persons with Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador athletes who represented this Province at the 2012 Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship, March 18 to March 25, in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Under the guidance of coach Leslie Ann Walsh, team members Joanne MacDonald, Felix Green, Cecilia Carroll, and Lanie Woodfine are showing what can be achieved through hard work, dedication, and determination.

With two victories in a national setting, Mr. Speaker, and without one of their key curlers, Darlene Jackman – who unfortunately was unable to attend – the team improved on their previous record at the championship last year.

I would like to especially recognize Skip Joanne MacDonald on her outstanding performance. Ms MacDonald received the Good Sportsmanship Award at the closing ceremonies in Thunder Bay, following a vote from all curlers. It is also worth noting that she was Canada's only female skip at the 2012 championship.

As members of this hon. House may know, Joanne MacDonald is also Chair of the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, and has worked for over twenty-five years as a community advocate and promoter of equality for individuals with disabilities.

Along with being a member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, an Officer of the Order of Canada, and establishing national and world records for athletic ability, as well as being a mentor and role model for a whole generation of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, she is now committed to developing a competitive wheelchair curling program in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Team MacDonald for their performance this week, and for their ongoing accomplishments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy.

Once again, we are here to celebrate the achievements of people from Newfoundland and Labrador. Congratulations to Joanne, Felix, Cecilia, Lanie, Darlene, and also their coach, Leslie. It is always a great accomplishment when you can compete at a national level, but when you can win on a national level it is even greater, that you know how much hard work and dedication you have put in.

As Chair of the Advisory Council for People with Disabilities, I am well aware of Joanne's work over the years for people with disabilities. I have attended many meetings with Joanne, and I know the work and how much she has promoted inclusion of people with disabilities across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. I congratulate her for that, and I know the hard work and dedication, and I know the rest of the team is also proud of her.

The biggest accomplishment of this, Mr. Speaker, is not only being the only female skip, but being recognized by your peers at the tournament as the most sportsmanlike player. To me, when you are recognized by your peers at a national tournament, it goes well beyond the curling; it goes beyond the bigger scope of including people.

Congratulations on that award, because there is no better award than being recognized by your peers. Congratulations to the team. Keep up the good work, and who knows, one of these days, you will be bringing home the gold pretty soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I congratulate these athletes for the hard work and achievement that comes with taking part in a national tournament such as this one. I also say congratulations to the Chair of the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities and her teammates for their dedication, which has seen their record improve in this tournament.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot overlook the systemic and physical barriers that people with disabilities still face in this Province. We need to be progressive in our policies to ensure that people with disabilities can participate in society and in our workforce to the fullest extent, and that we value the unique contributions of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Legislature today to inform the public and members present of the continued success of the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program.

Mr. Speaker, this is a program that has been ongoing for five years and has funded a total of 173 projects in support of innovation, marketing, and research in the fishing industry.

The program, Mr. Speaker, was announced in 2007, with a $6 million funding allocation, as part of our provincial government's Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Once again, in Budget 2011-2012, the program was extended for an additional three years with a further commitment of $6.6 million. The program has generated, Mr. Speaker, $32.8 million in total project value to date, which continues to grow.

The primary goal of this program is to provide support to the Province's harvesting and processing sectors, Mr. Speaker, specifically to help diversify the fishing industry and to increase our overall viability for the future.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have seen many innovative projects and activities that have come to fruition – things, for example, to support the reduction of by-catch, enhanced safety in the industry, energy efficiency, fishing gear demonstration, and the introduction of new technology.

Some examples of projects undertaken also include the testing of fishing pot technology; exploratory fisheries for northern stone crab and whelk; an e-simulator distance education program for stability management; ongoing research on the utilization of fish waste as biodiesel; and the recycling of poly bags to reduce the high volumes of waste disposed in landfills, Mr. Speaker. As well, this program has assisted with market development and the promotion of shrimp and other important species.

Mr. Speaker, it is by working together that we will bring about new ideas and new ways of efficiently operating that will make the fishing industry more viable and sustainable for the future. The Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is here to support the fishing industry in becoming more competitive in the global seafood market.

I am confident that with the continued engagement of our industry, our fishing and aquaculture sectors together will thrive and play an ever-increasing role in the Province's rural economy. We are very proud indeed, Mr. Speaker, of what we have accomplished collectively in this Province, and we look forward to what the future initiatives will bring.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy.

I must truly say that this is really good news. This, in my view, is one of the most important mandates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This is what the department is doing well, and should be doing even more.

It is the role of Opposition to criticize if we need to criticize, but certainly to support when we see need to support. This is an excellent program, and I cannot think of a better use for resources of the Province than being invested in the fishery in this way.

I take particular note of the area where I have researched, dealing with fish waste for biodiesel. I would certainly hope that the minister would direct some of the funds further in this particular area, because right now, swimming off our coast, we have approximately 10 million seals. Ten million seals consume approximately 1.4 tons per year; that is 14 million tons. The Canadian seafood industry landed less than 1 million tons. The seals are eating far more than we are eating.

If the department is already focussing on biodiesel, and we need a seal management program, then I would really encourage the minister to push this program even further and to engage the federal government in a manner that we can reduce the seal population to our mutual benefit.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news today, and I hope to see more of this from the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Congratulations to the people involved in this worthy program. The future of our greatest sustainable resource lies in innovation; $6.6 million over three years is a pittance to a billion-dollar industry. I really want to see more money invested in this vital area. I would like to see more research around value-added processing, and I would like the minister to share any studies and work and data, to date, that have been developed with public money around this program.

I stress that we have to place more emphasis on innovation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Dominion Bond Rating Service and Standard & Poor's Rating Services have listed Emera's outlook as negative. Standard & Poor's cited weak cash flows and have stated there is a one in three chance that they will downgrade the company's long-term credit rating.

I ask the Premier: How does this negative outlook of Emera's financial situation affect your agreements with the company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that Emera's credit rating has not been downgraded, but what has happened here, Standard & Poor's have lowered the outlook from stable to negative. A lot of this, I understand, Mr. Speaker, deals with the legislative changes made by the Nova Scotia government that mandate Emera to produce 15 per cent renewable energy by 2015, and 40 per cent by 2040.

This is why the Maritime Link becomes so important, Mr. Speaker. It allows them to meet their renewable energy targets and is one of the reasons that they are not only looking to Quebec for power because they are not looking to sole source power, they are looking for energy that meets their renewable energy standards that will affect their credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I remind the minister, it was weak cash flows that was stated in the report that I have.

Mr. Speaker, to enter into an agreement we have to be comfortable with our partners. In this case, we are entering into an agreement with a weakening partner.

I ask the Premier: Is the fact that Emera is having financial difficulties why they are not part of the cost overruns on the Labrador Trans-Island Link, and only 50 per cent of the cost overruns on their own Maritime Link?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources indicated, Emera's credit ratings have not been downgraded. Their outlook has been moved from stable down to negative. All that means is that the credit rating agencies, such as Standard & Poor's and the Dominion Bond Rating Agency, are going to simply monitor the company to ensure that the company makes changes in its financial policy to address the concerns that the bond rating agencies have addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Standard & Poor's is the world's pre-eminent cash rating agency and they have stated that Emera's cash flows are weaker than they would like to see, given the amount of spending ahead of them.

I ask the Premier: If Emera pulls out of your Muskrat arrangement, does that mean the 40 per cent export option, as well as the federal loan guarantee, is gone as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the Dominion Bond Rating Agency has raised the concerns about the great number of projects that Nova Scotia is going to undertake in order to move from producing electricity based on carbon sources to non-carbon sources, such as hydro and wind. That means that they will be seeking funding to do that, and they will be seeking rate increases before the Nova Scotia regulator to accomplish that. In terms of the Maritime Link, Mr. Speaker, Emera will have the guarantee of the federal government and will borrow at AAA+ ratings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Emera's financial situation puts them really in a vulnerable situation. We have heard rumours coming out of Nova Scotia now for quite some time.

I ask the Premier: There is always the elephant in the room there, and how would you feel if Hydro-Quιbec took out Emera?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there has been no downgrading in the credit rating. This is merely they are under watch by the bond rating companies. When they borrow for the Maritime Link, they are going to be borrowing with the guarantee of the federal government behind it, and that is as good as it gets in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has confirmed that feasibility level studies have been completed on Muskrat Falls and isolated Island proposals.

I ask the Premier: Will you now commit to the same level of study on LNG, natural gas, wind, conservation, and demand-side management? Can we have the same level of studies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a prospective leader of the Liberal Party stated on a couple of occasions yesterday, Muskrat Falls is a very good project, Mr. Speaker, and one that Mr. MacDonald endorses fully.

Mr. Speaker, certain options can be eliminated rather quickly, but what we have agreed to do, even the options that have been eliminated, we will file a report on natural gas. We will have a report prepared on wind. We will put it all, Mr. Speaker, in front of the House of Assembly, along with the Decision Gate 3 or sanction numbers. There will be a full week of debate in the House of Assembly, and all of the questions that are being asked, Mr. Speaker, will be answered. So, what we are doing here now is we are giving them exactly what they are looking for in terms of the reports and debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the minister that Mr. MacDonald was at our renewal committee meeting this morning. He is part of our renewal committee, and he has been there, and he endorses what we are doing, actually. He said we are asking the right questions. Go look at the report this morning.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has said a study will be completed on natural gas; however, the Premier is saying that there will only be a report.

I ask the Premier: What is the difference between a study and a report, and can you take a report to the bank?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am learning every day in this House that I must be in absolute command of the English language. I am not sure where the bar is getting set; however, that is the standard I am being held to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to Ziff Energy with regard to wind. When he made his report to me, I asked if he could ask Ziff Energy to get a report – to draw up a report for us, Mr. Speaker, to answer the questions that have been put forward not only by the members of the Opposition and the Third Party but by critics in the broader community. As soon as we get that report, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make it available to everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I would like to remind the Premier that Ziff did not report on wind. It was natural gas. So if you want to talk about the English language, at least get your reports right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2011, government announced that POMAX –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2011, government announced that POMAX Consulting Incorporated would carry out a feasibility study on expanded 911, E-911 services in Newfoundland and Labrador. That report was due at the end of March.

What is the status of this report and can you tell the people of this Province when they can expect 911 services in all regions of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, we continually invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. The 911 service could be very important to all householders in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to make sure, number one, that if we were to do it, we have to do it right; number two, we have to do it in a way that is affordable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is only the end of the month – about what, four or five days ago – that we actually received the report. When we fully evaluate that report, well then, we will start moving it forward from there, but do not move it within twenty-four hours after receiving the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government has yet another fishery mess with the news the lobster industry is at a standstill. It is no coincidence government is sitting on a large pot of money from the lobster buyout program where only thirty-nine harvesters accepted offers.

I ask the minister: Is this recent lobster chaos a deliberate attempt to restructure the industry through the back door rather than paying our lobster harvesters the money they deserve to exit the industry with dignity?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information that I have before me is not that the lobster industry is in a mess. As a matter of fact, the Price Setting Panel has just indicated they have come to an agreement on the price for this season, first of all, which I think is very positive. Secondly, with respect to the lobster buyout program, that is one we are all proud of on this side of this House, because our government has stepped up to help the industry.

As I have said before to the member opposite, and I repeat it again, this government stepped away from administering that program. We made a contribution up to a total of $18 million, but that program is being administered by the FFAW. I cannot speak for them about the process nor the number of buyouts that have been accepted to date.

I encourage the member to put his question to the appropriate authorities who can give him the relevant information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the lobster buyout program is intended to help harvesters exit the industry and in doing so improve the incomes of those remaining. The program clearly is not delivering.

I ask the minister: Is it true that over 90 per cent of the money remains while the lobster industry is in chaos?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I might add, by the way, that I received a report on crab today and it looks like the crab industry is about to start with a very positive price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I talked a few minutes ago at length about the Fisheries Technology Program that we are so proud to be a part of, and I hear members opposite endorse that.

Mr. Speaker, we are about doing what we can to support this industry and there are some very, very positive things happening. It is disappointing that day after day you keep hearing negativity from across the House.

I can only repeat as honestly as I can what I just said: This government is not administering that program, Mr. Speaker. It is being administered independently through the FFAW.

Questions about the number of applications, the number who have accepted, and the number who have exited the industry, I cannot answer. It is not part of my role. It is their role and I encourage them to go in that direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in our meeting with the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, he said he would be willing to provide the necessary information requested by the Province if they chose to do an inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy. Yesterday I asked the Premier if she was now prepared to do the inquiry and, Mr. Speaker, she was waiting to hear back from the minister's office.

I ask her today if she has had a conversation and if she is indeed ready now to carry out the inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had a lengthy conversation with Minister MacKay this morning and I am interested that the Opposition House Leader refers to the meeting "we" had. There was no we, Mr. Speaker; it was her. The Leader of the Opposition was not in the meeting, Mr. Speaker, and nowhere in the meeting – of all the cry we have had in this House for an inquiry into how the federal government deployed their search and rescue infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, not once did she ask Minister MacKay for a joint inquiry into what happened on January 29 in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier probably got her information as confused in this case as she has in every other case that she speaks on, Mr. Speaker. Give her another day and her story will change again. Mr. Speaker, in the conversation that I had with the Minister of National Defence – and unless he denies this or lies about it – this is exactly what the question was, and this is exactly what the answer was.

I asked him directly: If the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was to do an inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy, is there any reason why they would not co-operate and provide the information that was required by the federal government? Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Premier to find where I have said anything different than that.

So I ask the Premier today: Now that you know that they will give the information, are you prepared to do the inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two points, Mr. Speaker; in Question Period yesterday, time and time and time again, as Hansard will show, I asked the question whether or not the Minister of National Defence was saying that the federal government was going to participate in a joint inquiry. Not once was I corrected, Mr. Speaker – not once.

Now, Mr. Speaker, also in quotes in the media today, the Leader of the Opposition says it is his impression, from what he heard at his meetings in Ottawa – now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he has extra-sensory perception, or supersonic ears, but he was sat outside Minister MacKay's office while the House Leader had her meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I had to start correcting everything the Premier said –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – I would not get another thing done; I would be all day long correcting the misinformation and the confusing information that she continues to put out there for the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I say to the Premier: I had the meeting with Peter MacKay; that is a lot more than you do did as the Premier of this Province, I say to you. In two months you finally made your way to make a phone call.

Let me ask you today, Premier: Are you now prepared to do the inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy? Are you now prepared to do it knowing the federal government will be forthcoming with the information that you will need?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in my first lengthy conversation with the Minister of National Defence, he committed to providing information. We have written him a letter asking for that information, Mr. Speaker. The question has been as to whether or not we would call a joint inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is how the line of questioning started here in this House, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, and the House Leader, kept insisting that I had the authority to call a joint inquiry the same as we did with the Cougar helicopter, Mr. Speaker. She finally gets her meeting with the Minister of National Defence and does not ask him for a joint inquiry when the federal government deployment of infrastructure were trying to investigate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Do you know what is really sad, Mr. Speaker? The Premier has spent more time looking at my Twitter and Facebook and finding out what I am doing in my meetings than she did into the full Burton Winters tragedy in this Province. How sad is that, Mr. Speaker?

I have read the log sheets from DND. Mr. Speaker, according to the log sheets that were obtained from the Department of National Defence, it was twenty-one hours after the call left Makkovik before the Provincial Emergency Measures Organization contacted the joint research centre for support. It was eight hours later when the joint research centre closed the file and another twenty-three hours had lapsed before the Emergency Measures Organization of the Province requested air support to do a search in the Makkovik –

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to conclude her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: She has done everything else; have you read the documentation? Have you read the log sheets and if you have, is that not reason enough to do an inquiry into this (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, to hear such false information laid on the floor of this House of Assembly certainly appals me, to be honest with you, when I stood in this House and I went through the log in regard to when the call was received. The first call that came out of Makkovik, the first call that came into Fire and Emergency Services asking for air support was at 8:19 on Monday – at 8:19 on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: I don't care, I say to the hon. member, if you were there. You ask the RCMP when the first call came into Fire and Emergency Services. Get up on your feet and ask the RCMP when it came. I don't care if you were there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I have my log. You are playing politics with a tragedy, I say to the hon. member. Appalling! At 8:19 - and we made the first call to JRCC at 9:00 o'clock or so in the morning, and we got a call back at 9:20 that no assets were available. That is exactly what happened.

If I go to work and put all kinds of hours onto it, fifty-one hours - you are playing politics with a tragedy in Makkovik, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Premier and her government were caught off guard by the PUB's refusal to endorse their Muskrat Falls proposal based on the information the PUB were supplied with. It appears government did not have a plan for the possibility of this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Has government discussed a plan with Nalcor regarding what next steps to take with the Muskrat Falls proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I did not expect from the PUB was a refusal to fulfill the terms of their mandate. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you call on an organization that is instituted to serve the people of this Province, who have been given a mandate, accept a mandate, Mr. Speaker, you expect them to fulfill the mandate. So, no, I was not prepared; and not I was not prepared for them not to recommend, Mr. Speaker, I did not know what their recommendation was going to be, and I was prepared to accept whatever it was. They refused to fulfill their mandate. That is a reality now that we have to deal with, and as a government, we have decided how to move forward, and I have shared that information with Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I have to assume from the Premier's response that in actual fact she has not yet sat down and met with Nalcor to put a plan together. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked government for independent examinations of all electricity generating options on the Island. Government has consistently refused to consider these options which might prove preferable to government's Muskrat Falls approach to meeting long-term power needs. The Premier has now promised more reports and information before our debate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can we be sure that the reports government has commissioned relate to the specifics related to the Isolated Island option?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Leader of the Third Party because she says it does not make it so. I have had any number of meetings let me tell you with Mr. Martin over the last week, so your information and your statement are incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of experts review the information with regard to the development of Muskrat Falls. Every one of those experts, Mr. Speaker, had sufficient information to come to the conclusion that based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, Muskrat Falls is the least-cost option and we need the power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that yesterday we heard the Minister of Natural Resources talking about a meeting here and a meeting there and bumping into somebody somewhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I ask the Premier: What confidence can we have in information the minister gathers while shopping around for endorsements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have Navigant, we have Manitoba Hydro, and we have the consumer advocate and his expert. We have Dr. Wade Locke who sometimes, I admit, is the second coming from the other side of the House, other times he is the devil incarnate, so it depends on what day of the week. We have a lot of respect for Dr. Locke. Mr. Speaker, we had the late Jack Layton. We have Jack Harris, we have Premier Dexter, we have the federal Government of Canada, and now we have Dean MacDonald. How many more (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB is charged with ensuring the lights stay on in the Province. The PUB has expressed serious concern on Nalcor's design of their HVdc transmission system which they note, along with Manitoba Hydro, does not meet industry standards. This is undoubtedly going to also be a serious concern for Nova Scotia's PUB as they do their review over the next several months.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How will this problem with design –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – affect the deal Nalcor is currently negotiating with Emera in Nova Scotia?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the Leader of the Third Party that there is a difference between seeking endorsements and doing due diligence. As a government, we take steps on our own to ensure the information we are being provided with is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, what should give the hon. member some solace, although I doubt it, is that we are engaging Manitoba Hydro International, the very team of experts hired by the PUB – who have been critical of Nalcor – to further review the issues that she talks about. So Manitoba Hydro International, Mr. Speaker, will review the Decision Gate 3 numbers. They will look at the project, they will take the work that has been done – by the way, which was paid for by the taxpayers of this Province – and they will now use that information, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision on Decision Gate 3.

All of the issues will be looked at. We are not hiding anything. We want to get to the bottom of this. The hiring of Manitoba Hydro International is a good example of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The New Democratic Party has been calling for a reduction in small business tax from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. Seven other provinces now have a more competitive business tax, with the news that Nova Scotia will reduce its rate to 3.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will Budget 2012 include a reduction in small business tax to prevent losses in the small business sector?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government has lowered taxes more than any other government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: We certainly want to put money in people's pockets. We have lowered our small business tax rate down to 4 per cent. Of course, unlike Nova Scotia, we have not increased the HST by two points.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member to have a nice Easter break and come back. We will release the Budget and we can have a great discussion at that time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, seafood producers claim they will not pay the price for lobster set by government's pricing panel. They said that it was too high. This had the potential to send the whole industry into jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, lobster is for the most part shipped live. There is little or no processing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Will he take the initiative and begin work on creating a seafood marketing co-op, which will remove the intermediary, create more price stability, and increase profits for harvesters?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue the member opposite raises – I have to say that I am not aware that there are significant challenges in the lobster industry at this point in time. It is always difficult when there is fear mongering in the House of Assembly. I am aware that discussions have been had and I am aware that there has been an agreement between the FFAW and the processors on a base price for lobster that will see the season open. I say to the member opposite, if that changes – and I would certainly like him to advise me if I am not already aware, but I am not aware that there are challenges today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point, and I think I have talked about it in the House of Assembly before; we are indeed committed to a marketing council for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was our government who actually announced several millions of dollars in last year's Budget to do just that and we are working on that initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works. Government owns vacant buildings and land across the Province that could be used for affordable housing. Municipalities and housing groups have asked the government to make some vacant properties available for affordable housing without success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he work with other provincial government departments to develop a strategy for transferring available land for the construction of affordable housing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member opposite, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, my department; we work with all departments in government. We manage our assets and we do make available to anyone who wants to come forward with a good plan, whether it is for affordable housing or whatever – we would certainly partner with them to make what is available that we can make available, to move forward on any viable project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, the time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 18)

Again, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities. (Bill 17)

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 St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a petition.

To this hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly showeth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Paul's, Cow Head, Sally's Cove or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHERAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous travelers, hikers and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave communities within the park.

As in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition keeps coming from different people who live in the park, from different towns' people. They are keenly interested in having improved cellphone service. The importance of cellphone service cannot be overstated in many areas. There was situation just north of the park within the last week, less than a week, when a –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. Barbe has been recognized by the Chair.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, within the last week there was a situation where a young woman from a town north of the park, on her snowmobile at night, rolled over the snowmobile and had no way to get home. She was able to contact the authorities, I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to advise them of her predicament by cellphone. Unfortunately, the cellphone battery died but at least she was able to raise the alarm of where she was and that she was in distress, and search parties set out immediately. Fortunately, she met up with somebody on her walk back after daylight, after spending all night on the snow alongside the snowmobile.

Mr. Speaker, that shows the importance of cellphones. These communities are urging the government to supply cellphone service to their communities for all of the aforementioned reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits - White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth:

WHEREAS the need for cellular coverage is far reaching in the District of The Straits - White Bay North; and

WHEREAS there is limited cellphone coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony Airport to St. Anthony and there is little to no coverage in the communities surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436, Route 437, Route 438; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the residents of The Straits - White Bay North District feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop incentives to further investments in cellphone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to support the residents of The Straits - White Bay North District in their request to obtain adequate cellular phone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue for quite some time, dealing with private suppliers and making this issue well-known because cellphone coverage is something that is quite critical. I have learned that, right now under the current investment plan, eighteen towers will be going up on the Avalon Peninsula. That is where the investment will be made, and certainly it needs to be to deal with capacity issues. Also, we do need to make sure we are bridging gaps and spots when it comes to dealing with cellular coverage.

There is a mechanism that needs to be in play, because if we are investing in broadband that is using fibre and the cellular towers also need fibre, then maybe there is a more cohesive strategy that needs to be put in place by the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development to make sure that cellular and broadband are bridged with these companies. We really do need to ensure for the safety of our citizens, for education, for health, and so many other purposes that cellular coverage is made a priority by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled – pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: No.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS strikes and lock outs are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, in British Columbia since 1993 – that is correct – and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lock out is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of its residents, as is evident by the recent use of temporary replacement workers by both Ocean Choice International (OCI) and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, of course we see the damaging impact of not having this legislation in the fact that the standoff continues between OCI and the trawlermen who should be out aboard the Newfoundland Lynx right now, working, but instead are ashore without their jobs because scab labour is being used to prevent a reasonable settlement from being reached in that.

I know the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency has said on a number of occasions now that he is open to the idea. I encourage him to continue to do his research; I know he mentioned he has read a couple of articles on this already. So hopefully he continues to study the matter; I am certainly willing to refer him to some references, should he be lacking in resources or sources in looking into the matter.

Thank you very much and I hope that members of the House of Assembly will see fit to hear the plea of these petitioners sooner than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, I now call upon the Member for St. Barbe to introduce the motion that stands on the Order Paper in his name.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the fishery is the lifeblood of hundreds of communities in our Province, with both harvesting and processing contributing significantly to personal incomes and regional economies; and

WHEREAS the shipping out of unprocessed seafood negatively impacts our people, communities and Province; and

WHEREAS provincial legislation is already in place to restrict the exporting of our unprocessed fish products; and

WHEREAS there is a growing concern that the community unit will become even less of a beneficiary of one of our most important renewable resources; and

WHEREAS the government is already on record as stating that our people and our communities must be the primary beneficiaries of our fish resources; and

WHEREAS there is increasing evidence that other countries are benefiting greatly from our unprocessed raw seafood products; and

WHEREAS there are warnings that our Province is running out of time to diversify its economy before the oil revenues run out and we will be left with insufficient money to pay the bills;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to immediately recommit to the principles of disallowing the shipping out of unprocessed resources in order to protect regional and provincial economies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to work with the federal government to adopt the policy that if a company is unable to process its quota allocation, then they be obligated by law to offer it to other processing companies at cost and a reasonable profit margin, as determined by the industry norm; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to adopt the policy that in cases where it is absolutely necessary to ship out unprocessed fish, to ensure the survival of the industry in the long term, it must be shipped out for a definite time frame, and the company exporting unprocessed seafood has to first reapply for the export licence annually, and secondly, must pay a fee to the Province, as is done in many other industries, so that our people and our communities continue to benefit from this natural resource.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the history of the fishery in our Province, we are suffering from a blessing that we had in bygone years. Historically, we had huge quantities of fish that we could catch, we could dry, we could salt, and we could ship out. In the case of lobsters, we canned them; herring, we salted. When we entered Confederation in 1949, we, the Dominion of Newfoundland, were a leading seafood processor in the world. We are able to catch fish and catch fish and catch fish. We had lots of fish; we caught huge volumes, and we sold it at low prices.

Then, we joined Canada. After we joined Canada, we no longer had responsibility for the catching side of the seafood equation. That was all delegated, and some would say relegated, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

First, we saw the three-mile limit, Mr. Speaker. I have seen vessels much, much closer than three miles – vessels from foreign nations no more than a half mile off – dragging their gear through our lobster gear, through our herring nets, through our salmon nets, through our cod traps, literally destroying all of our equipment, as well as our industry. Then we went to a twelve-mile limit. Then we went to a 200-mile limit.

In 1992 the cod moratorium came at a cost of 35,000 jobs to this Province. If you could imagine by comparison, that is 7 per cent of our population. If Ontario were to lose 7 per cent of its jobs, 7 per cent of its population, they would lose 1,750,000 jobs. That is what we lost with the cod moratorium. That is what happened.

Then we had a federal recovery program, and that was completely bungled in my opinion by the federal government. The federal government thought that throwing money at a problem would solve the problem. It has not, it did not, and it will not because we have to be smarter in how we work in the fishery.

Today, we are trying to support 20,000 people on 270,000 metric tons of landings last year, but that is where we are. Mr. Speaker, old habits die hard. We still think we need to ship out unprocessed, but we do not. We absolutely do not need to ship out unprocessed seafood. What we need to do instead is we need to maximize the value of our landings for our communities. Often I have heard the cry, particularly in urban areas, generally from the uninformed: What can we do for rural communities? I say, let them process seafood and there will be very little unemployment in our rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, recently, within the last week or so - and I am going to table this document - there was a conference in Bonavista. A leading expert in the fishery said that for us it is about shipping out. Our processors are too hard pressed; they have to work in multiple fisheries. They have to buy and ship out in a hurry and they have to turn over their capital.

An individual, Bob Verge, also referred to last year. He said 300,000 metric tons - which is pretty close because our provincial statistics say 267,000 were landed, and 100,000 metric tons of that product was disregarded as waste. He says there is no place in the world that would do that, and I think I would have to agree with him. His calculation is that waste had the potential to contribute $150 million to the provincial fishery, and that is just at the low end. He says, and many other experts say, that we have to look at getting better value. We have to work through higher product yields, we have to have more opportunities to sell fresh. We have to sell and it needs to be food which is heat ready, not eat ready, but heat ready so that when you walk into a supermarket and you can see the package, the package is ready to take out and stick into the microwave and cook it. This is a document I am tabling, Mr. Speaker.

We have just gone through an argument, or debate or dispute, which is still ongoing over yellowtail flounder. We have the same situation that we have with redfish and various species. The intent of this bill is so that, the first step is nothing is shipped out unprocessed. The second step is that if it is absolutely necessary to support an industry, that the industry would not otherwise survive, then the quota holder who is landing that product – it could be yellowtail, it could be herring, it could mackerel, or it could be any product at all. If that quota holder wishes to ship out anything unprocessed and says, I cannot make it without being able to ship out unprocessed, then the first step should be – and this was an offer that was made in 2006 by Fishery Products International, who said: If anybody can take our product and process it at a dollar, then let them. We will let them do that.

Mr. Speaker, if a quota holder wishes to ship out unprocessed, then that quota holder should be able to say to the rest of the processors in the Province: I have this product; it is going to go wherever unprocessed. I will not say China because there could be other places, but primarily China is a destination for high volume, low-value product so they can process it and make money. However, if it has to go to other processors then any of the small processors can say: Yes, I can take 5 per cent of that or I can take 10 per cent of that. They should not be permitted to simply take it at cost because that would be unfair to the quota holder. The quota holder should be able to transfer whatever amount that smaller processor needs for their plant, and at whatever is the recognized industry profit. It could be 10 per cent or 15 per cent. The industry will know. They will know by species and they will know by time of year and market.

If we are in a situation whereby there are no takers, if there is no plant in this Province that will take that product at cost plus some profit margin, then the would-be exporter of unprocessed – I will say, for want of a better term, the larger player - if they are permitted on an annual basis to apply to the Province to export whatever that amount is because an industry must have this to stay alive. It could be the harvesters who need it, but just to keep the industry alive for that year. It is an annual application; however, a fee must be paid to the Province. The Minister of Finance will probably like that. A fee is paid to the Province because it is a common property resource. It belongs to the people of Canada and we are the people of Canada, even if we are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We would not expect to ship out any other resource unprocessed and without a royalty. So, if the quota holder wishes to ship out unprocessed, then they must pay a royalty to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to our general revenues, so we can use those royalties, ideally to go back into the fishery, but not necessarily. It simply would reflect the contribution of the people of the Province, of their resource to that operator, because they cannot take something for nothing. They cannot take logs without stumpage, and they cannot take minerals without some sort of a royalty, so why should they take fish without a royalty?

Mr. Speaker, it is a relatively simple bill, I suppose; however, it would pretty much revolutionize exporting and processing, because if the smaller processors who – many of them are struggling, many of them say: I just cannot get the product. There are processors in my district – and I know they are in other places – who last year may have done turbot for five or six or seven weeks; at the end of the turbot they were able to get a couple hundred thousand pounds of herring, and they could process that. That added three or four or five weeks work to a very small plant. That means in that community, no money went for community enhancement projects last year. In that community, of the money that came to my district, none of it went to community enhancement projects.

Late last year I approved over $400,000 for community enhancement projects for one district. I understand the value of community enhancement projects, but the recovery to the Province and to the people is so small for that $400,000 – what we get from it. If we had more of our seafood being processed in this Province – and while I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the approval on the community enhancement projects, it would be much better if we were accepting very little or none, or maybe our royalties would be going back into the provincial treasury to support the rest of the Province. Essentially, that is the thrust of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege for me to get up and speak here today. Mr. Speaker, I served as the Minister of Fisheries for, I suppose it was, about 23 months or so. I have to say, as challenging as it is, it was indeed a privilege to serve there. I commend the present minister; he is doing a fantastic job there. Anyone who knows anything about the fisheries portfolio or the fishery in itself knows the challenge of it. One fellow out in my community made it quite clear to me, he said: I do not know if God himself came down if he could find a solution to the fishery. It seems we have 520,000-or-so people, and I think there are about 250,000 different opinions as to how you find what the solution is in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not profess to be a fisher person, but I will say that I have spent a fair bit of time on the water. If there are some fellows who are watching from the community that I live in, they will attest to that, even prior to the moratorium when we hauled cod traps. I try to make it a point every year, even into last season, that I spend a day out on crab pots with the fishermen out in my district.

When we speak to these types of things in the House here – it is like a gentleman told me; he had never fished, he had been a teacher; he was making some suggestions to a gentleman in his community who he called Uncle Tom. He was going on and on with the suggestions. Uncle Tom's comment to him was, he said: My son, how much salt water is after slapping you in the face? He had to say to Uncle Tom, he did not think there was any salt water that had slapped him in the face. Uncle Tom said: My son, I think the best thing for you to do is be quiet about it.

I think, in some cases, if you are not knowledgeable in the field, then you need to step back a little and take a look at it. The thing being presented to us today – and I listened to the hon. member, and I have to ask the question: I wonder how much salt water has slapped his face, or how much he has been into the processing sector, because what he has just outlined – his words seemed to point that this is very simple, that if you do all of this you will have everything straightened out and you will save all of the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that people will do fine. I would say to the hon. member: It is not that simple, Mr. Speaker – it really is not that simple.

I would ask him to consider one thing. The provincial government is only one player in this. We have the federal government, we have a very strong union in the FFAW, and we have the processing sector. It always seems to fall on the shoulders of government. We can go back and we can look at the reports that were written over and over. There was the Dunne report; there was the Vardy report; there was the Cashin report; there was the summit on the fisheries; there have been consultations up your yin-yang. Mr. Speaker, it seems that you want to find a solution; the solution seems to be, let's convene a meeting, let's write a report, and that should do it. We know that is not the way to find a solution.

What we are talking about today, the member is talking about the minimum processing requirements. While there are parts of his private member's motion that would have some merit, there are too many things that need to be looked at and resolved. To think that it is a simple matter – I can tell you, and anybody who has been involved with the fisheries will tell you, it is never going to be that simple.

I think the member referenced some of it today, that through the program the minister was talking about, and has talked about previously, our FTNOP program – while that is a $6 million investment, what is leveraged from that through the industry triples the revenue that goes into research.

I can think about one organization, one plant that looked at attempting a project around lobster, so they did some processing, but it had to be eventually taken outside of the Province and sold. The member talked about having it ready for market. That is one of the problems we have in the Province, Mr. Speaker; the market that we have for fresh fish either goes down to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States or goes west out to Ontario and Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the reality of today's fishery – and he talked about when we entered in 1949; I would advise him, if he gets an opportunity sometime, to go to one of the seafood shows. As soon as you step on the floor of one of those seafood shows, you recognize how small a player we are, in fact, in that whole global picture. We are now competing with jurisdictions all over the world who have marketing expertise well in hand, a promotion like nothing else, and we are competing in that world.

Also, what we are taking a look at, Mr. Speaker, is the customer is very, very different. At one point, and I can speak to this, at a fish plant in Marystown, it was filleted, quick frozen, sent to the market. The reality of now is some of our larger markets want the fish whole.

There was a point, and I can remember seeing the big tumblers in the Marystown fish plant where they would scale those redfish, then they would then take it to a hand filleting, and then it would be sent off to market. The reality of it now is – and the FFAW will acknowledge that – the economic benefit to processing that redfish now and filleting it in this Province is not there. It just simply is not there; therefore, the redfish goes out whole to other markets around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the whole dynamic of the fishery has changed. It has changed tremendously. We have the opportunity to make a difference; we have the opportunity to make a difference in the Province. It goes back to a point that the minister recently made and the Premier has made. If we are going to make advances in this industry in the Province, it means that the individual groups have to park their agendas; they have to come together and work collectively.

If there is one thing that I saw – we always look to Ottawa for some of the things that we need, but we never get there, the reason being we fight amongst ourselves in the Province. We never seem to pull it all together whereby we can take the argument to others as a unified group. It always seems to be that there is internal turmoil within the fishery in the Province and we never really get down to the grassroots of what it is that we need to do.

Let us speak then a little to the harvesting sector. In 2011, the landed value in this industry was $568 million; that is up 21.3 per cent. If we look at our resources and look at how those things have changed, the key fish product in the Province right now is crab. If the member talks to the moratorium and previous, we know what the king of fish was; it was cod. In fact, when fishermen put out their nets and they got crab, the crab was a bloody nuisance; it snarled up and tangled up nets. Now it is the fish that they primarily make their living on. Last year, I believe it was up $2.15. The price this year seems to be particularly good at this point. We know there is some resource cut, but the situation has changed, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that is happening is - shrimp is another valuable fish, so our fishery has changed. It has gone a complete 180 degree turn, if you want to put it that way, because we have moved from the cod and those types of fish to a shellfish, a crab, a shrimp fishery.

One of the things I will say to the member, and it goes back to the FTNOP program, is sea urchins. Well, most of us would call them ose eggs; and we know why they were called that - because of the thorns. If you get them in your fingers, Mr. Speaker, a few days and you will know why they were called what they were called.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are now moving into these species that were not harvested before. A reality in the sea urchin industry is that, to bring the price up, the product had to be shipped out of the Province. Yellowtails: the study done by Deloitte in Marystown showed that the economics of doing it as it was traditionally done was not there.

Herring: in the spring of the year, I am willing to bet that the Fisheries Minister, coming up pretty soon, will be asked for an exemption to ship out herring; the reason being that, in the Maritimes, they will use it for bait for their lobster pots. They, in all likelihood, will be granted that exemption because it increases the demand for herring. As such, who reaps the reward? The harvesters.

So, if I go back to the member's motion, I have to say to him: the industry has to be a key player in this. I would suggest to him that maybe he thinks his proposal might be unique. I can guarantee you, if we are going to get it to a stage where it warrants merit or gets any further, then there is a lot of heavy lifting that has to be done before some of this would become a reality. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of it I do not think will ever become a reality because of the challenges that are faced.

Still, we have to give credit to the industry, because the industry is always looking for those opportunities. That is why we have the FTNOP program. There are always research projects being carried out so that we can look at opportunities to utilize these underutilized species, so that we look at better ways that we can use the product that we presently have, and that means investing in the technology.

Our program is exactly to support those types of initiatives. I am sure that the minister, as we are as a government, is always open to the opportunities of any industry partner that would come in to us, to take a look at what needs to be done, and we are only more than welcome to take a look at any of those proposals. Because what it means is the harvesting side of it provides for the plant side of it, and that means jobs in many of our rural communities.

I will say, Mr. Speaker – I know my time is getting down –I will say that I still and truly do believe that the fishing industry in this Province will be the sustainer of many of our rural communities. While that fishery is changing, there is no doubt about it – and demographics point to that – we will see, Mr. Speaker, that the fishery will be the provider into the future.

Mr. Speaker, as the former minister, I recognize the issue that is before us in this private member's motion. It is about minimum processing requirements, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to propose an amendment, as follows:

That the private member's resolution currently before the House be amended by:

(1) replacing the third recital clause with the words, "AND WHEREAS this government already applies the most progressive minimum processing legislation in the country to ensure our people are the primary beneficiaries of our fish resources;"

(2) by deleting the second, fourth, sixth, and seventh recital clauses;

(3) by deleting in the second resolution clause the words, "a policy that if a company is unable to process its quota allocation, then they be obligated by law to offer it to other processing companies at cost and a reasonable profit margin (as determined by the industry norm);"

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to finish his motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: - and substituting in their place, the words: "a policy that will ensure all adjacent fish resources – not only quotas held by processing companies – are harvested for the benefit of the Province, and companies owning enterprise allocations should provide the provincial government with a plan disclosing their intended best use of these public resources so that our people and our communities continue to benefit;" and,

(4) by deleting in the third resolution clause, all the words after "necessary", and substituting in their place the words, "to provide exemptions from the Province's minimum processing requirement, they be provided for a defined time period and subject to periodic review".

This is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a brief recess to consider the motion, to consider whether or not it is in order, and to give members of the Opposition an opportunity to review the amendment as well.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The Speaker rules the amendment is in order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to stand today and to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has listened to my colleague, they know he is very passionate about the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Like a lot of us who grew up in outport Newfoundland and Labrador and grew up around the fishery, it is very difficult to watch what is happening today. Oftentimes we watch, Mr. Speaker, without having the ability to change the situation as it often exists. Certainly, once you grow up in the outport, you grow up in the fishing industry it is never far from your thought, from your mind and away from your aspiration to do something to make it better, to make it work for the people who depend upon it. My colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, has never been shy about putting forward his ideals around the fishing industry in this Province and what he sees that could be done to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a little while today on this motion. What my colleague has done today is he has made recommendations of some very specific initiatives that he is asking the provincial government to look at and implement within the fishing industry. The reason he is asking for those particular initiatives, not saying that this is going to be the full solution to fixing all of our problems but no doubt it is something that is different, it is a different approach, it is looking at things in a different way. It is taking a situation like we are seeing with Ocean Choice International today and how their plants are being impacted and people's lives are being impacted, and transforming that into what might be a solution, what might work. That is what he is proposing today to the government opposite.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen to make amendments here that are completely eradicating the ideas and the options that he has put forward. We can only hope that the amendments which they propose are broader, it is looking at the industry from a large, broad perspective. We can only hope their objective in doing that is so they can study these initiatives put forward by the Member for St. Barbe and see if they are indeed plausible and can work in stabilizing and sustaining the industry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we live in hope when it comes to the fishery. Basically, what I am saying is that hopefully the government's idealism will not be regressive but certainly be progressive in looking at some of these initiatives that the Member for St. Barbe has put forward.

Mr. Speaker, we have 110 processing plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. In my own district, I have seven or eight processing facilities processing everything from crab, shrimp, whelk, groundfish; all kinds of groundfish, turbot, scallop, cod, capelin, herring and everything. Pretty well any species that we are taking out of the water today we are processing it in the district, except for probably some newer species. We have tried sea urchin. We have tried some other things but it has not really been the best fit for our area to date. We do not do a lot in that particular spectrum, but any wild fish that is coming out of the water in Labrador, I would think right now, is being processed somewhere within my district.

We have never had an issue with shipping out. It has never been an issue for us. I guess the reason for that, one is the remoteness of the Labrador Coast, but the other reason is because of the company that we have that predominately controls or runs the processing sector, and that is the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, which is a co-operative built company. It is owned by the shareholders, who are fisher people themselves, and they have an invested interest in the communities. Their interest goes beyond the fishery and goes beyond, Mr. Speaker, the processing facility or a quota, but it really reaches into the heart of the community in sustaining the populations of people who are there. That has been their motto in the fishing industry. It has always been, how do we capitalize on this gift that we have, this gift of raw material, this gift of sea product, and how do we capitalize on that to best service the people that we represent? They have done a magnificent job. If there is ever a model for the co-operative movement, as I said to the minister of industry one day when he rose on a statement, this would indeed be the model that I would see that would definitely be available in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company focus on employing people onshore and sustaining communities, but they employ people offshore. I know a lot of people in this Province take exception to the offshore fishing industry; I am not one of them. I have a lot of people in my district who work in the offshore fishery. I have people in my family who work in the offshore fishing industry. I have people that I know who work their forty, fifty hours a week in processing factories onboard these ships the same as they do on land. Mr. Speaker, do I have any problem with that? Absolutely not, but there are certain aspects of it that we can improve, there is absolutely no doubt about it. Do I think we should be giving product like that to offshore factory freezers and trawlers to process for foreign countries that employ labour from outside of our own country and outside of our own Province? Absolutely not. I think when these quotas are available and they can most economically be harvested and processed at sea, creating jobs for our own people, there is nothing wrong with doing that either.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I have some issue with where a lot of these boats are landing. I think that is where I am seeing the biggest loss of revenue in the fishing industry today for our Province with regard to some of these offshore fleets. For example, a lot of the shrimp fleet in my district – and these quotas are owned by Torngat Fisheries, they are owned by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, they are owned by the NunatuKavut Government, they are owned by the Nunatsiavut Government, they are owned by the Innu Nation, and all of these quotas are fished offshore. Their people work on the boats. They work in the fish plants onboard those boats. They process at sea, but, Mr. Speaker, when they land, they are landing in Nova Scotia. They are not landing in Labrador. They are not landing in Newfoundland, and that is a huge loss of revenue for the Province. I think that is one way that we can redirect business in the fishery of the offshore to the onshore today, if we were to look at that concept.

I say that because I know, Mr. Speaker, when these vessels are offloading in Nova Scotia, tractor-trailers are lined up for a mile up the road to take that product off the boat and start delivering it into the US markets. We could have those tractor-trailers lined up, Mr. Speaker, in Bay Roberts. We could have them lined up in St. Anthony.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MS JONES: We could have them lined up in Cartwright and they could be taking that product to market. In addition, they are purchasing their goods. The retail sales alone would be a tremendous investment. They are loading up for sea; they are going for thirty days. They are feeding 150 crew members during that period of time. There is a lot of value in the industry that we are losing simply because of where some of these vessels are docking to offload their quotas, and we need to be able to change that. It will not create the jobs in the plants that we are looking for but it will create other jobs onshore in those same communities, in those same regions in rural areas of the Province. These are jobs that people are qualified to do and people would enjoy doing, and so that provides a vital option to them.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we have seen tremendous turmoil in the fishing industry. I would like to quote a former Minister of Fisheries who used to be in the House of Assembly, the former Member for the District of St. Anthony area, when he said that we have too few fish for the number of people that we have in the industry. There is absolutely no truer statement that was ever made in terms of saying we have more fisher people, we have more boats than we actually have raw material. Today, we are seeing it where we have more processing facilities than we actually have raw material.

When we seen the plants shut down in Port Union, Mr. Speaker, and in Jackson's Arm in the last year and two years, it was absolutely devastating to watch; to watch the shrimp fishery, which is the modern day fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, to watch those plants close that were employing 150 and 200 people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in Jackson's Arm I had family members who were working in that plant, so I was very intimately aware of the kind of production and the contributions they were making to that area. That was hard to see, those hundreds of people every day having to look for work somewhere else with the doors boarded up to their fish processing facility.

Mr. Speaker, I guess what the reality really was, is that when you do not have the resource to make it viable any longer, there are not a lot of options left. That is the sad reality of what we are dealing with in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is nice to get up and make all the motherhood statements about, we have to keep this open and keep that open, and keep this going and keep that going. Well, the fishing industry is not unlike any other industry, you have to have a source of material. That source of material is what will really drive the jobs in the Province and drive the revenues that we can see from this particular industry.

That is why when we hear of companies that want to take fish products out of the Province it is always very concerning for us. We know there are species like lobster, for example, that yes, is going to have to be shipped out unprocessed. I do not know; maybe years ago we had lobster plants in the Province that were doing some processing, but certainly not in recent years. Not in the times I was in as the Minister of Fisheries, or in recent years, have we seen that. Lobster is very much one of those species that is not processed here and that is sent out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: The minister tells me there is one processing facility in Codroy Valley, okay, in the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East's district.

So, Mr. Speaker, outside of that, I would not think we would have much processing of lobster done in the Province. There is always going to be times when we are going to have to look at whether we need to make exemptions or whether we do not. There is capacity to process ground fish in this Province and much of the shellfish that is caught here. As a result of that, there is no reason why it should go out.

I know the minister had to take a very tough stand this year. I know his job is not easy. I was in his job and I do not envy him, not one day of any year, or any week in the fishing industry in this Province. It has to be one of the hardest industries to try to manage, simply because you have a union that is incohesive; in the union today we have three or four different fragments where they do not agree. The vessel owners are all in fleet sizes. They do not even agree with themselves. Then you have plant workers who cannot agree with people who are in the fleet.

I will give you an example. In my own district, we just saw an 11 per cent cut in the crab quota in two days. Well, guess what? The fishermen in my district recommended –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – to DFO that they make that cut. The fishermen recommended to DFO that they make that 11 per cent cut in the crab fishery. You do not see that very often. These are fishermen who are conservationists. They are on the ocean every day. They know what the raw material is. They know the state of the resource. They know that if they want to protect it for the future, they have to make tough decisions today.

So, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes you are going to see that, but the plant workers are obviously going to be upset by this because it means that their employment hours and their employment weeks are going to be cut back. So you have a union today who is representing everyone and they are completely fragmented in terms of their thinking and their thought in terms of where the industry should go. That is not healthy either.

In addition to that, you have the processing sector, in which none of them very seldom get along. There are about three or four organizations out there now. One organization represents these eight or ten processors and another one represents these eight or ten processors. You have the big guys putting the squeeze on the little guys. The story goes on and on.

Then you have the disconnect between the governments. The Province and the federal government have never really been on the one page when it comes to managing this particular industry. We have even asked for royal commissions into the fishing industry in this Province because of the un-co-operation of the federal government, which controls the quotas, and by that very fact controls most of what happens in this industry in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of cohesion within the industry as a whole amongst all of the stakeholders who are involved, being the person in charge of the fisheries in this Province is no easy task. I certainly know that and understand it.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, we cannot ignore that the fishing industry is one of the mainstays for the people of this Province; it is the mainstay of rural communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador. We all have a responsibility to look for solutions that are the right solutions and the right fit in the midst of the tough decisions that are being made in the industry today.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can have those kinds of ideas put forward and adopted in the Province so that we can protect and sustain the industry for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak to this private member's motion today and specifically to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert in the fishery, but I will say that my late grandfather introduced me to the fishing industry about twenty-five years ago. At that time, I was eleven years old. He would take me up to the wharf in Ochre Pit Cove, where I got my first job. My first job was actually in the fishery; I was sorting capelin.

I remember the very early mornings because, of course, they would go on the water in the dark so that they would be in at first daylight for landing. He would have me up 4:00 o'clock every morning. I would have to sleep at his house; fortunately, it was next door to my mom and dad's. I would have sleep there because it was pretty disruptive getting up that hour in the day. Also my mother could not really tolerate the smell, so I stayed with him. A lot of people would know my late granddad because he was known as one of the best around to skin a seal. It was amazing to watch him even sharpen the knife to start the process, Mr. Speaker.

I started out there at eleven years old, sorting capelin. I remember my first two nights going home, going to sleep, and seeing the mounds of capelin on the tables. You just could not get that image out of your mind in your sleep.

I was not there too long when I got promoted. I then went on to record the number of vats of capelin that other people would sort. Mr. Speaker, when the opportunity arose, I would beg whatever fishermen were on the wharf to let me go out with them because I absolutely love cod tongues. Whenever they would let me – and I remember Tom Mullaly, Art Peach, and the Rogers boys – I would beg them to let me go and I would cut out the tongues on the way in. People would be on the wharf and they would want to buy the tongues and there was no way I was parting with my tongues. If anybody wants to get on my good side, all you have to do is feed me a meal of cod tongues and we will get along just great.

That was my introduction to the fishery. Then at fourteen years old I started work in the fish plant in Old Perlican. I worked there for a couple of summers. My job there was scrubbing crab; of course, you would scrub the backs of the crabs so it is all nice and shiny and clean for the market.

I have a real great appreciation for the people who work in the plants, because it was very, very long hours standing on cement floors in cold water. This would coincide around the time of final exams in high school, and I remember just coming home from the plant, showering, and going right to write my final exam in the gymnasium. Even while I did shower, people still complained about the smell, because as you know, it is really hard to get rid of the smell of crab. I did that for several summers and it was a great experience; it was twelve-hour days, seven days a week. When you got your cheque on Friday, it was absolutely amazing, but you could not get to spend the cheque because when you were not working, you were sleeping, Mr. Speaker. That was my introduction into the fishery.

Then I ran, of course, in a fishing district. There are five fish plants in my district that employ over 1,070 plant workers, all in rural Newfoundland. I had the opportunity then to have some tours at the local fish plants. We have Green Seafoods of Winterton; they process snow crab, all species of groundfish, lump fish, mussels, and all species of pelagics and whelk. I remember going there in 2003 for a tour of the plant. While I was there with the cameras and everybody in tow, the plant owner made me sample sea urchin roe. This is known in Japan as uni and I was told at the time it was an aphrodisiac. I will never forget that experience. The taste was something that was definitely an acquired taste.

I also had the opportunity to tour plants in Old Perlican and Bay de Verde in my district as well, Mr. Speaker. There is a tremendous amount of processing that goes in on Trinity – Bay de Verde district. I just mentioned Green's; we also have P. Janes & Sons in Hants Harbour, and they process snow crab, other crab, all species of groundfish, and lobster. We also have Quinlan Brothers in Old Perlican and Bay de Verde as well as Quin-Sea Fisheries in Old Perlican.

Pretty much every species is processed – with the exception of lobster – in the district, but there is a tremendous amount of secondary processing that goes on as well. I am sure many of you listening, and people in the House, would be familiar with the mussels that Green Seafoods produce out of Winterton. They have mussels in garlic butter – a very tasty treat – and they have mussels in natural juices, Mr. Speaker. This company is one of the companies under the funding program in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture that has received funding to try and sell more product and open up markets and expand current markets.

Secondary processing goes on at P. Janes & Sons in Hants Harbour – they do cod au gratin, crab au gratin; I am sure many of you have seen in the grocery stores P. Janes & Sons fish cakes and fish sticks. As well, Quinlan Brothers in Bay de Verde do crab au gratin as well, Mr. Speaker – certainly one of my favourites, but not as good as cod tongues, Mr. Speaker.

So, as I said, the majority of harvesters and processors in our Province live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Plant workers that work in plants live in about 500 communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and primarily in rural communities.

As I said, there were 1,070 workers employed at the snow crab plants last year, just in the fish plants in my district alone, Mr. Speaker. Those 1,070 workers earned a total income of $10 million. That is direct income. That is a direct impact of the fishing industry in our district. Of course, that $10 million went directly to the workers, but the spinoffs that come from having such a vibrant fishing industry in my district is unimaginable. I mean, there is not an empty house to be found in Bay de Verde in the summertime. We have a lot of people that come from other parts of the Province – even as far away as the Northern Peninsula – to come and live in Bay de Verde for the summer to gain employment. The convenience stores are bustling; Old Perlican gas station is busy at the best of times, but in the summer, it is a beehive of activity there. So, the spinoffs are tremendous.

Mr. Speaker, the plants – this is a really interesting fact – the plants in my district, they processed 11 per cent of the total seafood produced in the Province last year, 11 per cent of the entire total, and they produced 24 per cent of all of the snow crab in the Province last year, Mr. Speaker; so, a tremendous, important industry to the people of Trinity – Bay de Verde. There would not be a Trinity – Bay de Verde if it were not for these plants.

Another interesting point, as I am sure most people know – but, being the Minister for Status of Women, I always try and point out facts about women and women employment – of the five plants in my district, 52 per cent of the employees that work there are women, Mr. Speaker. So this is an industry where the majority of workers are women, and that is worthy of note. I have some other facts that I thought would be interesting for people listening.

Fact number one, Mr. Speaker: in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, they have increased their budget, since we have come into power, by approximately 400 per cent. It speaks volumes to our commitment to the fishing industry.

Fact two: we continue to invest millions into research and development programs like the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program which the minister spoke to today in his Ministerial Statement, and I gave many examples of two weeks ago here in the House when we were trying to pull teeth to get members from the Opposition to get up and speak about the fishery.

Fact number three, Mr. Speaker: the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador represents about 30 per cent of the Atlantic fishery; however, we spend more money on the fishery than all of the other Atlantic Provinces combined.

Fact number four: we are spending approximately $11.75 million annually on fisheries science research because it is a driver for the future, Mr. Speaker. We must have an improved understanding of the resource in order to provide success in the future.

Fact number five: we have initiatives to support our plan for renewing the fishery in the future. We have $100 million for the Fisheries Loan Guarantees, $80 million for the MOU marketing guarantees, and we have the $9 million for the lobster buyout, Mr. Speaker.

Fact number six: we have many, many programs in place to support employees working in the fishery. We have the Fish Plant Worker Employment Support Program, the community employment program, and many economic development initiatives through the Department of IBRD, Mr. Speaker.

Fact number seven I believe I am at now: our commitment to the fishery is unparallel by far than any other jurisdiction in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Our commitment is there financially, our commitment is there from our current Fisheries Minister and previous Fisheries Ministers on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that is very evident.

Mr. Speaker, my time is going very fast, I see. I would just like to speak to the amendment. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would like to see every single product go through secondary processing, not only in the fishery but in all industries in our Province; but, Mr. Speaker, we also have to live in reality, and the reality is what the market would dictate.

As I said, we would like everything to be processed here – go through secondary processing. Government, and particularly the minister, is very stringent when it comes to minimum processing requirements. The minister does not give exemptions lightly, and there is a very rigorous process that a company needs to go through to get these exemptions.

Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the other side of the coin, too, because sometimes exemptions can open up a market or expand on a current, existing market, which translates into more dollars for harvesters, more employment for plant workers, and so on. Mr. Speaker, if exemptions are not granted and a company is not able to find adequate markets for the product when undergoing minimum processing requirements, the quota may not be fished at all. So, sometimes it is a matter of shipping out or nothing, Mr. Speaker, and if the quotas do not get fished, then the harvesting licence may be lost to the harvester. Certainly, such a situation as this would have a very negative impact on the Province, have a negative impact on personal incomes, and it would have a negative impact on regional economies and the spinoff benefits that I spoke to earlier.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about minimum processing requirements, as I said, ideally we would want everything secondary processed here, but it all comes back to the basic premise of marketing. For anybody who completed a marketing course, or touched on marketing anywhere along the way, the basic premise of marketing is that there needs to be a seller, there needs to be a buyer, and the product has to be available at a location and at a time to facilitate the exchange of the product, the good, or service. It makes no economic sense to produce a product for a market that would not buy it, Mr. Speaker.

We heard the Member for St. Barbe here a couple of days ago talk about having herring in one hand and kippers in the other hand, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes exemptions are required; because, when you are allowing an exemption for herring for bait in fresh form, there is more of a market for this product and harvesters are able to land a larger portion of their quota. If this was not fished, Mr. Speaker, it would be left in the water and then the chance always comes that you can lose that quota.

The other thing I heard him say today in his opening remarks is that it would be great if we could do secondary processing and have products that are heat-ready. He referred to heat-ready as being products that you could just pop in the microwave, Mr. Speaker. That is fine and dandy if consumers want the product in that way, but what if consumers do not want the product that way, Mr. Speaker? We see in Asia that they want whole fish, or H&G fish with the head on, and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, it all comes back to marketing, and marketing is so important.

The only thing that the member opposite said today – and not only today, but probably since we have been in this House – that I agree with, is that we need to maximize value for our rural communities. Mr. Speaker, that is so true, but at the same time what the member needs to recognize is that maximum value for our fish resources is not always based on maximum processing. Markets change over time and there are many things that influence the change in markets, Mr. Speaker. What the consumer wants, what the dollar is, what the exchange is, and the cost of processing, competing products that may come into the market, and so on. It all comes back to a marketing course.

Mr. Speaker, I have about thirty seconds left. I would just like to say the Premier has stated time and time again that we are absolutely dedicated to the fishery as we proceed with our new mandate. We need to address the challenges in the fishery; certainly, the time has never been greater. We need to restructure this industry both economically and culturally, Mr. Speaker. There are many challenges in the fishery, as we know, but with the challenges come the opportunities. We have an aging workforce, and I will not get into the story that a fisherman in my district –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Pardon me. Could I have leave, just thirty seconds to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JOHNSON: I will not get into the story about the former Minister of Fisheries who came to my house and we met with some fish people. They talked about – when we talk about the aging workforce, how they talked about the number of pills they have in their lunch can, Mr. Speaker. It was certainly a startling comment and realization of what goes on.

As I said, there are many challenges in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, but many opportunities. We want those who are working in the fishery, for it to be sustainable, but we also want it to be attractive for youth to come. While there are challenges in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will get over these challenges. They are not nearly as great as the challenges with the renewal of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, so I am confident that we will renew this fishery if we all work together.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for The Straits - White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the private member's motion to reaffirm principles on disallowing exports of unprocessed seafood.

It is very frustrating, Mr. Speaker, that control of our fishery is not in our hands, that it is controlled by the federal government. This has been a key problem since Confederation. Many will consider this a major obstacle in having a successful fishery like there is in Norway and Iceland because those countries have the jurisdictional powers over their own stocks. Many lay blame on the collapse of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador on the mismanagement of the resource by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a devastating blow for the Province and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fishery is the backbone of many of our communities, especially in the District of The Straits - White Bay North, and many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember at the age of five when I would go down to the community plant in Green Island Cove and my mother would be there processing codfish. After the cod moratorium was implemented, she still was employed at the community plant but it changed, she was now shucking scallops and we had gone to shellfish.

At the age of eleven, I remember baiting lobster pots, the traps, and bringing them out to the boat to the outport with my father. At the ripe age of thirteen, that is when I went with my dad out fishing, the hook and line for a small cod quota. With that, when we brought our catch in, I would gut the fish, separate the britches. This is where we have the head on, gutted. This would be reprocessed later, and we are seeing a lot of that happen in the Province today.

The private member's motion in principle aims to strengthen the processing sector in the Province; however, we have to recognize, and as other members have stated, that this is not always possible. Sometimes the global marketplace dictates that some fish product must be sold in an unprocessed form.

Most people demand live lobster. This is something that requires limited or no processing, and disallowing the shipment of unprocessed lobster could have ramifications to lobster harvesters. This is why today I ask that we look at setting up marketing and looking at marketing co-ops so we can increase the revenues for lobster fishermen. I do have concerns. I have concerns with the current marketplace, that processing based in 2011 numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador, that the total export -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

United States and China represents the largest value for total export at over 30 per cent and 21.5 per cent, respectively. I would like to point out that the export value and volume for a species such as yellowtail to the US from Canada has been in significant decline. Last year, up to 2011, less than 4,000 metric tons was shipped from Canadian flatfish to the US, and Ocean Choice International has more than 90 per cent of the Canadian quota.

Canada's flatfish industry does have its challenges. It has been negatively impacted by the Canadian dollar and depreciation has caused impacts. There are other factors too that impact a business in being able to ship product and do it competitively, such as transportation, labour costs, utilities, and insurance. These are all things that have gone up substantially in the last ten years, but the price has not. This has placed significant pressure on the industry, it certainly has, and we have seen that effect in Marystown.

I want to talk a little bit about China, because the former Minister of Fisheries had talked about – the reality is that the market demands sometimes that we ship product out, export, whether it is head-on gutted. This is the case because China is demanding it. China has become a more important flatfish trading partner in the US over the last fifteen years. In 1996, only 18 per cent of this went to China. In 2010, fifteen years later, 68 per cent of this went to China. That is a whopping 50 per cent of the marketplace where China has been shipping to the US. That is a big increase.

Flatfish imported to China in a processed form, a completely processed package, does have import and value-added taxes at 30 per cent. This is a barrier. This is why the market is demanding, it is saying: We want head-on gutted or a whole fish. If that is being put forward, China has an exemption for product that is imported and reprocessed, whether it is head-on gutted – to do other value-added processing – or whole. It is exempt from any type of tax, so it is very, very lucrative for a processor to be going into China. China has imported over 2.2 million metric tons of seafood in 2009. Most of that is reprocessed into fillets, into fishmeal, and into other filet products.

Reprocessing to avoid tariffs, this is what companies are doing. It increases the profits of corporations and to the shareholders. Certainly, we cannot blame the shareholders and the corporations for wanting increased profits. This is the goal of a corporation, to provide maximum benefits to its shareholders, not necessarily the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We cannot blame the Chinese marketplace for putting in such protectionist measures to enhance the value-added or secondary-sector processing. Chinese seafood processing plants exist primarily to transform these frozen processing. They are doing hand filleting and they have much cheaper labour. The labour cost of all of these workers in China is an average of about $385 per month. This is less than a weekly wage of people employed in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we look at the member's motion, where there is increasing evidence that other countries are benefiting greatly from our unprocessed, raw seafood products, we only have to look to China to see that this is certainly true. This is something that the former Minister of Fisheries in his amendment had asked to delete, which raises a lot of questions to me.

I would like to speak to that part, because no one can really blame China for what they are doing, but we must put ourselves first. We really do. Our communities and our people must get first consideration. We have to be proactive when it comes to value-added and secondary processing. In 2010, we had over 100 processing facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador owned by close to sixty companies, but four of those – and the member opposite had just basically mentioned them – four of those top processing forms account for 60 per cent of the seafood processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are four types that are the main: snow crab, shrimp, ground fish, and pelagics. They account for 85 per cent of the secondary processing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, the other 15 per cent, I say, is an opportunity for us, an opportunity for growth, and that is where we can get into under-utilized species. We have to ensure that there is more value added happening in the Province, and we have to take a more creative approach when it comes to developing processing.

There are certainly ideas, and we have seen – I have seen in my own district the devastation of looking at trying to manage a fishery when you have high fixed costs and you have fish plants. There are a number of them that are closed down, from Green Island Brook, to Green Island Cove, to Pines Cove, to Sandy Cove, Savage Cove, Flower's Cove, and Bear Cove. We have to look that these have closed. In Englee they have closed.

There is an opportunity to look at maybe getting more creative when it comes to the fishery. We have on the offshore factory freezers. They are providing employment on the offshore and doing the processing there. Why are we not looking at maybe exploring the option of a more mobile fish plant, where there are not these huge fixed costs and incredible environmental concerns that may come up, as we are seeing in Englee?

We could look at having a mobile fish plant where we have some people in the community who are skilled, who could be, as the fish harvester is coming in, offloading. That the fish is being processed, harvested, reprocessed there, that there is a crew who is cleaning up the station and then it is being shipped and trucked to its location. It can be strategic; it can be a good geographic thing if it is done right. Right now we are seeing raw material being put in trucks and being shipped ten, twelve, fourteen hours. These are things where you could have spillage on highways, travelling over gravel roads. These are things that could be looked at. We need to look at other business programs and employment training grants, some competitive taxation measures to implement incentives to get into more secondary processing.

We must ensure that the measures in place benefit the people of the Province so they get maximum benefits, not necessarily just the corporations. I am certainly not against corporations doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are scenarios where there are small independent operators that are under-licensed. They are asking for multi-species licences to purchase to have more product, and some of them are underutilized species. Minimum processing limitations currently in place are having an impact because they allow two years where the absolute minimum or an exception can be granted to further allow this. This is something that we need to look at.

The application can also be very cost prohibitive. It may end up costing thousands of dollars and they are applying and getting rejected. Maybe this is something that we can further look at when we look at how things are awarded.

Models in my own district like SABRI, which is a different model where the community owns the quota, they have the resource. They partner with a processor in a contract and royalties are paid. The impact is that there is local employment and there are benefits to the communities, the sixteen that they service. These are all good things, but the community has control of that quota and it is not the company. So we are seeing more benefits put in play.

Royalties can be a good thing. Royalties, as other members have said, that are done in the forestry sector on logs and things like that, are royalties paid to government; however, the complexities in this motion would have to be explained by the Member for St. Barbe. If small companies do not have the ability to process locally, then it might end up going to a larger company to have the option of processing. They may make the business case where they say, well only the bare minimum can actually be processed, and the business case is that the rest of it needs to be shipped off. I am quite willing to pay this royalty, this exemption, because we see that the tariff exists in China where if it is head on gutted, or if it is sold whole, this fish can go to China, there is no tariff, there are no taxes paid, and then it can get shipped back to the US and to other markets and be to the greatest benefit to the corporation. That is something that adversely affects small communities. It could end up coming that we have the smallest amount of processing happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a great concern for me, because we need to have more secondary processing.

This is why I do not like the amendment put in currently by the government when it comes to –

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – providing exemptions to the Province's minimum processing requirements, that they provide it for a defined period of time subject to periodic review, because there are better forms, more productive ways. Other members have talked about co-ops, I have talked about the SABRI model briefly, there is a means for co-management, and there are royalty regimes.

The fishery is a very complex thing to be talking about, but there are options. We have to look at pragmatic, practical solutions, and we have to look at regulations. We really need to look at that. We have to ensure that value-added is key to moving forward. Talking about innovation, let's expand that FTNOP that we talked about earlier. It is important to revisit tariffs and other government policies to protect the people, not the corporations. This is where the provincial government may need to step up and push the federal government as these ongoing negotiations are happening.

When we look at what the Premier has said as former Minister of Natural Resources, when we look at our forestry and we see that when Abitibi was pulling out and fibre – there was a demand for this – but what was stated was that we have to have the greatest benefit for people, it cannot just be harvesters. There has to be some value-added jobs, some secondary processing, and that people will come. If they do not meet that test, then we will keep the trees and the water.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries, is he going to take that same stance so that the corporations that want to ship off to China will not be doing it? Because we need to put the greatest benefit to the people and not the corporations, and that mechanism exists where they can do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate having an opportunity to speak to this very important motion today.

To give this some context, I am accepting at face value that the intention of the debate today is to focus on the importance of the fishery to Newfoundland and Labrador and to look at ways where we can improve what we are doing, and also to reaffirm some of the tremendous policies that we have in place to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. From that context, I am pleased to hear all of the discussion that has been taking place here today. Certainly, we will disagree on some perspectives, but I think it is very clear that all members who have spoken, and others who wanted to speak but did not get the opportunity, certainly have the best interests of their constituents and the best interests of the fishery and of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. So I thank them for what they have shared.

Mr. Speaker, where we differ in our conversations and our viewpoints is around our vision for what the fishery ought to look like and what we want to do to try to achieve that. If I could use an analogy – because I know one of my colleagues across the way likes to use them a lot, so I am going to use an analogy – I see it that it is kind of like having a dartboard in front of you. You can either take a couple of darts and really focus on what you want to do, or you can take the shotgun, just fire it, and hope that something hits the bull's eye as it is all going towards the board.

Our approach over here has been very focused and very strategic on the kinds of things we want to see happening in the fishery for the future, Mr. Speaker, and the kinds of items that we are going to focus on. With the greatest respect, I say that for some members opposite, that is not necessarily the case. We are seeing a lot of ideas that are going in all kinds of different directions with, I do not think, a necessarily very well-coordinated or focused approach on what they are all going to mean.

The fishery of the future for us very clearly, first of all, rests on a solid inshore fishery. We recognize the tremendous value that the inshore harvesters bring to not only their own enterprise and the fact that they support their crews, but to the communities in which they live, Mr. Speaker. That is why you have heard me and others stand in here in this House many times and talk about the importance of maintaining policies and regulations that support that fleet sector. We recognize how tremendously valuable it is to the industry.

We do have a challenge there, Mr. Speaker, around the number of processing plants and the number of harvesters who are engaged in the industry and the amount of quota that is available to be caught, as I believe it was the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair referenced a few moments ago. Nonetheless, outside of all of those challenges, we are very focused on ensuring we protect that.

We also, Mr. Speaker, have to remember that we have an offshore fishery. That is creating some different challenges for us. We really only have a couple of significant players in the offshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have a lot of challenges around the species. Everybody remembers the cod moratorium and what that has done to the fishery of yesteryear and communities like Burin, Grand Bank, Fortune, and Burgeo, to name a few, Mr. Speaker. Any of us who know anything about those communities remember the days when the harbours were bustling, there were draggers coming and going, there were businesses galore, there were 200, 300, or 400 people working. Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge the tremendous impact that had on communities.

The challenge that we have before us in Newfoundland and Labrador on some fronts, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the opponents of the changing fishery as we have – and we have to recognize the fishery is changing. Some of our opponents – and they are not necessarily in this House by the way, I am not referencing people in this House necessarily. Some of the opponents think that we are still living in an era where every single fish that is caught offshore, not ought to be, but can be landed in a community and can be fully processed as it was done thirty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, if we are really going to move forward and focus on the fishery of the future, we have to accept a number of what I will call very important conditions. Those are market conditions, Mr. Speaker, because the market that exists today for the fishing industry is not the market that existed thirty years ago. Members all around this House who represent fishing communities and fishing districts know that. People do not often want to talk about it – I am going to spend a few moments on it – but it is a reality, Mr. Speaker.

I attended the Boston Seafood Show several weeks ago and I had the great opportunity to join some processors and some harvesters from Newfoundland and Labrador. I will tell you there are a number of things I learned, Mr. Speaker, or I am not sure if I learned them as much as it made me more aware. Number one, that the seafood product in Newfoundland and Labrador is second to none – second to none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Number two, Mr. Speaker, is that we represent less than 1 per cent of the world's seafood production. That is very significant, because all of us, I think, if you reflect upon discussions in your own communities and at dinner parties and so on, we tend to think that Newfoundland and Labrador is the be-all to end-all in the fishery, that without Newfoundland and Labrador the world fishery is gone, it is abolished. It is not so, Mr. Speaker.

Having said all of that, we have to face some very, very harsh realities. First of all, we are competing in a global marketplace, Mr. Speaker. We are competing in a global marketplace, and I hear my colleagues reference the fresh fish market. I agree with you 100 per cent; that is a great market for us to try and get into. The problem we have is getting fresh product off the Island of Newfoundland, the Island portion of our Province, and into the fresh market stream when you have two to three days potentially of transporting the product to market. You have to deal with the added transportation costs, Mr. Speaker.

The other significant thing that we have to acknowledge is happening is that our product is competing with a global marketplace. So, you are talking about, for example, a yellowtail fish – that one has been significantly debated in the Province on the Open Line shows, and somewhat here in the House, about exemptions or no exemptions, and why can we not process it here. Well the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that the yellowtail is a very small player in the world market, competing with another product like the yellowfin out of Alaska, which has in the marketplace considerably more volume and is sold at much less a price. So, Mr. Speaker, the challenge for companies – if you just take the yellowtail fish – is trying to process that, factor in the cost of getting it to market, when you are competing against a product where there is greater volume and a product that is sold much cheaper.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are a couple of the challenges that we face in the world marketplace. I say to members in this House that we are up for the challenge. Part of the vision of this government, Mr. Speaker, is to focus on ways that we can overcome those challenges. So, we made marketing a key priority, a key pillar for the Department of Fisheries, and moving forward from a year ago was marketing. My colleagues opposite referenced it several times.

We are engaged right now with multiple fishing companies in Newfoundland and Labrador to put together the commitment that we made in the Budget about a year ago to develop a marketing council for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are not dropping the ball on that. We are working with industry and we are taking the lead of industry, because we recognize that if we can ever get to the point in Newfoundland and Labrador where we come to an agreement that we market our product as one product coming off this island, and off Labrador, versus having thirty, forty, or fifty processors each trying to market their own particular product. There is strength in numbers, Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that; there is strength in numbers. So, marketing is a key piece of what we want to focus on.

The other piece that is very important – and I have said this to the federal minister – is the whole area of science and research in the fishery, because too many decisions in the past have been made based around politics and other reasons, and not necessarily around science and what is good for the industry and what is good for the fish stocks, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have made investments in things like the Centre for Fisheries Innovation, and the Marine Institute, and the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research – because we recognize that an investment in science and an investment in research will only result in better decisions being made, and it will allow us to support harvesters and processors in doing a better job of managing their product and getting their product to market.

Mr. Speaker, a few hours ago in the House I talked about the fisheries technology program. I want to just reiterate our support for that because that program is providing financial assistance to many, many individuals, enterprises, and companies throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. It is allowing them to do research and development; it is allowing them to make changes in their own particular business so that they can produce a better product. For anybody who is listening to this, make no mistake, if we do not maintain the quality of the product of seafood in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not compete on the world stage, I guarantee you that. We have to make sure that we are competitive globally, and the fisheries technology program provides an excellent opportunity, in my view, to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we have amended this motion because in my view there are some significant statements in the original motion that our government simply could not support, particularly commentary around the opportunity to diversify the economy in Newfoundland being very limited. We certainly do not see that. We are very optimistic on this side of the House; we have a lot of energy and enthusiasm and a lot of optimism for diversifying and growing the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly could not support that.

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective reading through that motion, there are two pieces that are very important; number one is that we maintain our minimum processing requirements in this Province. We fully support that and I 100 per cent hope and expect that members opposite will support us in that because that is what brings the maximum value from seafood in Newfoundland and Labrador to the Province and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, by way of information we are one of very few provinces and very few jurisdictions in the world that actually has that requirement. In most parts of the world there are no requirements; you have a quota, you can take it, you can land it, you can do what you want with it – you do not even have to fish it if you do not want to, Mr. Speaker. We are very progressive in that manner.

The second one is that we have to have an opportunity to provide exemptions. Whether it is me as the minister or whether it is someone else tomorrow, the minister has to have the flexibility to deal with emerging trends in the industry like the lobster, Mr. Speaker. The lobster industry, with the exception of the plant in Codroy, is very much a live-lobster-to-market industry, Mr. Speaker. If we were to say no exporting of lobster we would shut down the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. None of us want that. I am sure the Member for St. Barbe is not advocating for that, nor my critic from The Straits – White Bay North; I am confident of that. I remind people: that is the implication when you make a blanket statement that there is no more shipping out.

Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the time and I know my hon. colleague is to conclude debate. I want to thank all members for participating in this debate and I look forward to concluding comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, early in the debate portion by the Member for Burin - Placentia West, he inquired about whether I had much saltwater on my face or not. Maybe I have; maybe I have not. I live in a fishing community where this is very important.

We have 250 people in my community and fifteen small boat fishermen, by small I mean twenty-five foot long, open boats. They each have a shareman, so that is thirty of them, and two people work for fish companies, so that is thirty-two. That is 12.8 per cent of the population of my community who work in the fishery. I was born and raised in that community and encountered fish before the highway even came. At nine years of age I met my first lawyer, when my father was being defended against a major sealing buyer because he was a seal buyer and not getting a fair deal. Forty years ago this spring, I bought lobsters for the late Eric King as a lobster buyer. More recently, ten years or so ago when I came back to the Province, I specialized in working with people in the fishery. I have conducted upwards of 100 fishery trials, drafted numerous trust agreements, sold enterprises and settled estates with licences.

When I met the Member for Exploits, I was defending nine of his constituents from Leading Tickles. They were being charged under what I thought was a fairly ludicrous application of the fisheries regulations, that nine people could not team up. They could not work together. I am satisfied that I may not have a complete understanding of the fishery, and I doubt that anybody does or that you could live long enough, or even when you did have a complete understanding of the fishery, that it would not all change the next season and you would have to start over.

The amendment is a disappointment because it looks to take out a lot of the teeth that I would have liked to have seen ultimately in the act. Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that I wanted teeth and the amendment pulls them out, leaving the minister with only the gums to work with when it comes to enforcement. I wanted clarity, and the amendment makes it really blurry. I wanted the minister to have a firm footing and the government amendment covers it all in gurry. As anybody knows, it is all covered in gurry and it is so slippery the minister is not going to get a good footing when he wants to enforce it. I cannot support the amendment, Mr. Speaker, although the bill will be a step forward. It is good thing we are discussing this and we are applying this.

Minimum processing would not apply to lobsters in any event because the private member's motion referred to quotas and there is no quota in the lobster fishery. There simply is no quota; it simply does not apply. Also, the bill really should not apply to live sales because we might catch ourselves. I realize there is a significant aquaculture industry in the Province. In fact, in my own community they farm millions of small salmon and they may need to be exported alive.

The bill sought to severely restrict exports of unprocessed seafood. This does not help small processors because the bill has become, if it is amended – and I assume it will be amended – is much hazier, there are more motherhood issues. It will be more difficult to apply and it will permit more discretion. Sometimes discretion is not always exercised uniformly.

One of the issues that came up, and when we reference yellowtail, is the type of what I would consider to be improper use of a quota. I have it from industry participants that they would be happy to accept and process a substantial portion of that quota. They are not being given the right to do so. The bill, prior to the amendment, would have made it mandatory that any quota sought to be shipped out would have to go to fifteen or sixteen or so of the willing processors. Right now, there is a processor in this Province who is processing yellowtail. The minister may or may not be aware of that; however, there is somebody processing yellowtail and they are doing it at a profit in very small quantities. That is just one example of somebody who is able to do it on a small scale.

Sometimes when a business is overcapitalized, owes too much money, which is one of the issues we have in our fishery I believe, if you owe too much money you have to catch too much fish. If you owe all the banks, then you are basically fishing for the banks. If you have a huge plant, like the Marystown plant, instead of cutting back on the quota, on the amount that you process and having greater and greater losses, a better business model if at all possible would be that everything should come through that plant, not only yellowtail but whatever other ground fish is available. If that plant can operate at three times the yellowtail quota, then why not look at having it be a fully operational plant on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this has been debated adequately, and I conclude my comments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion introduced by the Member for St. Barbe has an amendment proposed.

All those in favour of the amendment as read into the record by the Minister of Education –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carries; the amendment is passed by the House.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion made by the Member for St. Barbe.

All those in favour of the motion, as amended, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Please summon the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready for the question?

All those in favour, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, Ms Burke, Mr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Verge, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Granter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Ms Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell, Mr. Ball, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Bennett.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the ayes: thirty-six; the nays: five.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the House now does adjourn and break for the Easter recess. We will be coming back on April 24, that being announced as Budget Day.

The House will now adjourn until April 24, at 2:00 p.m. for the annual Budget.

Have a nice Easter.