February 23, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 46


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the Member Elect for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Felix Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am also very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Jim Bennett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have member statements as follows: the Member for the District of St. John's North; the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the District of St. John's West; the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; and, by leave, the Member for the District of Labrador West.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a group of ladies who are small in number but who have made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens.

Back in 1961, this group of eight or ten nurses, all working in the operating room at the old General Hospital, decided to form a bridge club and they would get together once a week for a game. One of the reasons that this group is special, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that one of the original members of the group is our own Sergeant-at-Arms, Elizabeth Gallagher.

These ladies have continued to get together on a weekly basis over the years but, unfortunately, during that time, three of their members have succumbed to different forms of cancer: Jeanette Holden in 1990, Margot Wedgewood in 1992, and Margie Nowe in 2000.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is the other reason why this bridge club is special. While they grieved for their lost friends, they found a way to turn their sadness into something very positive. They collected some of the recipes that they had enjoyed at their weekly card games and published a cookbook in memory of their friends who had died from cancer. They then put considerable effort into selling the cookbooks - in fact, they had to go to a second printing - and their efforts resulted in raising a total $6,703 for the Canadian Cancer Society.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this story speaks to us about such things as strength of character, the bonds of friendship, and about turning adversity into something positive. These qualities deserve to be recognized, so I ask all members of the House to join me in paying tribute to these ladies for their effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Brian Hollywood, an Irish-born physician described as a legend on the Burin Peninsula. Dr. Hollywood passed away on February 13 at the U.S. Memorial Health Centre in St. Lawrence at the age of seventy-nine after being diagnosed with multiple site cancer in January.

A native of Newry, Northern Ireland, Dr. Hollywood came to St. John's as a physician in 1957 and worked at the old General Hospital and the Sanatorium. His wife Eileen, of County Down, Ireland, followed him to Newfoundland. By 1960, Dr. Hollywood and his wife were living in St. Lawrence and he was working at the town's U.S. Memorial Hospital.

In the first year at the hospital in St. Lawrence, Dr. Hollywood and his assistant delivered more than 300 babies. He was also the medical examiner dealing with many men who had contracted silicosis, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases as a result of working in the fluorspar mines in St. Lawrence during the 1940s and 1950. Dr. Hollywood was the doctor who dealt primarily with the sickness associated with the mine. He had a lot of dealings with the families of miners and was an advocate for social justice for them. Worldwide he was recognized as an authority on what was called "miner's disease" because of his first-hand knowledge and extensive research.

Dr. Hollywood was named to the Order of Canada in 2000 in recognition of his contribution to health care on the Burin Peninsula. After Dr. Hollywood retired as chief medical officer of the St. Lawrence Hospital in 1987, he and his wife continued to live in St. Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to the life of Dr. Brian Hollywood. He will be sadly missed by the people on the Burin Peninsula, and especially by the people of St. Lawrence and surrounding area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have long been recognized for their generosity and unwavering support of those in need. Today I rise to acknowledge the people of New-Wes-Valley, who have recently given us yet another example of the benevolent nature that helps define us as a people.

The residents of New-Wes-Valley, like all areas of our Province, have from time to time had to contend with sickness and injury affecting the children of the community. In New-Wes-Valley, Terry Gill is an example of one of those children. At the age of seventeen, Terry has already endured and persevered through three heart transplants. Recently, due to medical complications, Terry had to be rushed to Toronto for specialized care. This unforseen situation created an obvious emotional stress for the family, a stress that was only intensified by the serious financial burden associated with their travel to Toronto. The people of New-Wes-Valley have always banded together to provide support and assistance for Terry, and this past weekend they came through once again.

Thanks to the efforts of Judy Stagg, the Newtown Firemen and Firettes, the New-Wes-Valley Recreation Community and Rogers Cable, a telethon raised in excess of $18,000. This money has been placed in a trust account at the Wesleyville Branch of Scotia Bank. These funds will be disbursed by trustees as the need arises and the telethon will now become an annual event.

Presently a number of children in the area find themselves, like Terry, battling with serious illness. Thanks to the generous spirit of the community, the families of these children, and the families of children in the future, will have an additional means of support to assist them during trying times.

I want to commend all those involved in the organization and the operation of the telethon. Most of all, thanks to the hundreds of people who made financial contributions to the cause. Times may change, Mr. Speaker, but I am happy to report that the spirit of generosity that helps define us as a people continues to thrive in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate all the participates of the sixth annual Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race, which took place on February 11, in St. Lewis, Labrador.

The Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race is an exciting winter event that started six years ago to pay tribute to a past method of transportation on Labrador's rocky coast. Mr. Strugnell had dogs himself and enjoyed travelling by dog team. His son started the race shortly after Mr. Strugnell passed away in 1999. He did this to honour his dad's contribution to the sport.

Mr. Speaker, five teams participated in this year's race and each team had six dogs pulling a sled carrying racers. The teams had to make their way through a twenty kilometre trail around an island just outside the community of St. Lewis. This year the event had entries from all the nearby communities of Southern Labrador. First place went to Brendan Smith of Mary's Harbour with a time of one hour and twenty-three minutes. Aubrey Russell of Mary's Harbour placed second and Bill Russell of Port Hope Simpson came in third.

Later in the evening a concert was held at St. Lewis Academy where people attended from throughout the region and members of the St. Lewis fitness group performed skits and there were musical interludes by performers and musicians from all the surrounding communities. It was a true celebration of culture and talent.

I would like to ask all members in the House to congratulate the participants in the sixth annual Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race and also to commend the Town of St. Lewis for keeping this traditional Labrador sport alive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremonies of the school Olympics at Cowan Heights Elementary. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Fitzpatrick, the physical education teacher, and the other teachers and staff, as well as the students on this impressive event. A true Olympic atmosphere prevailed at the ceremony which included lighting of the Olympic Flame, raising the flag, as well as some great entertainment provided by the school choir and the Jump-Its, which are the accomplished school rope jumpers.

The ceremony included as well, and perhaps of most importance, the reading of the Olympic Creed and the Junior Olympic Pledge taken by all students, which emphasized that it is not whether you win or lose but the fact that you participated and gave it your best that really counts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to all at Cowan Heights Elementary for this most wonderful and timely event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today to acknowledge all the athletes who will be taking part in the Special Olympic Winter Games this weekend in Carbonear. Chairperson, Wanda Butt, says this is the Special Olympics athlete's key event of the year. The hometown Tri-Con Special Olympic Club will be hosting this event for the first time. They will be visited by clubs from St. John's, Bell Island, Mount Pearl, Fortune, Bonavista, Gander and Exploits.

The competing Tri-Con's are: Tyler Oliver, Melanie Peach, Crystal Young, Sandra Smith, Mary Ellen Murphy, Justin Murphy, Todd Lynch, Eleanor Hobbs, Marsha Button, Chesley Clarke, Rodney Collins, Amanda Butt, Gordon Cooper, Shawn Cooper, Shawn Dawson and Derek Gillard; supported by coaches Carmel Oliver, Elizabeth Evely, Mary Butt and Rick Oliver.

I am sure that all of the hard work and training will pay off for all the athletes as they compete, make friends, and most importantly, have fun.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating our Special Olympians and their coaches as they excel in their respective sports this weekend.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Brad Gushue Curling Rink on their remarkable achievements to date and wish them every success -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: - in tomorrow's Gold Medal game.

I would also like to commend government for declaring schools closed tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: I think that is a good move that will be welcomed by students for a variety of reasons, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I speak for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian when I say how proud we are, not only of their curling skills, but the manner in which they have conducted themselves and placed our Province at the forefront -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: - of the International Community. They are indeed the greatest ambassadors we could possibly hope to have represent our Province and our people.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me extra pleasure to read this statement today, given the fact that both Mark Nichols and Mike Adam are from Labrador West and are long time members of the Carol Curling Club.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Tomorrow, at the Carol Curling Club, people will gather in front of a big screen TV to watch the game and to cheer on the Gushue rink.

We hear all the time, Mr. Speaker, about sports and how important it is, not only to excel but to be a team member. I think Mike Adam is a shining example to all young players and athletes of what it means to put your own self interests behind and put your team's interest in the forefront.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members, and indeed the entire Province, to join me in wishing the Gushue Rink the best of luck in tomorrow's game. It does not really matter what the score is, they are already Gold Medal winners in our eyes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remind hon. members of this House about an exciting upcoming event, namely the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games in the Humber Valley Region officially kicking off this Saturday, February 25, and which will run until March 4.

As my colleagues are aware, the Games began in 1974 as a series of regional competitions held in different locations in the Province. Held every second year since, alternating winter and summer, the Games have now become the largest multi-sport event staged for youth in the Province, bringing together young athletes from eleven to eighteen years of age from all regions.

This year there will be a competition in thirteen sports involving over 150 teams. Over 1,500 athletes, coaches and managers are participating in the games, including teams from St. Pierre and Miquelon who will be competing for the fourth time.

The Humber Valley region has developed a excellent reputation for hosting provincial, national and international sporting events and I am sure the 2006 Winter Games will be no exception. The host towns of Steady Brook, Pasadena and Deer Lake, and over 1,000 volunteers, have worked hard to ensure that this will be an outstanding event. I know MHAs, Tom Marshall and Kathy Goudie, are looking forward to welcoming everyone to the Humber Valley districts.

The Games will also give the region an opportunity to showcase the incredible winter sporting facilities in the area including Marble Mountain in Steady Brook and the cross-country Ski and Nature Park in Pasadena.

As the minister responsible for sport and recreation, it will be my pleasure to attend the Games and watch our athletes compete and celebrate their successes. But the Games are more than about winning, they are about sport development and the spirit of fair play. I know that numerous friendships will be formed and our young people will leave with lasting memories.

Participation in the Games promotes the many benefits associated with choosing a healthy and active lifestyle. During a time when physical activity rates are down and obesity rates are up in this Province, these young athletes are important role models for us all.

Many of our up-and-comers will go on to represent the Province at the national and international levels. Some may one day be our next Olympians. In fact, three present Olympians, namely Jamie Korab, Mike Adam and Mark Nichols, competed in the 1998 Winter Games in Labrador City.

No doubt, the athletes participating in this year's winter games will feel inspired tomorrow as they watch Team Gushue go for Gold at the Olympics in Italy. What a great and proud moment in the sporting history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The members of Team Gushue, Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab, Mike Adam, Russ Howard, and coach Toby McDonald, have proven that our athletes can compete against the best in the world and, in actual fact, can be the best in the world.

I invite all members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing the best to Team Gushue in Italy tomorrow and also to all, perhaps, future Olympians in the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, too, on this side of the House, want to congratulate the Winter Games and certainly the volunteers who have put so much time into making these games a reality. No doubt it is going to be a time when athletes get together, Mr. Speaker, but most important of all for the young people of our Province who will go out there and no doubt feel inspired to compete.

Mr. Speaker, we, too, want to congratulate the Brad Gushue Rink, and we are also very proud in Labrador of two people who are on the team. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think one commentator, in speaking of Mark Nichols, said that this young man could knock out four with one given blow, so we are quite proud.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want to extend good wishes to all the athletes in the Winter Games, and I am sure that our member, Eddie Joyce, will be in attendance. We wish all the athletes the very best. Once again, to the volunteers, congratulations on a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to wish all the athletes, coaches, and the many volunteers a successful Winter Games on the West Coast of the Province, and we are sure that they will be.

This is more than a gaming event, Mr. Speaker; it brings people together from all regions of the Province and introduces people not only to people from other regions but sometimes different cultures as well. Long after the games are over, Mr. Speaker, many people may not remember who won gold, silver or bronze, but all of them will remember the experience that they had at these games. I think that is very remarkable and worthwhile, to keep these games going and to be as successful as they have been in the past.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to remind people of the Province as well that from March 12 to March 18 the Labrador Winter Games will be taking place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and that is a huge event for the Labrador portion of the Province as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, back in 1987, when FPI was set up, the minister then, who is also the current Minister of Fisheries, said the purpose was to create an economically viable, efficient, highly competitive and modernized company that would strengthen the Newfoundland fishing industry and its contribution to the economy at large. The minister went on to say that ensuring maximum employment stability was also a priority.

I ask the minister today: Why has this government allowed the company to stray from its reason for existence, and what is the government's plan to get this company back on track and doing the job it was created to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for her question.

The goals and objectives that were set out in the FPI Act in the 1980s are still valid and being pursued today by this government, as they were pursued in the past by previous Administrations.

 

What are we doing today? Today, Mr. Speaker, we have facilitated a face-to-face get-together between the officials of the company and the union representing the employees of the company on the Burin Peninsula. They are face to face as we speak, as far as I know. I know they were a little while ago, when we left to come back to the Legislature. The details will be released, I assume, at some point by the representatives of the company and the employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, people on the Burin Peninsula are living in fear while hoping for the best. While FPI continues to make a profit - maybe not enough for its out-of-the-Province shareholders - the employees of FPI have no idea what the future holds.

I ask the minister: In his consultations and discussions with the company, does he know if the fish plant in Fortune will reopen, and what FPI's plans are for the fish plants in Marystown and Burin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said just a few minutes ago, the representatives of the union and the company are discussing matters related to the whole of the company's operations, but in particular representatives of the Burin Peninsula, all communities on the Burin Peninsula - Fortune, Marystown, Burin - they are all in the room. I do not know what details have been supplied to them yet, but I think, out of courtesy and fairness, it would be inappropriate for me to list them right now. I am sure they will come out, and they will come out, hopefully, in a timely manner so that the people on the Burin Peninsula in particular, and the people in other comminutes - Bonavista, Port au Choix, and other communities where FPI operate - can have some comfort that they do have a future with this company, and this company will continue to remain a vital part of the economic engine of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the minister's answer that he does, in fact, know what FPI's plans are for its company in the Province.

Given the fact that there is an FPI Act, and we came to the House earlier in the year, or last fall, in fact, and, based on the fact that circumstances are very different today with respect to the fishery industry and FPI than they were years ago, I am asking the minister now: Will he assure the people of the Province that these amendments will not be proclaimed and that the House will be given every opportunity to repeal those amendments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason at all to proclaim the amendments that were made to the FPI Act in this Legislature last spring. They were predicated on an income trust. I understand that the company has told anybody who wants to hear, including the people they are meeting with today, that the income trust is no longer an option for them, so therefore there will be no need to proclaim the amendments that were made in this House. Of course, since the amendments will not be proclaimed, they will not be part of the act, they will not be part of the law, they will be as dead as last year's snow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government rejected an earlier call for an inquiry into the operations and management of FPI, and I think we know that what has gone down with FPI has not been palatable to very many people in the Province. The government has since done an internal audit into FPI, but has yet to release the information to the public even though the minister is on record as saying that audit is completed.

I ask the minister: Given what is happening with FPI, and what will likely happen throughout the Province with respect to FPI, will the government now agree to conduct a public inquiry into the operations and management of FPI, as was requested by the Opposition last fall?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, in fact, have an outside audit firm do an audit of two things for us on FPI, in terms of us doing our due diligence wherever the company might be coming from as they finish up the internal review. One was their groundfish operations, and that review has been completed and it is in the hands of the government. We will use that review as we move down the road in discussions with FPI, but certainly there are parts of that review that are confidential in nature, that relate to their marketing in particular, and we will share it with the people concerned but it would not be appropriate for us to make that widely available. As a matter of fact, the union have agreed to do the same thing: that they will be selective, if that is the right word, I suppose, in terms of not doing anything to cause any further damage or harm to the company.

In terms of a public inquiry, unless there is something more persuasive to put before me or put before the House, we have not seen anything that would justify a public inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Premier and Bill Barry announced the plan to reopen the fish plant in the Town of Harbour Breton. At the press conference the Premier stated that Loyola Hearn, the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was supportive of the proposal. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hearn said he hadn't even seen a plan.

I ask the Premier: Why has the federal minister not been presented with a plan? Does one even exist or was this just another attempt to place blame on someone else for the failure of this government to deal with problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is not an attempt by the Premier or anybody else in this government to place blame on anybody. The attempt, Mr. Speaker, was to hold out some hope and some optimism for a town in this Province that was having great difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier did, in fact, speak to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A plan does, in fact, exist. The plan has been distributed to people. People in Harbour Breton have seen the plan, members of the FFAW have seen the plan, the government has seen the plan, so there is a plan for Harbour Breton and we are going to do everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to make that plan work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I find that rather funny, Mr. Speaker. He just listed off a whole host of people who have seen the plan, but the most important person, I guess, when you are looking for quotas, the Federal Minister of Fisheries, he never mentioned his name. I guess he doesn't have the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that the negotiations with Bill Barry have been moving forward secretly for the past fourteen months. At the same time the IAS committee in Harbour Breton was conducting parallel negotiations with as many as five companies to move into that community and reopen the plant. The companies and the committee were blind sided with the government's announcement of Mr. Barry.

I ask the Premier: Why did you not mention the other proposals, or why did you not at least have the decency to examine these proposals, of the people who were expressing an interest in opening the plant in Harbour Breton?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the IAS committee was informed over a year ago, within weeks of the initial discussions being held with Mr. Barry. The Premier, in a meeting in the Premier's boardroom, advised the IAS committee - and if I not mistaken the MHA for the area was in the room at the time - that he was speaking with a processor who had experience and operations in pelagics who was interested in operating the plant in Harbour Breton. While the plan was contingent on getting some quotas of herring, he was very interested in it. A member of the IAS committee spoke up and said: If you are talking about an operator who does pelagics who is interested in herring, then you have to be talking about Bill Barry. It was not confirmed or denied, but the IAS committee was told at that meeting that we were in negotiations with a processor.

Second to that, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barry was in Harbour Breton in September, had an informal meeting with the mayor of the community, who he informed that the Premier had asked him to look at the plant in Harbour Breton. That meeting was subsequently reported to the IAS committee, as well as to the town council. So everybody knew what we were doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Premier and the current ministers of fisheries, both federally and provincially, recommended to the federal government that a moratorium be placed on the commercial caplin fishery in this Province. In 2004, the Premier was negotiating with Bill Barry to request 50,000 tons of quota of caplin for Harbour Breton, even though the entire quota for the Province for 2004 was only 33,000 tons.

I ask the Premier: Why did you sign your name to the recommendation to the federal government for no caplin fishery if you were not planning to follow through on your own advice?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of knowledge sometimes in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

Part of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say, yes, is correct. There was an all-party report commissioned and done by this House that recommended that there be a caplin moratorium on stock in 2J+3KL and 4Rs, 3Pn. That was the recommendation, and within days of that report being recommended people in other political parties who were part of that recommendation, particularly at the federal level, repudiated it and walked away from it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the unanimity that came out of this House was not accepted by other people in other forums, particularly at the federal level. So that is what happened to that, Mr. Speaker.

At the present time, all the Barry plan said was offshore caplin. There are other offshore caplin stocks not related to the ones we are talking about. Some of the science on 4Rs, 3Pn I understand is very positive, but if it is not, than science is what is going to dictate the answer to us supporting anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I have no idea, Minister, what the federal response has to do with the Premier's recommendation. So from that, I guess, you could follow that if the federal Minister of Fisheries says there is no quota for Harbour Breton the Premier is going to agree with him on that too, I guess, is he, and change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, fourteen months ago FPI announced the closure of Harbour Breton plant and the transfer of its traditional quotas to other areas. We have now been led to believe that some of the fish that used to be processed in Harbour Breton has ended up in China for processing.

I ask the Premier, rather than support quotas for the Barry Group of Companies, why doesn't he support a community quota for Harbour Breton so that the fish stays with that town and would not be transferred if an independent businessman decided he wanted to do that in the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as I said in response to the first question, has been selective in the information and the facts that he wants to share with the public on this particular issue.

We are doing just that, Mr. Speaker, in other species like 3NO Redfish, for example. We did a similar situation out in Arnold's Cove. We will continue - we will always be there, Mr. Speaker, to try to improve the lot of the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now if the Opposition Leader doesn't like that, if his party doesn't like it, then I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, we are standing with the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: What I say to the minister is that I do not support the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador buying a quota for an individual who might take that quota and transfer it out of the Province as he has done before. That is what I do not appreciate.

Mr. Speaker, in June the Premier said that he was prepared to purchase quota for the Town of Harbour Breton, similar to that which was done in Arnold's Cove. I ask the Premier or the government: Are they entertaining an option of buying a quota for Bill Barry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spits out Bill Barry's name with such vengeance that it is almost like his name is a dirty word in this Province. Mr. Speaker, Bill Barry and his company provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, thousands of jobs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: - and if we could get them, Mr. Speaker, to do something similar to that in terms of a fish processing facility, perhaps in terms of aquaculture, perhaps in terms of mink farming on the Connaigre Peninsula in Harbour Breton, and provide jobs for people in Harbour Breton, we will support it every way we can, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Recently government made an exception to the criteria for the placement of kidney dialysis equipment in the Province and unfortunately, the exception applied to only one hospital.

I ask the minister: Why did you not do the same for the residents of the Burin Peninsula and of the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador who have been asking for this equipment for some time now? I ask him if he will commit to put the equipment in both the Burin and St. Anthony hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises what is clearly a very important public health issue in this Province. It is an issue that is debated on an annual basis. I can say to the hon. member that we have had some pre-budgetary discussions. I know that particular issue was raised during pre-budgetary consultation meetings with my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. I can say to the hon. member as well, that it is an issue that is very much a part of the mix, if I could put it that way, Mr. Speaker, in terms of deliberations and preparations for a new budget, which will be announced in this Chamber in the next number of weeks.

In conclusion on that point, Mr. Speaker, the issue is not being neglected or forgotten. It is very much a very important and serious public health policy issue. The discussions amongst this particular caucus and this particular Cabinet will continue leading up to the announcement in several weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Last spring, Mr. Speaker, the MHA for Stephenville stood in the House of Assembly here and she blurted out one day that the recommendations in the Hay Group Report, as it pertained to the Stephenville hospital, would not be implemented. Yet, the very services that were recommended to close in the Hay Group Report have now, in essence, been closed in the Stephenville hospital because the physicians are not there to provide the service. Mr. Speaker, despite her commitment to the patients and to the people of that area, right now the service is gone and they are being referred to Corner Brook for both obstetrics and gynecology services.

I would like to ask the minister - in the absence of the member who failed to meet her commitment - when are the services going to be restored to the Stephenville hospital and what is being done to ensure that the patients are able to access those services as soon as possible where they live in Stephenville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the issues of recruitment and retention are not new. Every single health board, every single health authority in this Province, on a continual basis, will have as one of its main priority issues, the issue of the recruitment and retention of general practitioners, particularly specialists, obviously, throughout our hospitals and health care clinics throughout the Province.

I should add, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are jurisdictions throughout the entire country, and there are boards and health care authorities throughout the entire country who have identified as their particular priority issue, the issue of recruitment and retention of physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Western Health, and indeed every health care authority in this Province, will continue to do what it must do on this very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am not overly concerned about what is being done in other parts of the country, but I am concerned about what is happening on the West Coast of this Province right now. I will tell the minister what is being done in this country, province by province: Alzheimer's patients have their drugs covered under a drug program.

Tuesday, the government announced nearly $2 billion towards the Teachers' Pension Plan; yet, we know there are patients out there today in our Province suffering from Alzheimer's, suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, who do not have the ability to pay for the medications that they need.

I ask the minister, finally: Will you commit to pay for the drugs for those patients so that they can have some quality of life?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member knows the process, as she is a former minister, a former parliamentary secretary, in fact, in the department that I now represent. She knows the process. She knows the time of year; we are towards the end of February. She knows that March will be the month when the Budget is going to be delivered in this hon. House by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, every year - and this government is not alone; I am sure when members opposite formed the government - every year, based on medical documentation and the best medical evidence that is available, decisions will be made with respect to the appropriate coverage for drugs for consumers in the Province.

Last year, we had some very good news for patients suffering with arthritis. We had some very good news, Mr. Speaker, for patients suffering from different forms of cancer. This year, an analysis will be competed, and this year decisions will be made on a variety of drugs to be included in the formulary for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the $2 billion Atlantic Accord money received by the Province.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the people of the Province were astonished to learn that the government proposed to spend $1.93 billion on outstanding teachers' liability when people in this Province are suffering the highest poverty rate in the country, the highest level of use of food banks, 80 per cent of whom are welfare recipients, one-third of whom are children. We have more than one-third of the people of the Province with no access to any prescription drug plan, and this government seems to be willing to spend almost all that money on one issue. Where is the balance here? Where is the fairness to the people of this Province who have needs - crying for attention from the government - that are not being addressed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last two months, I have met with the heads of every single major union in this Province regarding unfunded liability in all their pension plans. I have had meetings back since November with all unions. We have had negotiations with teachers. We know what is needed to correct the plan. There is a $4.4 billion deficit. If we could correct that to a tune, the majority of that to put it on a level footing, even $2 billion - and we have not indicated $2 billion is going in. He does not understand that the Budget framework has already spent - $541 million has been built into the framework. We have eight years' money up front, that three years is spent, but the $2 billion that he mentioned, based on the rate of return that we are getting, would free up $150 million a year, more money to use for roads, for health care, for drugs, and for everything in our Province. That is what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: All the major public sector unions know the discussions went on. They know what we are looking at doing. We are trying to solidify the future economic viability of our Province and, while doing so, put more money into (inaudible) of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the minister uses the Auditor General when it suits him, but the Auditor General says, if they use the $2 billion that we had for unfunded liability, we would actually have a savings of interest of $90 million a year. I do not know where he is getting the other $160 million. We know, Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term problem that was created and requires some long-term solutions. The money that is being saved, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to know: When can the hungry children of this Province, the people who are financially crippled by drug costs, who have no access to a plan, the people who are in need of housing, when are they going to get some relief from this government who are obviously interested in pleasing the bankers and obviously interested in pleasing the accountants? What about the people of this Province who are in great need, Mr. Speaker? When will they get some relief?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The difference between what is being obtained in our pension plans at an average rate since 1981 of 10.72 per cent, and the cost we are getting sitting in a bank of over 3 per cent, the difference is 7.5 per cent. Multiply that by $2 billion; it is $150 million more dollars into our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Had we put it in, in July, we would have had $240 million between July and right now, more, by putting it in at this point. That is money we have. I say to the member, that is money to deal with people who need drugs. That is to deal with people who need infrastructure, who need hospitals and schools and roads and all other public services in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last summer, during a by-election in the District of Exploits, the Premier stepped forward and intervened in the closure of a school in Bishop's Falls. There are now two similar situations taking place in Corner Brook and Eastport.

I ask the Premier: How can you justify interfering in one school board decision for political reasons while ignoring similar issues and concerns being presented by parents and students in these other communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the hon. member's question, I certainly would point out that the school boards of this Province look after the running of the operations of a school and we leave it up to the school boards to make those decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, they did not leave it up to the school board in Exploits. That answer is almost as dead as last year's snow, like the former Deputy Premier just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Minister of Education told the Eastern School District to shred the multi-year plan that was presented by a consultant. At that time, the minister promised extensive consultation before any decisions would be made. Last month, these consultations took place and I can certainly tell the minister they were far from extensive. The board is now expected to have a draft plan in place by March 1.

I ask the minister: Will there be any real consultations before this plan is implemented?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the school board arranged for consultations to take place with regard to the restructuring plan for the Eastern Board, which I assume the member is referring to. Those consultations have taken place. It has gone back now for deliberations around the school board table. They will deliberate. I look forward to them releasing where they are going, and we will have to wait for that process to unfold. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: There are no guarantees, Mr. Speaker, no guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, parents in the Eastern School District are saying the decisions to close and reorganize schools are being rushed without the proper level of input from parents and students. Most decisions are expected to be implemented by September, leaving very little time for students, parents and teachers to prepare for the major changes that are about to take place.

I ask the minister: Why is government rushing this process, especially when the minister herself said the recommendations should be shredded?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, the school boards have undertaken a process to do due deliberation with regard to the restructuring plan. They are in the midst of that right now. We await their decision, and we will go from there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, teacher stress has certainly been a big issue in recent months, especially after witnessing the heavy-handed approach in the suspension of two teachers for raising concerns about conditions in the classroom. At the time, instead of making a stand against this action, the minister washed her hands and said it was a decision of the board.

I ask the minister: To ensure that this never happens again, will government consider bringing forth some form of whistle-blower legislation that will protect employees, such as teachers, from being intimidated into silence?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the board has put a process into place with the NLTA. They are working together with protocols and ways that they can certainly address any difficulties in communication between schools boards and the NLTA, the teachers. We certainly applaud those efforts and await, again, the results of those consultations and the process.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I previously asked the minister to update us on the Stephenville flood, and today I want to follow up with additional questions.

Mr. Speaker, the affected residents of Stephenville have been in limbo for months, staying in rented accommodations or with family and friends. There is a real concern about the length of time and lack of information regarding the proposed plan for those affected by the flood. I ask the minister if he can be definitive as to when those affected will be able to move into permanent residence?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of action going on behind the scenes with respect to this file. Only a few weeks ago, I was in Stephenville. Myself, and the member for the area, and the Minister of Education, met with the town, the mayor, the engineers, and we said at that point in time we would hopefully have some definitive answers for the victims of the flood in the not-too-distant future, hopefully by the end of February. I am planning to make a trip to Stephenville next week to meet with those individuals, to hopefully give the people in the area some comfort to know what is going to happen in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

 

Notices of Motion

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

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

I think everyone is aware of the primary purpose of being here today. Just in a few moments, as we get through the Order Paper, I will give notice to introduce Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Assembly today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district. Mr. Speaker, I want to read the prayer of this petition. It says:

WHEREAS the provincial government's Budget for 2006-07 is to be announced within the next month; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health Authority at Curtis Memorial Hospital in St. Anthony currently performs surgical procedures for the residents of Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS Curtis Memorial does not have a kidney dialysis unit, nor trained staff to operate any such equipment; and

WHEREAS this dialysis unit with trained staff provides patients with a dialysis service within reasonable travel distance at reasonable costs; and

WHEREAS complications occur post-surgery requiring dialysis;

WHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provide funds to the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health Authority for the purchase of a kidney dialysis unit to be located at Curtis Memorial in St. Anthony and funding be provided to train and retrain professionals in the operation of this equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read the prayer of this petition because this is a petition that was circulated by a seventy-four-year-old gentleman in my district by the name of Pat Cabot in West St. Modeste. He felt so strongly about this issue, that not only did he start a petition and a letter, but he went out and got 850 signatures in that area to endorse and support what he was doing. At the age of seventy-four, Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that, because that is a remarkable initiative to have been taken on by this gentleman.

Now, Mr. Speaker, St. Anthony is not unlike Goose Bay or any other hospital in this Province. There are surgical procedures being performed there on a daily basis, and at any particular time something could go wrong, and we saw an incident like that. Someone who was close to me, an individual from my district, a very young man with a young family, in the past few weeks was in a situation where surgery went wrong and there was no dialysis equipment in that hospital. If it was there, Mr. Speaker, maybe he would be alive today; we do not know that. Maybe he would be, but it was not there and that was not an option.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with residents in my own district, in places like St. Lunaire-Griquet, who have family members right now who are on both renal and homo-dialysis units in their own homes, and, Mr. Speaker, they need to be ensured that those services are going to be provided by the St. Anthony Hospital when they need it at times like this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they also tell me that in that particular region there are about probably twelve people who require the service right now. While they are not all living there, a lot of them had to move to other parts of the Province to be able to get the service. In my opinion, I do not think the numbers should constitute whether the equipment goes there or not, and I believe that government feels the same way. That was evident in their actions only a week ago when they made the decision to put the equipment in Goose Bay. I can only impress upon the minister, like Mr. Cabot has impressed upon me with his petition and his efforts, that this is such an essential, important piece of equipment to the residents of that area and I can only ask that he look at putting a kidney dialysis unit -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I believe I gave the appropriate notice for Bill 73, so I think by leave, by prior consensus between the Opposition House Leader, myself and the Leader of the NDP, I do now move first reading of Bill 73.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Throughout the afternoon sitting there will be a number of leaves required for this bill to proceed. The Chair will operate on the assumption that leave has been agreed to by the members, unless some member should stand and say otherwise.

It is moved and seconded that the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 73)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

MR. E. BYRNE: Human Resources and Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair apologizes. He has listed the wrong title to the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: It used to be.

MR. SPEAKER: It used to be. It is the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Labrador Affairs. The Chair apologizes.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 73?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried. (Bill 73)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 73)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 73 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move second reading of Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 73)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand today on this occasion. First of all, to say right off the top, to thank all members on both sides of the House for coming to the House of Assembly today for this very special bill, Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Speaker, of course when debates go in this House, and being here for twelve years now, I do not guess there is another issue that is talked about more than the fishery. It started 500 years ago and as I look at the amendments to the act, I think - if I remember the numbers correctly - since the early 1970s, early 1970-1971, there has been some seven, or maybe eight, amendments to this particular act. So, the debate goes on in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess for the next 500 years we will see more debates on the fishery because it is the reason we are here. It is our mainstay. It is the reason we came here in the first place and the reason for a lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to introduce this very important piece of legislation and to deal with the collective bargaining from the Cashin report. Of course, we know, we all understand that there are many challenges in the fishery, that this is just one part of the Cashin report that we all feel, and certainly Mr. Cashin did, that it was critical and essential that we move on strengthening the Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Speaker, we also know, combined with all of the challenges that are in the fishery, that it is going to take a lot of co-operation and leadership by everybody involved to move beyond some of the challenges that we face, and they are huge challenges, aside from this particular bill here today, on the markets, the Canadian dollar, and we will go on with a list of challenges that face us in the fishing industry today.

Mr. Speaker, the timing for this particular amendment, and while we are sitting here today in the House, an early session of the House, with the co-operation of all people in here - and I think that bodes well for what we are asking of the industry as a whole - is that the people in this Legislature, the elected officials, have a chance to come here today knowing - the reason for the timing is as simple as this, Mr. Speaker, is because of natural conditions of a season of fishery. That is what it is all about. The fact of the matter is, that we have a seasonal fishery that we want to get started on time. As you go through Mr. Cashin's report it is repeated over and over again. Of course, it has been repeated many times in this particular Legislature by many of us who understand that every spring we find crises after crises with the startup of the fishery and it has been a problem, and not just a problem here locally. We all understand it is a double market that we deal with and that the timely opening of a fishery is critical and essential if this industry in this Province is going to improve and move forward. Mr. Speaker, moving forward and timing is very important.

As a government, we have made a commitment to act in a timely manner. We did that. The Premier did it. The Minister of Fisheries did it back in early discussions last year, Mr. Speaker, that it was important and critical that we move forward in a timely manner so that the fishery could start on time.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the challenges go on and on; the Canadian dollar, the declining resource, including weak markets and so on. Those are the challenges that we will have to take on one by one, but we all agree that this particular strengthening of the collective bargaining act for fisheries, Mr. Speaker, is critical to move on to those other steps. I am pleased that today - again, I thank all members in this House for coming here today to deal with this specific amendment to the act.

Mr. Cashin - Mr. Speaker, I take one quote. You can take a lot of quotes from Mr. Cashin's report, but there is one I guess that sticks out, especially when it comes to collective bargaining. I will quote: "...a system that does not force timely settlements to enable early starts to the season is a recipe for disaster for the rural economy" - of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have had that debate over and over for many years, for many different reasons, where the fishery could not open on time, including last year and years before that. Mr. Speaker, some people describe it as the good, the bad and the ugly. There are always different aspects of the fishery. We have seen some very hotly contested, controversial issues facing the fishery in the past, and I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that down the road there will be more again, but our idea today is on co-operation and leadership and to move forward.

Mr. Cashin noted that the existing legislation is completely inadequate to ensure a timely start to the most critical fisheries of this Province. Above all else is the one situation that must be fixed, he wrote, and fixed quickly. It is as simple as this: A more orderly system of bargaining, he advised, is the answer for both parties.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to draw some attention - of course, there are twenty-seven amendments overall, but there are some amendments with the collective bargaining that were discussed, and consultations with the industries, all stakeholders, for quite some time. Beginning back last January with the Labour Relations Board, and of course before that, there had been discussions ongoing about the collective bargaining and strengthening it from both sides. Those discussions have been there for a long time. For the most part, a lot of these amendments deal with exactly that, strengthening or bringing up-to-date the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I think those discussions have been ongoing, and a lot of these that have been asked for have been certainly suggested by both parties and now a lot of them want to move forward with it.

Mr. Speaker, the one that stands out and the one that is newest and is getting the most attention is the Panel. What I will do is try to deal with the specific amendments, just to touch on them. My colleagues will have a lot more debate going on here today and I look forward to that, and probably some technical points and, I understand, some amendments also. We will deal with all of those as they come to the House here today, Mr. Speaker. The panel I will leave until last, Mr. Speaker, but basically there are six other specific ones that we will try to just touch on, and I am sure we have some more discussion here today.

One is, of course the grievance arbitration process will be improved.

Number two, the right to strike or lock out has been replaced with binding arbitration. Fines and penalties have been increased to deal with organized work stoppages. Mr. Speaker, these are brought into line now with the Labour Relations Act, the same type of penalties.

Fish processor organizations can be accredited by the Labour Relations Board on the basis of a single species. That is very important, Mr. Speaker. I am just touching on some of the main amendments here now. The collective agreements reached with processors who process a majority percentage of fish species will once again be binding on all processors who process that fish species.

Mr. Speaker, number five is, a process organization will be allowed to recover negotiation costs from all processors who process that species of fish and who are governed by the resulting collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, these are all that will strengthen the collective agreement and, of course, bring it up to date with the Labour Relations Act of the day.

The Panel, as I said earlier, is the most significant part of this amendment. It is new, it is something Mr. Cashin had recommended, Mr. Speaker. I will just go briefly down some of the points of the Fish Price-Setting Panel. The Panel will provide the basis for a timely start for the fishery each year. However, the panel will not take away from the ability of the parties to negotiate their own collective agreements. I think that is very important, Mr. Speaker. The key to the panel's mandate is to act as an arbitration panel and to set fish prices as well as conditions of sale. This is only when - and I repeat again, this is only when - the parties involved in negotiations are unwilling or unable to agree; this panel will make final and binding decisions. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is something that I guess, in the whole essence of this whole debate, is about a decision that is final and binding, that, in fact, leads us to a start-up of the season on time. This will guarantee that the binding collective agreements will be in place no later than three days before the normal scheduled opening date of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the panel members will be appointed as soon as possible. This body will be composed of three persons appointed by government. We will be seeking input from the FFAW and ASP on the panel appointments. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a letter has been already spent. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a letter has already gone to the parties involved to ask just that.

Mr. Speaker, also, government will provide operating funding for the panel. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture will also provide staffing support in the year of market intelligence on an as-needed basis.

Mr. Speaker, as the debate continues on this, and I guess this is, as I said, the most important part and the newest of the amendments, this is very important that we move forward. As we look at the debate that is ongoing and away from the specifics of the legislation, continuously through the report - I think this has been repeated a number of times; I guess we can still repeat it - as I said earlier today, us here in the Legislature today to try to co-operate and move forward showing leadership in this industry. That has been a problem and it has been noted many times throughout the report that if this industry can start on time, that is a beginning. The challenges that we face, as I mentioned earlier, are challenges we have to take on, but I believe that the feedback we have been getting from all stakeholders is that at least we have something now to start to work with.

The importance of this to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I mean, how much could you say? We know very well, especially from Members of this House of Assembly and all members, how important the fishery is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we can have a start-up date and we know that the fishery will start on time, with a price set, I think, will bode good news for a lot of parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I really would like, at this time, too, to thank the many officials, because of the timing of all of this, from the release of the report in December to the work that has been done by - and I know members on all sides of the House know the work done by the officials in the labour agency and also from the minister's Department of Fishery and Aquaculture. The work that those officials have done to bring this together to try to have it ready for us in this Legislature is not an easy task, by any means. There is a lot of time gone into it, a lot of considerations, and, of course, the Department of Justice and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to introduce it so we can get some debate going here today, certainly some questions, I understand some amendments and so on, so I am looking forward to my colleagues, what they have to say here today, and I am looking forward to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, a very important piece of legislation, not one that we have not discussed here in this House of Assembly before.

I remember sitting across the floor, in the position of Minister of Fisheries, back some four years ago, and the then critic - my critic was the member who represents The Straits & White Bay North. Every single day in the House of Assembly he used to jump up and say we did not have a plan but he had one. Shortly after that he became the minister and he implemented his plan, the first of three, actually, Mr. Speaker, because today we are going to go through the third plan of this government, the government that has not been in power yet three years.

The first plan that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North came up with shortly after being put into the Ministry of Fisheries back in 2003 was the auction system. Again, he did this one arbitrarily and unilaterally without ever going out and discussing it with anyone in the industry, and brought in a piece of legislation that kept us here, I think, very late into the night on a number of occasions back in either the fall of 2003 or the winter of 2004. In fact, I think we pretty well had an all-night sitting where he was trying to push through a piece of legislation for an auction system, only to find out that no one in the industry - processors nor fishermen, or fish harvesters - wanted it. He did that against the wishes of pretty well everyone concerned, and pushed it through late at night, only to find out shortly thereafter that his plan did not work and he had to scrap that one.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, what happened almost a year ago to the day when the minister, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, came forward with his second plan, because his first one did not work. Even though when he sat in Opposition he said he had a plan - I think he had a few, actually - he never thought them through very well, but the one last year was probably the worst plan that we ever saw a government put forward on the backs of the fishing industry in this Province.

As my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, said, the fishing industry, to me at least, is the most important industry in our Province, not just from a financial perspective but also from the number of people that it employs and the effect that it has had not only on our economy but on our culture in the past 500 years that we have been here.

We all remember the drastic mistake that the previous Minister of Fisheries made last year. Without any consultation with anybody, he brought in what was probably the most disastrous plan I have ever seen or heard of; that is the raw materials sharing plan.

To make matters worse, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries had been out months before that saying that any new changes to the Department of Fisheries, or any new changes in the fishing industry, would only take place with extensive consultation between the government and the fish harvesters in the Province, and the government and the fish processors. Well, I think that they did some consultation with the fish processors but he forgot, or deliberately omitted, speaking with the fish harvesters. What he did was try to implement a program that would have seen complete control of the fishing industry lie in the hands of the processors, who are commonly known in the Province as the wealthy fish merchants.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the fallout of that. We had a strike for practically two months. We saw a late start to the fishing industry and we also saw that, at the end of the day, the Premier somewhat capitulating in saying that we will do this for this season. We will appoint Mr. Richard Cashin, a former President of the FFAW, to come in and do an examination of the RMS and make recommendations to government and that they would live by the recommendations in the Cashin report. We will talk about that later, whether or not all the recommendations in the Cashin report have been adhered to, because some of my colleagues beg to differ, and we will be presenting amendments later in the afternoon.

As I said earlier, he brought in a disastrous plan that had some devastating impacts and affects on most of the fish harvesters and the plant workers in the Province last year. I know in my district it was absolutely catastrophic last year because the fishery did not start until early June. When the fishermen and fisherwomen in my district took to the water, what they found almost immediately was the presence of softshell crab and as a result, few, if any of them, managed to catch their entire quotas last year. In fact, many fishermen and fisherwomen in my district did not get any of their crab and, as a result of that, have been forced to leave the Province; while others who have remained find themselves in dire financial shape through the winter and up until now.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of these failed plans we are here again today discussing another plan for the operation of the fishery. I call it the Cashin plan because it was based on recommendations put forward by Richard Cashin, I think in the fall of this past year, and that is the essence of the report that we are here discussing today and the changes that are needed to the legislation in order for this plan to work.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the current Minister of Fisheries - I understand that he is a bit more open to conversations with the fish harvesters in the Province than was his predecessor, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I certainly hope, for all of our sakes, especially for those who are involved in the fishing industry, that this plan works and that we have an early start to the fishing season and that we have some semblance of sanity in that industry so that those who are affected by it and work in it have a very profitable year, even though from the scientific advice that we are seeing on the state of the crab stocks and the Canadian dollar, that might not even be the case if everything else goes well, but I really do hope that this plan works.

We have not had a lot of opportunity to look at this piece of legislation. We were told, I think on the weekend, that is was coming to the floor of the House on Wednesday. We got the legislation late Monday afternoon. We did not get a briefing on it until yesterday afternoon. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the legislation and the plan with a lot of fishermen or fisherwomen in the Province. I have had a discussion with some. I have had a number of discussions with the President of the FFAW, Mr. Earl McCurdy, and he assures me that what the guts of this plan is, he can certainly accept. He is saying to me that the recommendation would be to approve the plan.

I have talked to some processors who have problems with it, some of the smaller processors, because they do not agree with the fact that as little as three or four of them can be the bargaining agent for all processors in the Province simply by the formula that the minister is using to calculate who becomes the bargaining agent - and that being that if any group of processors who process fifty plus 1 percent of the crab, for example, last year will be the bargaining agent for the processors. The smaller processors feel that they are being left out of this process and that they do not carry as much weight as some of the larger processors, and at the end of the day, they feel that they may be ill-treated. I will bring forward an amendment later when we go into committee to deal with that.

I have talked to some of the processors. As I said, some of them have problems, others do not. I have talked to the President of the FFAW. He says that his organization fully supports this bill. So we will have to wait and see if it does indeed work.

Mr. Speaker, another one of the problems that both the fishermen that I spoke to and some of the processors have is the fact that this committee is going to be appointed by government. Now the fishermen have a problem with this because they have a lack of trust in the individuals who are appointing the panel, and that being the government opposite, because the fish harvesters in the Province saw what happened to them last year. They were promised consultations with the government before any raw material sharing program came in and that promise was never kept and it was forced upon them from the top down. As a result, some of them experienced very severe hardships last year. As a result of that, when they hear that the government is appointing this committee, then I can see why they sort of have reason to worry because this panel will make the decisions of when the fishery will open. At the end of the day, they could make the decision when it will open, how much they are going to get paid for their product or their fish and the conditions of sale of their products. So, coming from a government that tried to force RMS upon them, they have some skepticism over the fact that this panel will be independent.

I have talked to processors who feel the same way. They do not believe, for example, that the government should have the right to appoint a panel to make these very major decisions affecting an industry, what they consider to be a private industry in terms of - in capitalism where you know the price usually rules the day and things like that. They are saying they do not think that the government should be interfering in the fishing industry to the extent that they are not in other industries, to the point where they can even tell you how much they are going to pay for your product, how much basically you are going to get if they look at the terms and conditions that could be outlined from that panel, and when and where they can fish.

So, there are a number of problems that both sides, the harvesters and the processors, have expressed to me. We will talk about those later, but, for the most part, what I will be doing is presenting an amendment later in the afternoon when we go into second reading, pertaining to who should be the official bargaining agent for processors.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and give somebody else an opportunity to speak to this bill.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words in second reading here regarding this Bill 73. As the Leader said, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, there are some particular items that I will be addressing later, but also I would like to bring it to the attention of the minister at this time, rather than find ourselves in a situation where we might get into committee stage and raise these issues which might cause some technical difficulties or slow things down. I will, in the course of my general comments, just make brief reference to these issues as well and probably give some background as to why we feel it is a source of concern.

We received this legislation a couple of days ago. We have had an opportunity - we were briefed by the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and representatives of the Department of Labour to explain what the piece of legislation was about and the technical details of it. We appreciate the fact that we did indeed, ultimately, get the briefing. Some minor difficulties getting around to it but, anyway, it did take place.

There has been some feedback from people. I have had some calls from members of the FFAW, in fact, persons who are in prominent positions within the FFAW, who have some concerns, and I have also had calls from processors who have some concerns with this piece of legislation.

Now, I think it is fair to say that, generally speaking, and on a balance, the FFAW, who is going to be one of the parties that is going to be subject to this legislation, are in agreement with the meat and substance of this piece of legislation. I think it is fair to say, on balance, from the processors, at least from the members of the ASP group, that they are in favour of this piece of legislation. I do not think anybody would deny that government has an obligation, in view of what has happened in the past, to try to bring some stability to the fishing industry. It is a billion dollar-plus industry to this Province. Multitudes of people are employed in it, and we have to get some kind of stability.

Nobody is opposed, I do not believe, to what the government is trying to accomplish by bringing in this piece of legislation. I do not believe it is the position of an Opposition just to criticize and oppose for the sake of opposition. I think any Opposition that you bring forward should have a rational basis why you oppose it, but I do believe we, as an Opposition, regardless of the fact that the two principal parties - namely the FFAW and the ASP group - may be in favour of the legislation, that does not detract from, I believe, our obligation, as an Opposition, to point out what some people feel are deficiencies with this piece of legislation, and to make suggestions that would, I would submit, improve it.

That is the tenor of where this member is coming from. It is not the purpose to oppose the general purpose of what the government is trying to accomplish here, but to make a couple of suggestions that it is not the panacea for everything, and I do not believe anybody thought it would be. I suggest and think and submit that we are going to back here, probably, in this very House, within twelve months to tinker some more with this, and that is a process. That is what happens when you bring in a law. You do not always think of every circumstance when you draft it, in the first instance, and through experience you find out that we have to come back here to fix it again. So, I think nobody is under the assumption that this is going to be the be-all and end-all, the final, absolute solution to resolving the ills in the fishing industry, but it is a step that somebody has to take, and obviously it is incumbent upon government to take it, but there are some concerns.

What this bill does, as I understand it, under the principle intentions and purposes of it, is to somehow require that the parties get together at the table. If we have a bargaining group, the FFAW, representing the harvesters and the fishers, and they have certain demands that they want for their industry and for their workers and their membership but they have nobody to talk to because a processor group on the other side will not come to the table, we end up in a stalemate. We end up in situations where we possibly do not have a fishery. Somehow, you have to bring the parties to the table, and I think that the general intent here is to find the mechanism whereby you can bring the parties to the table.

What this bill does, as I understand it, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, is that the FFAW have always been the certified bargaining agent for the fishers. That is not an issue. The problem is, how do we define who the other party is going to be? You cannot have a collective bargaining agreement. The very words themselves imply that somebody sat down and bargained on behalf of two groups. We have one; who is going to be the other? Obviously, the other is the processor group.

The government, in this bill here, is saying that the processors will be represented. Whoever comes to that table to speak for the processors in any given year will be that majority of processors who produce 50 per cent plus 1 of that particular species based upon the previous year's production. That is my understanding of what is happening here.

Somebody would look at it and say that is a pretty good common sense principle and democratic principle if 50 per cent plus 1 of the processors of crab in this Province agree, we want to be the bargaining agent, and they come to the Labour Relations Board and say: Certify us to speak for all the processors.

That seems to be pretty fair. I do not have a problem with that - that piece of it - but I do not think it goes far enough. We are going to propose an amendment to that because, if we are looking for the ultimate fairness to everybody on the other side, I think there should be an amendment so that piece that the government has proposed is there, yes, the majority of processors should definitely be there to be the certified bargaining agent, but we cannot forget about the numbers of processors involved in that species. For example, if we have thirty-eight crab processors in this Province, 50 plus 1 per cent of the production might come from three of those thirty-eight processors. For example, in our Province, as I understand it, some of the big players are the Quinlans, the Barry Group, FPI and the Daley Brothers. For example, it is my understanding, based upon last year's figures, that those four, if they got together, would be the certified bargaining agent for crab. That is my understanding, based upon the rough numbers I am aware of. Now, that is not to say that they shouldn't be the certified bargaining group, but I am saying, what about the other thirty-four processors? What about the little guy down in Burnt Islands who has a facility? What about the little guy who is somewhere up on the Northern Peninsula who has a facility? Where do their views get heard? That little guy, for example, who has maybe got fifty or seventy-five employees - he does have the 1,000, he doesn't have the 500, he only has fifty or seventy-five people - he can't afford to join a group like ASP. My understanding is that processor's group, their budget, for example, is somewhere around $800,000 or $900,000 a year. You can't expect these small processors to be necessarily a part of the organization at that cost, but yet they still have interests and they still represent people and their interests need to be represented. Thirty-four processors may be left out under that formula.

What we are going to propose, to be ultimately fair, is, yes, use your 50 per cent plus 1 production rule, but why not say to that as well, that the certified bargaining agent must also represent 50 per cent plus 1 of those persons who are authorized processors in the Province. Now, you have the ultimate democracy. Those who are the big pushers and the producers in the Province, they are automatically in there under that rule, but it also requires those big guys to consult with and deal with, fairly, other groups no matter how small they are. They must, from amongst the thirty-eight, come up with at least 50 per cent plus 1 of all the authorized processors and then they go to the board and say: Certify us. I think that is an ultimately fair proposal. Those who produce the majority are represented and those who are the majority of processors in the Province are represented under that scenario.

If you don't use that principle - and this is the concern I hear back from little processors, we will call them - the concern is: What if the big three or the big four go to government and negotiate a collective agreement under terms and conditions, under the Labour Relations Board? It goes to the panel if they can't agree amongst themselves and they end up with a collective agreement between the FFAW and the big three or the big four. What if that agreement squeezes out the little guys? Now, one can say, well, fine, they are all in the industry, they can compete now and so on, so it is no big deal. If you are trying to find the ultimate fairness principle here and if we are going to tinker again with this industry we are tinkering with, why not try to make it the best that it can be by having that kind of formula so that the bargaining agent or the processors represent 50 per cent plus 1 of the producers and 50 plus 1 per cent of all processors? That way is the ultimate democratic principle of representation, and you live with the results that are negotiated. I think that is a very fair proposal that we are going to be putting forward there.

Another concern we have, and I am sure the minister is going to have answers to some of these questions, one would be under the section that deals with the creation of the panel, for example; it talks about the duties of the panel, and what is going to be the new section 19. It talks about the panel; assuming the parties cannot agree amongst themselves, there is going to be a panel that is going to be able to deal with certain things and have the authority to do certain things. Under that section 19.2, one of the duties, it says, is that they can set the price. Obviously that is a big issue in the fishing industry from year to year. How do we get a price that both parties, the buyers and the processors, the processors and the union, are going to live with?

The whole piece that it says here is they can set the price and conditions of sale. That raises the question, and maybe there is an answer already evident; maybe it is already in the existing Fishing Industry Collection Bargaining Act. Maybe there is some memorandum between the parties that has already been used, or traditionally used, but my question is: What do we mean by conditions of sale? Because I do not know if it is anything defined in this - nothing in this piece of legislation that defines condition of sale - and, to my knowledge, I do not know if it is the current act, I do not think, what are conditions of sale.

The reason I raise the question is, it is one thing for the panel to say you two cannot agree so we are going to say that the price is this amount. That is one issue, but that quote, "conditions of sale", what does that give this panel the authority to do? Will things be done under that conditions of sale authority that again improperly, negatively, unintentionally, causes problems in the industry again?

Is there any way of defining what we mean by conditions of sale? If I knew how to define it, for example, I would be proposing an amendment, that we change the definition section and it shall mean such and such. I, personally, am not knowledgeable enough about the fishing industry to know what we would include under conditions of sale. Is it, for example, a condition of sale that anybody who lands a product in this Province cannot truck it any more than fifty miles as part of the condition of sale? You have to pay so much a pound for it, you have to get it graded at the dockside, and you cannot truck it any more than fifty miles, is that a condition of sale?

If that is deemed to be a condition of sale, is that a way whereby the panel might, for example - we are back again to - even though it says they cannot deal with raw material sharing and they cannot deal with the production quotas and such, that is an authority that they have under that section, to put in a condition of sale that might, through the back door, get what it says here they should not do? All I am saying is, I think we need to be definitive here. We do not need these parties because, I tell you, if there is any industry where people have been very, very creative in how to make things work for their benefit - and hats off to them, if it is to your benefit do it - we need to have people understand what the rules are here. That is what we are trying to get at. I am saying, I think it is going to be a problem. If we do not define what conditions of sale are, we are going to have a further problem. If there is anything that the minister or the government can do, I would suggest, to make that more definitive so there is no playing around by the parties as to what that means, it should be defined and it should be put in legislation. So, there is some uncertainty there.

There is another issue that we will be putting forward, for example, dealing with the Labrador issue. Mr. Cashin, as I understand it - and this bill has generally been referred to as the Cashin bill, I understand. There was a reference in Mr. Cashin's report, a recommendation that Labrador should not be included in the changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. That is not in here. My colleague from Labrador will deal with that issue when she gets into the details. So we do have an example here where that particular recommendation by Mr. Cashin is not in here, and we are gong to be asking: Why isn't it in here? and, in fact, suggesting that it ought to be in here. If we are taking what Mr. Cashin said to be proper and correct, it should, indeed, be there.

Another question I have - and these are questions that I was not aware of at the time - perhaps if the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Fisheries can give an answer to questions like: If the price is set by the panel, can a processor pay more than the price that is set?

I do not see, from this piece of legislation, any direction as to - once the panel sets the price, we know that the parties to that collective agreement are bound by that price. In other words, I would take that to mean you cannot pay any less than. So, whether you sell to King's fisheries or Barry's fisheries, or anybody, if the price is $2 a pound, everybody has to pay at least $2 a pound. Does that mean that the processors cannot pay more? For example, the whole traditional capitalist system in which we live, they have been competing for years at the head of the wharf as to who pays the most. I know what the minimum is, but, look, here is a bit more. In fact, I think it is well understood in the industry that it is not unusual for bonuses to be paid, even under the final offer selection process that we used for a number of years. I could easily pay you, as a processor, $1 a pound, but at the end of the year, when we settle up, there was nothing wrong with me paying you extra. Sometimes it was done in terms of dollars, and sometimes it was done in terms of material things. Will that be allowed to continue, I ask the minister, under this bill? We know we have to pay the minimum price set by the panel, but can you pay more?

That question was put to me by a processor, a smaller processor in this Province, and they have that concern that we do not want, by trying to fix the problem here, to cause a problem and take away the competitive instincts that still should exist. Even though somebody has to get the minimum, and there should be a minimum, the same as a minimum wage, that does not mean that you should not be able to compete and see what you can get for your product. I do not know if that is here; and, if it is not here, should it be definitively stated that, that price does nothing to detract from your normal competitive issues?

Another question that was put to me by a processor is: Can a processor refuse to buy under this new system, once it is adopted? A very legitimate question. The panel sets the price, for example, of $1 dollar a pound. For whatever reason, a fisherman in a certain area comes into - there is a plant in the area, two plants in the area, there could be two buyers there, and that person goes to one of them, the fisherman goes to that person and says: Here are my 1,000 pounds; you have to pay me $1 a pound. That processor, for whatever reason, says: I cannot take your product. I do not want your product. It could be a case that he does not have the money to buy it at that time. It could be a case where his equipment is down. It could be a case where he had his plant shut down for the season.

The rule, as I understand it here, is that, once the price is set, it is binding on all processors and you have to pay the price. What if a processor says, for a legitimate reason, I do not want your product? What happens? Is there anything in here to address that type of situation, or is it mandatory that a processor must buy, cannot refuse to buy?

That is a very legitimate concern, because there could be a multitude of reasons why a processor cannot buy or does not want to buy. I would like the minister to give some kind of indication, if he can, and direction, because these are very legitimate questions being asked by the people who, I would assume, as of tomorrow, when this thing goes through, are going to be bound by this, so it is incumbent that somebody give some answers. They may exist and, if they do, we would certainly like to have them, and these people in the industry need to have them.

So, I guess, in conclusion, at this point I am not opposed to the bill in general, but I think there are some deficiencies here that need to be addressed or we are going to find ourselves back here, probably not next year, but probably sooner. No problem in doing that either, but if they are pointed out in advance, and I think they are logical, rational suggestions, I do not see any reason why it could not be done now. So, if it can be done, let's do it right in the first instance.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank the members who have spoken from the Official Opposition at this point in time and for the contribution they have made and the questions they have raised. I do not suppose I will be able to answer all of them to the point that will please everybody, but I want to give a little bit of the rationale for the legislation as it is in front of us today. I will try to deal with a couple of the major issues that were raised to this point in time. I am sure there will be others raised by other speakers and I will deal with them later in the afternoon because I understand that perhaps I will have an opportunity to close the debate on second reading on behalf of the minister, so that if there are other issues that get raised beyond this point, I will get a chance to respond to them.

It was mentioned: What are we going to do about the competition on the head of the wharf? Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I cannot believe that the wisdom of Solomon could even go to address that situation. I mean, all we can do as a Legislature, as a government, as legislators here, in my view, is provide a framework. That is what the Cashin report asks of us, to provide a framework. Make the playing field as level as possible. Will it be a perfect playing field, Mr. Speaker, a perfect soccer pitch? I doubt it, but we are trying to make it as fair and as level as we can.

We have taken the recommendations of Mr. Cashin and we have sat down with the major players, not all the players. Some of the players in this industry, Mr. Speaker, are not represented by anybody. Now, I have tried to make it as abundantly clear as I can, and I think this legislation, by the way, will be another process in that pad. I cannot force individuals, processors, into an association. I cannot do it. I would not want to do it, anymore than I can force individual harvesters into a union. Basically, there is some choice here as to what you want to do, how you want to act in your industry, but I can say this. We provided an opportunity for the association that represents the large percentage of processors in this Province to provide us with their view of the Cashin report and what government should do. We have tried to incorporate, in this legislation, that view as much as possible. It is not totally processor driven. It is not totally union driven. We have tried to make a hybrid here. We have tried to create a creature here that incorporates the best suggestions of all sides.

I have met with independent processors who are not part of any association in the course of the few months that I have been in this department. I have encouraged them to find an association that they are comfortable in. If it is the Association of Seafood Producers, that is fine. That is their business. If they feel that is not on and they want to form something else, well, that is the fine, too. That is their business. Personally, I would like to see them all in one association. I have made that clear to them, but, at the end of the day, it is not my call. What I have done though, and what the government has tried to do on this legislation, is to provide them, whether they were in or out, with an opportunity to tell us their view.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have met with a number of small processors in the last several weeks and I haven't had those issues, that the Opposition is raising, brought to my attention. I met with a small processor right after the news conference yesterday - and the member will probably know who it was because he was at the conference - and it wasn't this issue of being crowded out or ganged up on by larger processors that was his issue. It was an issue that flowed out of the raw material sharing program of last year in terms of how you are going to do the industry averages and go forward from there.

The last piece of legislation that dealt with FOS said 50 per cent plus 1 of all processors in the Province, irrelevant of what species they were involved in, everybody, from Mr. Cashin to the union, to the processor's association, wanted a 50 per cent plus 1 accreditation based on species; based on the species process, whether it is crab or whether it is shrimp or cod. They are probably, likely to be the main ones anyway.

I have been told, Mr. Speaker, that some of the smaller processors are perhaps the most cost-competitive people in the whole industry, that they do not mind being bound by this because their cost structures are not an FPI cost structure. Their cost structure is not a Quinlan cost structure, that they have cost structures that make them very competitive with some of the larger players in the industry. So, they have not raised it as a red flag, at least to us. They may have - I am not saying they did not to members of the Opposition, but they have not raised it in any way as a red flag to us as something that could be detrimental to them, that could cause harm to them, could cause them to be noncompetitive. That has not been something, through the consultation process or in the public where we invited individuals and people and so on to make their views known to us through our Web location and letters and things like that. That has not surfaced, Mr. Speaker. So, my understanding is simply this. The vast majority of the industry want a species by species accreditation and when the processors representing 50 per cent plus 1 or more in a particular species go to the panel, a price is set, either negotiated or either that set by the panel. When that happens, everybody in the industry is bound by it. That is what the industry, as I understand it, want.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the other thing we have to adhere to - and I have had people who are outside the industry association tell me this, that they are satisfied with this, personally tell me that they expect to pay their share of whatever it cost to get the price settled. They are not along for a free ride and have the biggies pay and the other less smaller ones not pay. They have said to me up-front: We may not be part of the association but we want to find a way that we can pay our share of what it cost to get a price settled. I have had that said to me by a number of smaller independent processors in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the clause, as we have it structured now in the legislation, represents the best possible approach that satisfies the most people in the industry. Does it satisfy everybody? No, I would not say it does, Mr. Speaker. Does it satisfy everybody on both sides of the industry? I would not expect it does, Mr. Speaker. But I think it is the approach and the framework that satisfies the most people in the industry in total, harvesters and processors. It is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that we are proposing that the legislation pass.

A couple of other matters were raised. I refer to the head of the wharf, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I can say much more on that. I do not think the government has any business on the head of the wharf. I believe it was former Prime Minister Trudeau who made a similar comment about the government and the state in the bedrooms of the nation. We cannot legislate and control that kind of thing. We just simply cannot do it.

How do I get on the head of the wharf, or an official from my department, or from the labour relations agency, on the head of the wharf, and the price is, say, $1 a pound, and Minister Byrne comes in and says: I will give you $1.05. What do I say? You are not allowed on the wharf, Minister Byrne. You are a licensed processor, you are a buyer; you have a right to be there. You, or an association, or a group accredited on your behalf, signed an agreement. If you want to shag around with that agreement, if you want to make that agreement unlivable, and that forces me to match you or go ahead of you, well, I am sorry ladies and gentleman, you are doing it to yourself.

This industry has to learn, in my opinion, to make it as best they can - with a framework - on their own. I cannot be on the head of the wharf and I have no intentions of going there. Minister Shelley cannot be on the head of the wharf and he should not be expected to be there. Our aim has to be to provide a framework that is relatively equal for both sides, that can be accommodated and that will get a fishery started on April 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Can we guarantee that the fishery will stay started once it starts? No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot guarantee it. I said before, I said yesterday and I say again, we cannot force an individual harvester to harvest. We cannot do it. What we can force is an organized circumvention of the act that, in every other way, amounts to a strike. We can do that.

Can I force a processor in this Province to process fish? No, I cannot, but the Legislature can provide a framework that will make sure that a significant number of processors, in concert, acting together, do not stop processing. That is what this framework, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, is all about.

Perfect, no, it is not perfection. Final offer arbitration, in itself, worked pretty good in the beginning, when it was introduced a few years ago. A lot of conditions have changed since then. We may have to, on a periodic basis, as we experience working with this framework, from time to time, bring in other amendments.

I am not scared of that, and I know the Opposition House Leader said the same thing. We may have to do it. We will do what we can now, do what we believe is saleable and doable now, and if we have to do some fine tuning, of course, from time to time, we will have to do it.

Now, the point that was made with regard to 19.2, and the duties of the panel, the duty of the panel is to set price and conditions of sale. The Opposition House Leader mentioned the conditions of sale part.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what was in the old set-up that this is now replacing. It said that under the FOS set-up the final offer arbitration, the arbitrator could set price and, quote, other related matters - other related matters - and that is the way both parties wanted to leave it. There is always room for some wiggly, if you have to do some wiggly wigglies. You have to have room. What they have said to us now, both sides, union and processors, is: Don't make it so rigid that we cannot do certain things ourselves that can create an environment to get to an agreement at the end of the day.

So, things have changed. Rather than use the language of price and, quote, other related matters, we are now using the language of price and conditions of sale, and conditions of sale is meant to be reflective of the other related matters that were in the original legislation that the processors and the companies worked under for a number of years.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say this: We cannot continue to have a situation in our Province where the most important industry to the largest number of people can be highjacked, for whatever reason - good, bad or indifferent, but can be highjacked - for weeks on end, maybe months on end. We cannot have that situation continue, Mr. Speaker. We asked Richard Cashin, who is, I think, well respected in the industry, who certainly knows the industry very, very well, to bring together a group to advise us on the best way to manage that situation, and he did. Reg Anstey was part of the panel, the Executive Director of the Association of Seafood Producers, Mr. Butler, was part of the panel, and they consulted widely with various people in the Province and they have given us a framework. We are here today to put that framework in place; and, as a result of putting that framework in place, there will be a fishery come April 1. Will there be a fishery by May 1 or June 1? I do not know, but this framework is here. It is here to do a job. I believe, Cashin believes, the industry believes, the processors believe, the union believes, that this can work. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to give it to them, to provide that framework and let them get on with the job of making it work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER ( Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at second reading on this most important legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we hope, in our party, will bring some stability to the fishing industry. What we have had in the lead-up to this legislation, and what caused the necessity of this legislation, was absolute chaos, Mr. Speaker; chaos that was allowed to run rampant in the industry for the past number of years and chaos that was, in fact, encouraged, or at least in some respects created by the actions of this government last year. I do not blame them for all of the things that happened in the fishing industry. It is hard to blame any one person for all of the ills that our fishing industry has been exposed to over the years, but certainly the kind of buccaneering capitalism that we have seen in some aspects of our fishing industry has not been to the benefit, certainly, of the majority of people who earn their living from the fishery.

It has allowed people to do side deals. It has forced people to do side deals, given the processors' control over people's lives and future in ways that we had not seen since the days of the fishing admirals, Mr. Speaker, and the control that people had over the fishery that was supposed to be stopped when we had a fishermen's union, as it was called then, that was controlled and owned and operated by the harvesters, by the fish plant workers, and by those who earned their livelihood from the industry to engage in collective bargaining. The first Collective Bargaining Act in this country, Mr. Speaker, for fishermen, now known as fishers, was passed in this Province in 1971, probably the only one certainly in the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world.

MR. HARRIS: The minister says in the world; I will take his word for it.

Fishers, fish harvesters, are given the right to bargain collectively in the same manner as other workers. Some people say they are not really workers, they are like farmers; they are independent producers. Well, they may be independent in some respects, Mr. Speaker, and the fierce independence of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is well known, but when it comes to their dealings with the fish plant operators and owners, the big companies - some of them not so big, but some of them some of the largest corporations in the world - their power, as a collective, is diminished. The fishermen's union, the fisheries' union, the Fish Food and Allied Workers has been the means whereby they have been able to have some control over their futures, but that has been hijacked over time, Mr. Speaker. The minister used the word hijacked. It has been hijacked by certain practices that have crept in by certain organizing, and disorganizing when it suited them on the fish processors' side, making deals and agreements and then ignoring them, finding ways around them, looking for opportunities to bypass their obligations so that they can make more money for themselves at the expense of the fishery workers. So, we have seen that result.

The 1990s, Mr. Speaker, resulted in an extremely bad situation for everyone, because as the fish processors were cannibalizing themselves and fighting each other and fighting with the union over prices, the market was getting fish product too late, the quality too low to demand a good price, ruining the reputation of the fishery and the products in the marketplace and doing a big disservice to all the people who engage in the industry in the Province. So, what have we tried to do? When I say we, collectively as a Province, as a Legislature. Governments from time to time have tried to impose some order on it, at the same time allowing the kind of robust collective bargaining that an industry like this demands. Because you do have, Mr. Speaker, lots of different circumstances in which we do not know what the factors are. They have to be determined by the players. The players know what the costs are, what the real costs are of conducting fish harvesting. The plant operators know the real costs of processing the fish and how much money they are making, and they have been doing pretty good. The fish processors have been doing pretty good. If they were not, Mr. Speaker, they would not be expanding and buying up half of the fish processing industry in Prince Edward Island. They would not be expanding into Nova Scotia, New Brunswick if they were not doing handsomely on their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we know they are doing well. Objectively, we know they are doing well. Of course, when we see that happen, we wonder whether there is the kind of robust collective bargaining that is necessary to ensure that fish harvesters get a fair share for the labour that they put into the operations, for the capital that they tie up, for the money and credit that they have to get their hands on in order to be players in the industry.

So, we hope that the chaos of last year when this government erroneously, wrongheadedly tried to impose a solution on the crab fishery that was devastating to the notions of fair play held by the crab harvesters, devastating to the notions of fairness in an industry in this Province that relies, to some extent, on having an orderly process for doing things. This was a system imposed by government that created a lot of winners and a lot of losers in an arbitrary fashion. Mr. Speaker, it was resisted, and quite rightfully, by the fish harvesters. They were determined to tell this government that they could not insert themselves in this industry in the way that they did and they had to listen and truly consult with people before they imposed any new system. Well, I guess I have to give some credit to the government for actually listening. They actually did listen, the government, collectively.

The previous Minister of Fisheries was given a new job, and a new Minister of Fisheries and government consulted with Richard Cashin, who had the respect of the industry, and I suppose importantly, in this context, the respect of the fish harvesters, based on his history as their leader and as the one principally responsible for changing the nature of the fishing industry in this Province - along with his co-leader from the beginning, Father Des McGrath - in leading the fishery workers of this Province to a situation where they did have some control over their future. So, he had that respect, but I would also say he had the respect of the fishing industry generally because he was known to them as someone who was knowledgeable in the industry, knew how it worked, because we are not talking about something that anybody can walk into and say: We are going to fix this now because I read these accounting sheets and I think here is a solution. If you do not know and understand the industry and how it works, and the players and how they work and how they interact with each other, you can't come up with solutions that make sense.

We now have a situation that - based on the report of Richard Cashin - the government is able to bring forth a piece of legislation that we think has at least an opportunity to bring some stability to an industry that I think is now willing to accept the kind of intervention that is contained in this act. Because what it does, it permits industry - not only permits, it requires industry-wide bargaining. It requires the kind of co-operation on an industrial sector basis that you see in Europe and lots of places. You see it in the UK, you see it in Germany, you see it in the Scandinavian countries; sectoral bargaining at the national level in these countries, in the steel industry, in the various other manufacturing industries. Everybody is required to be a player, and the industry works together because they are working under one standard. I think, and I hope, that we are going to see that here.

We are going to see forced co-operation, because the rules are going to be clear, that if you do not participate in the negotiations you are not going to have a say in the setting of the price and you are going to be bound by what the majority does. So it encourages processors to get actively involved, because I think the reality is that the union has had its difficulties. There is no question about that. They are not all unanimous. They are not always in the same boat - to use a metaphor - that is appropriate to this industry. But, on the other hand, the processors have been able to form and reform, group and regroup, and take advantage of the weakness of legislation to get themselves out of agreements that they made or to avoid making agreements that should be made and that need to be made to protect the industry.

I will say that there were some questions that I had about how this legislation will work. We will get to that in the details when we get to the clause-by-clause analysis. I did have some concerns. I know we had some calls today from individuals wanting to be sure that all these new regulations do not prevent them from ceasing to fish if they cannot afford to fish at the price that is negotiated. If an individual harvester says: Now that the price has been set at a certain dollar figure per pound and I cannot afford to fish, am I then going to be liable for fines? Am I going to be treated as someone who has ceased their business activities and liable for fines and prosecution under the act? Mr. Cashin says there ought to be specifically stated that in the act. Well, it is stated in a roundabout way, I would say, Mr. Speaker; not specifically. The reality is that no individual fisher can be or will be prosecuted under this legislation for stopping fishing because he cannot afford to fish because the price is too low. One of the reasons he cannot do it, Mr. Speaker, is because the minister actually has to agree in writing that he should be prosecuted. That is not going to happen unless there is an unlawful strike in progress or an unlawful strike has taken place. That is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker, under this legislation. I think individual fish harvesters shouldn't be concerned about the wording that is contained in this legislation.

There are, Mr. Speaker, a lot of other things in the Cashin Report. There are a lot of other things that Mr. Cashin recommended as being necessary to improve the conditions of the fishery of this Province. They are not in this Act, Mr. Speaker, and this Act cannot do everything. I think we have to come forward with a plan that has some hope of success. I think this particular plan with the requirement of a binding collective agreement, a binding price-setting mechanism that applies to everybody, once you have the agreement of the producers who produce more than half the fish, or more than half of a particular species, that agreement is then binding on anybody who wants to be in the business. That mechanism provides for a Province-wide, binding, by-species price that can be negotiated by the FFAW with the major processors, with the majority of fish processing, the majority of the species being processed. Whether that is ten processors or whether that is five, however many constitute a majority, they can negotiate with them and then that price is binding on everybody else, so the playing field is somewhat level. It may be disadvantageous for some smaller processors, but the field is level and everybody knows the game.

It also will make it more difficult, Mr. Speaker - I don't know if it will eliminate it entirely but it will make it more difficult for processors to manipulate the rules by having side deals and so-called bonus systems with some people and not with others. It also, Mr. Speaker, may prevent, to some extent, the advantages that some processors have gained by violating the fleet separation policy. The fleet separation policy is something that is well known in the industry, but not in the public, and the idea is that fish processors are not supposed to own the harvesting ability. They are not supposed to engage in harvesting, they are supposed to be in a separate pool.

What we have see happening in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is people getting around that, through various legal mechanisms. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, sometimes you wonder about the profession I am in. I know, Mr. Speaker, you have great respect for lawyers, but I have seen, in this particular area, all kinds of legal maneuvering that has found a way around this fleet separation, and it is unfair, it shouldn't be happening. This government doesn't have the means to do much about it, but the federal government does and they have not, to prevent harvesting operations from being owned by the processing industry. That has caused a lot of problems in this industry in terms of fairness, Mr. Speaker, and in terms of the fish harvesters actually being masters of their own faith, which is what they want to be.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other things in Mr. Cashin's report. We are only dealing here today with the issue of what collective bargaining regime can possibly be effective in setting a price in an early and timely way, setting a price that provides for less opportunity for manipulation through side deals, setting a price that provides less opportunity for fish processors to play games by, in one case, actually disbanding their organization, and in other cases leaving the organization and trying to find their way around deals that have been made.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this ought to be given a fair chance to work. I think the representatives of the Fishermen's Union have generally approved of the approach being taken. That gives me some comfort, Mr. Speaker, because they were here last year - not this time last year, I guess later on last year - in great numbers, extremely unhappy with the decisions being made by this government, with the legislation that was being passed against their approval. They were filling the galleries. I am looking in the galleries now, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see very many faces of fishermen here who are opposed to this legislation. We received information that the union, in fact, is pleased that the government has followed, in the most part, the recommendations of Mr. Cashin, and that we will have an opportunity to have some price stability, some bargaining stability.

If only, Mr. Speaker, we had a better market this year, if only, Mr. Speaker, the price would be higher, if only, Mr. Speaker, the resource was in better shape then it is in, then we would be even more optimistic about the possibilities this year. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately. Unfortunately, there are very serious challenges in the market for crab this year. There are very serious challenges in the market for shrimp. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that these are species that thrive in the absence of predators, and unfortunately the reason they are thriving in this particular environment is because the major predator, the codfish, is in such decline that they are enabled to thrive.

We are in a very unfortunate circumstance, Mr. Speaker. A lot has to be done to try and rebuild the fishery that we had. We have not seen a lot of response from this government or from the Government of Canada in terms of the actual rebuilding of the fish stocks that were once the envy of the world, the source of protein for the world. They were the equivalent of the breadbaskets of the world that grew wheat. The growth of protein off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Grand Banks was the protein basket of the world, similar to the breadbaskets of the world. What our Prairies and the steps of Eastern Europe were for the world and still are to a large extent, our fishery played that role. It is a shame on humanity, Mr. Speaker, that has been destroyed. I do hope that governments will take seriously the opportunity and the challenge to try and rebuild those stocks.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with the challenges that we face. Right now, we have a very important dependency on single species such as crab, shrimp and others that were not as important a part of our fishery before, but are extremely important today and extremely valuable. We do want to do anything we can that will provide a stronger fishery, a fishery that is able to deliver better quality product on time, at the right time, for the market. We want to ensure that we have a level of fairness in our fishery so that one group and one sector is not getting the advantage over the other, and that we do not have arbitrary decisions being made either by government or by processors where they are forced to cooperate. They might not want to cooperate, Mr. Speaker, but in these circumstances, the framework almost requires them to cooperate if they are going to succeed.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying I hope that we will have an interesting discussion on the details of this at Committee stage, and that we can pass this legislation in time for the fishing industry to get underway this year, with the timetables and the other activities, for the boards to be appointed, for the activity to be put in place so that the rules are known early and that the players will start to act in accordance with those rules. Hopefully, this year we will have a success which is as good on the upside as the disaster was on the downside last year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words as it relates to Bill 73. Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the minister and what he is trying to achieve and accomplish in bringing forward the amendments to this act today. In the last five years, I would say consistently, we have seen huge challenges in the fishing industry, and, in particular, a few years when we have seen the complete industry shut down as we know it in the Province today, where we have had no boats on the water in some cases, we have had no plant doors open, and we had no plant workers processing. Mr. Speaker, that is not a situation that we want to continue with. We want to end the volatility within the industry and replace it with stability and with consistency. I can certainly understand that the minister is bringing forward this bill today to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that in recent years we have had a number of amendments to the Fish Inspection Act, and I guess mostly all the amendments were made in the same framework and the same intention, to be able to bring more stability to the industry, to be able to ensure that we can end the chaos every year that is happening on the heads of the wharves and in the plants. Mr. Speaker, so far we have not been able to put a mechanism in place that has been able to give us that level of consistency and that level of comfort.

As you know, in 2004 the government brought in amendments at that time to look at changes. Last year they looked at the Raw Material Sharing. Mr. Speaker, that within itself caused even more chaos in the industry. It was a system that a lot of the processors were not willing to buy into and a system that none of the fishermen were willing to buy into. It caused a great deal of strain on our industry last year, to the point were we saw, probably, the landed value of fish decline more than we have in the recent four to five years. We have seen more people put out of work, more people with less hours in our processing facilities, people's total income dropping in the fishing sector. We know it did not work. It did not work because it took money out of people's pockets, it caused a lot of havoc in the industry, and it did not accomplish what its intention was and that was to make the industry more stable.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill 73 will provide a number of things. It will provide an opportunity to have a price set in an effective manner to allow the industry to be able to get started on time and hopefully to continue throughout the season. I certainly understand why the methods and the measures are put in there that are there in terms of the three various levels that will be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, while its intention is to bring stability and to bridge gaps that we have had in the industry over the last five years, there are a number of components to it that I still have some questions around. A number of them were already mentioned today by my other colleagues on this side of the House: the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. They talked about the accreditation of processing companies, to be able to be an accredited bargaining agency with one or two or whatever number of species, I guess, they want to, but on one individual species at least.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this in the context of how it is going to impact upon my district in particular, because in Labrador the fishing industry has been somewhat different. If you reflect back over the last five years, or at least since 2002, in our Province, and you look at what Labrador plants were doing each year while there was continuous chaos and shutdown in the processing sector on the Island, you will get two very different pictures.

Let me tell you this way: Under the old bargaining agreement, under final offer selection, when prices or conditions were negotiated and settled upon, they were not binding upon the processors. So, in a case like in 2002, when you had the entire shrimp fishery closed down on the Island portion of the Province, the one shrimp plant in Labrador remained open. Mr. Speaker, it remained open because the company was owned by the fisherpeople. The fisherpeople were on the water. They wanted somewhere to sell, so the shrimp company maintained the operations and opened their plant in Charlottetown. They did it paying out, in the middle of the summer, in July and August, when all the other shrimp plants in the Province were closed down, they were still in operation and they were paying the negotiated spring prices that were negotiated under final offer selection, and they continued their operations.

Mr. Speaker, the fear now for us is this: What happens under the new accredited bargaining system? What will happen when Island processors are at the table negotiating a framework agreement? They are going to negotiate agreements where you will see the shrimp fishery opening in early April and, realistically, there is not going to be any shrimp fishery in Labrador in April. There is probably not going to be one until very late in May. So, when our processing plants are getting ready to open and operate, the shrimp plants on the Island have been closing down because they do not want to have a summer fishery in the shrimp industry.

Mr. Speaker, that is a huge concern for us under this legislation. It is a huge concern for us. If that happens and we have to shut down our plants in compliance with what is being negotiated by Island processors, we are going to see the absolute demise of the processing sector on the South Coast of Labrador, and I am disappointed - I have to say, I am very disappointed - that the union has not recognized this in their negotiations of putting forward comments to the minister, and I am disappointed that the department has omitted it, because, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cashin, in his report, very forcefully, on page 86 of his document, said that the plants in Labrador should be excluded from these recommendations. He pointedly said that, and he said that for a reason.

Richard Cashin has been associated with the fishing industry in Southern Labrador probably dating back before I was even born, Mr. Speaker. When he was the head of the union, he negotiated for shrimp allocations for plants on the Coast of Labrador, and he helped us build up the companies there. He understands the fishery in that area, and he understands the industry. When he made his recommendations to government, he very specifically said on page 86, I think it was, of the document, that he recommended that Labrador should always be excluded from accreditation of Island-based processing organizations. That was what he said, word for word.

I have not been given an explanation as to why his recommendation was ignored, and why Labrador plants were included, because, Mr. Speaker, it is going to have a huge impact. I just gave you one example of what happened in 2002, and again it happened in 2003. In 2003, when their shrimp plants were closed down in various parts of the Province, the plant in Charlottetown, operated by the Fishermen's Shrimp Company, was still in operation and still processing shrimp, because legally they could do it. They were not in violation of anything as long as they paid the negotiated spring price, and that was what they did.

Under this new process, Mr. Speaker, they would be in violation and they could be penalized, they could be charged, and they could be forced to close down their operation. That is not, in my mind, acceptable. I do not think it should be acceptable to government, I do not think it should be acceptable to the union and, frankly, I am very disappointed that there was not more thought put into this.

Mr. Speaker, look at the crab industry up there. One year we had a complete lockout on the Island part of the Province, where crab workers were locked out of plants. The whole industry came to a halt. There was absolutely nothing being done, not a pound of fish being processed, crab being processed in these plants, and the only plants that were still operating were the ones that were owned by the fishermen's unions on the South Coast of Labrador. They had to operate, Mr. Speaker, because they were on a very fine time frame in which they could catch and land their crab and have the industry shut down for that year. They were on a very tight time frame. They had no other choice. The company was not bound by the negotiated contract. It was not operating illegally, because there was no accreditation process in place, and they went out and they operated and workers continue to work and fishermen continued to fish and they continued to process, and they landed their crab and closed the industry in the time frame that was allocated for them. Mr. Speaker, they were able to do that because of the process that was then in place. Under accreditation, that will change for them and we already know that. It is in the act. They will be bound to the negotiated settlements of Island-based processors, and they will have to follow those agreements. That is not acceptable.

Look at the cod fishery; take another species. You get four or five companies on the Island who go in, apply for accreditation, and they become the official bargaining unit for cod. They walk in, and they start the negotiations. This has been an ongoing dispute for us in Labrador for the last five years around cod in the Gulf. When they are fishing cod in the North and Southeast Coast of Newfoundland, and when they are fishing cod in the southern end of the Gulf, we are not getting the same catch rates and catch levels as they do. They have a good fall cod fishery; we do not. We have to do our cod fishery in July and August, which is when we are getting the best quantities and quality of fish. For them, it is a different part and a different time in a season.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at these negotiations and you have three or four companies that are going to go in there and negotiate those agreements, how is it going to impact upon the plants in that region? There is not one size that is going to fit all here, and we are into a situation now where we have shrimp, where we have crab, and where we have cod, that we are having to operate under different terms and conditions than every other processor in the Province, just because of where we live and where we are situated.

The pricing, Mr. Speaker, is not the problem. The pricing is not the problem. Whatever negotiated prices have been set historically, whether it was through final offer selection or whether it was arbitrated for price setting in the Province, it has always been followed by the Labrador-based companies. They always operated within the price mechanism that was in place, and they abided by that, but there were always terms and conditions around the industry that they needed flexibility with, and they had it, but under this new system they will not have that flexibility and that is a huge concern for us.

Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that this is not just any processing company that is owned by one particular businessman or woman in the Province. This is a company that is owned by the fisher people themselves. They are the ultimate shareholders in this company. Mr. Speaker, what they are telling me is that this does not fit with how they run their operations and it is going to have a detrimental impact on what happens to their plants.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they told me they had not been consulted, and they had not written to the department themselves because after reading the Cashin Report they were under the assumption that they would be exempt based on the recommendation. From that, Mr. Speaker, they understood that government was accepting the recommendations of the Cashin Report, and in accepting them they would be accepting the fact that Labrador would be exempt. Therefore, they did not write to the minister, they did not make any proposals to the department, they did not come to say, can we do something that is going to be a little bit different, because they understood, until yesterday, that they were going to be exempt.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. I have a problem, a huge problem, because I really do believe that the intention of this bill in coming forward is to create stability in the industry, is hopefully to end the chaos that we have been experiencing, and is hopefully to provide for some better collaboration between all players in the industry in order to continue with probably one of the wealthiest and most returnable resources that we can provide to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What is unfortunate about all this is that because it was not well-thought-out in terms of what the impact was going to be in the Labrador part of the Province, I have a huge problem with it. I have an even bigger problem - I can understand to a certain degree that government had not consulted with the company or the people in that area to notice, but the union consults with these people every day. They consult with them every single day. Why did they not pick up on this and recommend this knowing that it is their members, fisher people, who are the actual shareholders in these companies, who operate these companies on the Coast of Labrador, knowing that they need the flexibility especially in the shrimp, crab and cod industry, which are the three main species that are going to impact them?

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? They are so upset. I talked to two people today from my district who are affiliated with this company and they are so upset over what has happened here between the government and the union in bringing this forward without giving consideration to Labrador, that they actually said to me: We may have to walk away and form our own union here if we are not going to be represented any better than this. I have never heard that, Mr. Speaker, in my life, coming from people in the industry, in my district, because they were always big supporters of the union movement and big supporters of how it worked and how it was done.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue for us. I can only appeal to the minister today because the minister said earlier in his comments that he knows if there are amendments that will have to be made to the act to be more accommodating, to provide better stability to the industry, he is certainly open to that. He said that in his opening comments. He also said that he is making an effort here and it may not do everything that he wants it to do immediately but he is trying his best. I really need to appeal to him to seriously look at how these amendments in the act, how the accreditation for processors and allowing island based processors to negotiate for small co-operative owned companies and fish plants in Labrador, how it is going to impact the industry in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I really think that Labrador should be exempt from the amendments that are being brought forward here today and I will be proposing an amendment as we move into the committee sitting of the House of Assembly, but I certainly wanted to point out that the operations in that area are quite different from other areas of the Province. I really wanted to point out the fact that in years when the industry has been most volatile, like in 2002 and 2003, when you had a complete industry shutdown across the Island part of the Province, that Labrador plants did continue to process and operate and provide employment because they could do that under the agreements that were there. I think it is important that flexibility be there and that they still have the opportunity, especially when it comes to shrimp, crab and cod, which are the three main species that they depend upon right now in that particular area.

So, I will await the minister's comments in terms of what he can do to be more accommodating to them at this stage in the bill and I will certainly be proposing an amendment in the committee sitting.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Your Honour, I rise to close debate on second reading. I realize, where I have spoken before, I need approval to do that. I have spoken to the Opposition House Leader and I understand that it is by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Deputy Premier have leave to close the debate on Bill 73?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity, in closing the debate, to speak to the issues raised by my friend, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because they are unique and they are important, and we certainly recognize that.

Let me perhaps take a moment or so to tell the House why we are where we are at this moment. There has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am going to let that go over my head. I do not let a lot of barbs from the other side go over my head but I am going to let that one go.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves - historically, what has happened, the hon. member is right, because of the setup of the Labrador Union Shrimp Company and so on, Labrador was exempt from the accreditation process. Now, they pretty well always paid the prices that were negotiated. That is not an issue, but there are a couple of things that I believe have transpired here that are worthy of consideration.

First of all - by the way, if the panel were to decide that Labrador is going to be exempt, all of Labrador is going to be exempt, it can. There is no reason why that cannot be done. The union understands that to be the case. We understand it to be the case. The Labour Relations Agency understands it to be the case. But there are a couple of dynamics that have happened here that need, I think, to be - they do not need to be paramount but they need to be considered.

First of all, when it was brought to my attention that the Labrador Inuit Land Claim settlement area wasn't in the act, in the draft, we corrected that immediately. As we stand today, section 2 makes it very - clause 1, subsection 5, I believe it is - makes it very clear that nothing in this act applies to the Labrador Inuit Land Claim settlement area. What we had proposed in the original act is that to make the act correspond with union certification we would not have the act apply to anything Makkovik and north because that is the way the union certification has taken place historically, traditionally. However, that left out Rigolet and therefore part of the Labrador Inuit Land Claim settlement area. So when the Member for Torngat brought that to my attention, I said: Look, that makes sense. I will discuss it with the officials, and we did and there was no difficulty. So we have rewritten that and that is taken care of.

Now, that brings us to the situation to the Labrador Union Shrimp Company. Here is the reality today in terms of the Labrador Union Shrimp Company and other smaller processors that are situated in Southern Labrador in particular. Right now, if the Labrador Union Shrimp Company and Quinlan and the Barry Group were to apply to the panel for certification, they are a 50 per cent plus 1 in shrimp. Those three can be accredited to negotiate the price for the whole Province in shrimp because, as we speak today, those three group - the Labrador Union Shrimp Company, Quinlan and Barry - process 50 per cent plus1 of shrimp. So that would be binding on everybody, whatever is negotiated by those parties representing those three groups.

The second thing that has changed somewhat - and again I have no difficulty if we are going to have Labrador carved out of this, or if the panel decides that they are going to be carved out of it, that is fine. The other dynamic that has happened in recent times since the road network has expanded along Southern Labrador in particular, there are Labrador-based operations on the Island purchasing fish, whatever species it might be, but they are on the Island purchasing fish, and we know that. That is fine, we have no difficulty with that, but if they process here - if the framework here is to level the playing field and provide a framework, then if there is some company, say, on the Northern Peninsula that wants to go across The Straits and compete for fish in Southern Labrador, how do we say you cannot do it?

MS JONES: (Inaudible) do it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is the whole point. Legally, they could not do it. They may have done it, but legally they could not do it because they were barred from doing it.

If the road network now - and this is going to continue to expand; it is into Southern Labrador now and will eventually be joined up - if the road network is going to make access, as it should, for Labrador buyers to come to the Island and compete for product, then I think it is pretty difficult to say that Island processors or buyers cannot compete for product in Labrador.

Now, if we want to apply the adjacency principle in its purity then we can do that. The panel can say that the accreditation does not apply to any place in Labrador, but in that case you would have to have the quid pro quo of you are confined to your buying and your activity in Labrador.

That is the basis behind it. It is not a hidden agenda to try to create any difficulties. That is why the union understands that to be the case, and it is, the labour relations agency understands that to be the case, but, having said all of that, the panel is going to be something like the Legislature, I guess; we operate under a set of rules here. We are going to define broad parameters for the panel, just as we have a set of rules to operate in the Legislature, but when we decide collectively that we want to throw the rules out the door and do something different, then we can do it. If the panel decides that we are going to leave Labrador out of the accreditation process - and here is why - despite the fact that one fairly significant Labrador player can form a basis of 50 per cent plus 1 for accreditation in one species - for example, shrimp - despite that, then that can take place.

Mr. Speaker, it is our position, having listened to the union on that - and we never did, by the way, say that we were accepting everything in the - never did say, never once publicly did I say, or the Minister Responsible for the labour relations agency say that we were accepting everything in the Cashin report. What we said is that we were accepting the Cashin recommendation on RMS. We did that on the first day the report was released. There are still a whole bunch of things in the Cashin report yet that need to be addressed: fleet separation, fleet rationalization, co-management with the federal government. There are a whole bunch of things left in the Cashin report to address. We never did say to anybody that we were accepting the Cashin report in its totality.

What we tried to do was the hybrid approach that I talked about today, where we found the best level playing ground we could find in consultation with the union and in consultation with the Association of Seafood Producers, and others; we provided an opportunity for others to let us know what their view was. We have raised this issue with the union, and the explanations that we have given are acceptable, as I understand it. I cannot speak for them, obviously, they can speak for themselves, but the explanation for this process that I have given here today has been gone over with them. As far as I know, it is acceptable to them in terms of their membership in Labrador.

That is the basis of it, Mr. Speaker. We can proceed from there. The panel can, if it wishes, make rules that exclude Labrador, but I think that would be appropriate for it to happen in that forum.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I thank members who spoke in second reading. There will probably be other discussions as we go through Committee, but I am very pleased, on behalf of the government, at this point, to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," Bill 73.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 73)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the matters contained in Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2. Shall Clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3. Shall Clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity here. As indicated, in second reading one of the issues that we had some concern with and raised with the minister deals with Clause 3, and it talks about who will be accredited as the bargaining agent for the processors.

I would like to table an amendment to Clause 3 of Bill 73. I have circulated it with the Government House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Maybe before I make any further comments, we could have a ruling if the amendment is in order.

CHAIR: The amendment as put forward by the Member for Burgeo-LaPoile is deemed to be in order. The amendment is as follows: Clause 3 of Bill 73 be amended by striking out the proposed section 13.1(1) and by substituting the following: "13.1(1) Subject to the rules of the board, a processors' organization whose members produce the majority percentage of a fish species and make up a majority of the licenced processors for that species may apply to the board to be accredited as the sole collective bargaining agent for all processors in the Province of that species."

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To speak to the amendment and in particular to the ministers involved here I guess, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the tenor of this I referred to briefly in second reading. I think, with all due respect to the Minister of Fisheries, he missed the point I was trying to make when he made his comments in second reading vis-á-vis dealing with different species. My comments were not directed - and we have absolutely no objection to this board and this panel that is going to be established dealing with species on an individual basis as opposed to what used to be the rule where you dealt with it on an industry-wide basis. So, there is no disagreement with us and that is not where this proposed amendment is coming from.

Where we are talking about the 50 per cent plus 1 here is we are saying, rather than have a possibility where the big three or the big four of the thirty-eight, say, processors, if that is the correct number, whether it is thirty-eight or forty, whatever the number of the total processors are in the Province in a given species, rather than have it possibly subject to manipulation by the 50 plus 1 production rule, whereby only three processors get to be certified as the collective bargaining agent, why not make it ultimately fair, ultimately democratic, by having a two-prong rule as to who can be certified?

What you have suggested, absolutely fine. Whoever produces 50 per cent plus 1 of that species in this Province in the previous year, yes, you must be part of that certified bargaining agent if you want to apply. There is no rule here, by the way, that anybody has to apply, but if you do and you are going to be certified these are the two rules. You have to have 50 plus 1 per cent of the production and you have to have 50 plus 1 per cent of the total number of processors of that species. That requires that you do not get any manipulation from the big two or the big three or the big four. In order to do that, if there are thirty-eight processors in the Province in that species, you must at least have one-half of them plus cooperating.

The minister made a comment, and again I think it is a misinterpretation of what we are saying, He says: We cannot force people to associate, we do not want to force people to associate. We are not suggesting that you have to force anybody to do anything. We agree with what you are trying to do here from a framework perspective, but there is nothing wrong, in fact there is a requirement of labour law, as I understand it, that if you want to represent a certain group in this Province and be certified as the bargaining agent, such as the FFAW, there are formulas, there are rules, there are numbers you must meet in order to become the certified bargaining agent. What is wrong with the logic and the principal of applying that already existing formula to the processors and saying: The same thing applies for you? The FFAW or the CAW, or whatever union in this Province, has to meet certain mathematical formulae to represent a group. All we are suggesting is: Wouldn't it be ultimately fair to insist upon the same thing from these processors? If there are forty of you, 50 plus 1 have to get their act together. That is all we are suggesting here. Do not leave it subject to the manipulation.

I come back again to the minister's comments that, we are going to try it, we are trying out best and we are going to give this a shot. Agreed. There is no disagreement over here, there is no disagreement that we might have to come back next year to tinker with it again. What we are putting forward here is a very principal, very rational I believe, very logical suggestion. If we can anticipate now that, that might be a problem, why don't we fix it? If we find out, for example, that it is not possible for these guys to get the act together and have 50 plus 1 of the producers and 50 plus 1 of the processors as part of it, you might have to come back and tinker with it again.

At least we should have put a fair formula in place for the processors in terms of being certified, the same as we put the formula in for anybody else in this Province who wants to be a certified bargaining agent. You have to represent a certain percentage of the group, not a percentage of what the group produces. I do not know of any rules that say you can only be a member of the FFAW based upon the production. You become certified as a bargaining agent for the FFAW based upon how many people you represent. Once you are certified, then you represent them all. That is all we are suggesting here. We are not trying to be difficult. I perceive this to be a very possible, likely problem when it comes to small processors in this Province being manipulated, and if it is possible why not remove it, that is all I am suggesting, and make it more democratic and then everybody live with that democratic system.

I do not have a problem. The minister made the comment as if we are somehow in disagreement with the fact that they are going to do it on a species-by-species basis. By all means, do it on a species-by-species basis. You should. Our point is directed to who becomes the certified bargaining agent. Because the bottom line is, as the minister quite rightfully said: Nobody may get certified as the bargaining agent.

We are doing two things here. We are saying, if you want to be the certified bargaining agent for the processors, this is what you have to do in one section of this Act. We are saying in another section, if you do not get certified, if you cannot agree amongst yourselves, you cannot get your act together, we are going to create a panel and the panel is going to decide. So there is no problem here anyway. In terms of making that rational democratic formula that applies to every other bargaining agent in this Province, apply it to these processors.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to belabour this point. I understand what the Opposition House Leader is saying and I have some sympathy for it. There is no question about that. The advise that we have from Richard Cashin in particular, and from the Labour Relations Agency in particular, is that the only way this will work - first of all, let me back up. We are hopeful that this framework will lead to a negotiated agreement. That is the best of all possible worlds. We have some pretty draconian stuff in here that will kick in if it doesn't, but we are hopeful that it will lead to a negotiated agreement. We have put a framework in place that hopefully can make that happen, because everybody has drop-dead dates, and if it does not happen then we are going to impose it on you, whether you like it or not, as best we can, as close to final offer arbitration as we can.

The advice I have from Mr. Cashin, from his report, and from the Labour Relations Agency, this will never work if we stray from 50 per cent plus 1 of the species. It will not work if you require 50 per cent plus 1 of the processors in that species. As the hon. gentleman said himself, it might be sixteen or seventeen processors that would have to agree. The advice that we have from all sides of the industry - now, that is the advice we have; you do not have to accept it, but the advice we have, from all sides of the industry - if we stray from 50 per cent plus 1 of the species, and add on 50 per cent plus 1 not only of the species but of the processors who are processing that species, that we will end up every time with an imposed settlement by the panel. That is what we will end up with. I want to be fair, I want to be open, I want to be pragmatic with the Opposition, but, as a minister with some responsibility here for this, I cannot, in good conscience and good faith, acquiesce in the amendment that the Opposition is putting forward.

Our advice from everywhere in the industry, processors and union, is that: Government, this will not work if you move it from 50 per cent plus 1 of the species. Anything else is too cumbersome, we are not going to get there, and we will end up with a panel-imposed price every single time. We do not want to leave that possibility there. We would like for collective bargaining to work. We certainly would like the framework for it to work to be there. Based on that advice from union, from processors, from the Labour Relations Agency, from Mr. Cashin himself, this is why the legislation is crafted the way it is.

Look, if we find that there is another way of doing it, perhaps, after we have had some experience with this, I am open to it , and I am sure the minister is open to it, but for now the preponderance of advice - no, Mr. Chair, that is not correct; it is not the preponderance of advice - the unanimity of advice that we are getting on this particular issue from all parties, both sides of the industry and the Labour Relations Agency, is that this will only work if we go 50 per cent plus 1 of the species. We are not trying to be hard-nosed, not trying to be hard to get along with, not trying to be dictatorial, not trying to be anything only pragmatic and get a framework in place that will work, and this is what we are told will work.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a complicated issue, and I guess it is just as well to spell out what we are asking for, because, Minister, as you know, there are probably a lot of people out there listening to us this afternoon who do not really know or understand what we are talking about, but what you are trying to do is bring two groups together so that you can collectively negotiate a contract. That is usually done with the FFAW and a group of processors. The only certified bargaining agent that we have in the Province right now is the FFAW, and that is for fish harvesters. There is no certified bargaining agent right now for processors - there never has been - but when the group called FANL was in operation they basically acted as the official bargaining agent and was known to be that, even though it was not official.

In order to harvest fish in this Province today you have to belong to the FFAW, I think, under law, just like in order to teach in this Province today you have to be a member of the NLTA. In order to teach, you have to be a part of that union or certified bargaining agent. So, what you are trying to do is, you are trying to get the fish harvesters association to sit down with a group of processors, and it is my understanding, and I am sure it is the understanding of most who know anything about the industry, that this group does not always agree, and it is very difficult for all of them to agree on what they would even be negotiating let alone the price.

The problem we have is, under the legislation, we know that the FFAW is going to be representing the harvesters when they sit at the table but we do not know who is going to be sitting at the table when you go to negotiate for the processors. So, what the minister has come up with, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries, is, those who process 50 plus 1 per cent of a specific species can become the official bargaining agent for the processors.

Well, the problem I have with that is this - and I will take crab - the minister just said, for example, in shrimp, three processors. He said Quinlan's, Barry's, and the shrimp company in Labrador, if the three of them combine or sit around the table and say, listen, we are going to become the official agents for shrimp for the processors, then it will be these three who will control all of the processors who are going to process shrimp. They are going to negotiate on behalf of all of the shrimp processors, whether the other shrimp processors want them to or not.

In the case of crab, I think there is somewhere around thirty-eight processing facilities in the Province. I think that is close enough to it. Of those thirty-eight facilities, I think they are owned by twenty different companies or individuals. So, you have twenty processors out there today and I would hazard to guess that three, if not four of them, the larger ones, if they ban together, can become the official bargaining agent, and I will use an example. You mentioned the three earlier: Barry's, Quinlan's, and the shrimp company. Well, if you look at Barry's, Quinlan's, and Daley's alone, you probably would come up with close to 50 per cent of the crab in the crab fishing industry, the most lucrative, the one that we are really trying to get at here today. Those three, maybe four, if you tag on another processor, they can sit down and come into government and say, we want to be or we are now entitled, under this act, to be the official bargaining agent for the processors. That is four out of twenty. The other sixteen could be out there saying, no, we do not want them to be the official agent for us, for some reasons that might only be known to themselves. They might say, we do not want them to be the official agent for us because they are going to go and negotiate a price and conditions and stuff like that; they do not even need to talk to us.

Some of the smaller companies have a real problem with that. They have a real problem with it, because they are thinking, if this group - and let's be facetious, let's think in the negative - if you have four of the biggest processors in the Province and they are saying we have too many processors out there, what would stop them from sitting at a table - now, you might say it is far-fetched, but it is a possibility - these four processors might sit at a table and say, let's do the number on the other sixteen this year, especially the small ones who are having a bit of financial problem. They cannot afford to pay a lot for crab, so let's go out and jack up the price of crab. When we sit at the table with the fish harvesters this year, the official agent, the FFAW, they can say, let's offer $2 a pound when, in fact, everyone in the industry might know that you cannot offer any more than $1.40, and knowing full well that those other sixteen processors cannot pay $2 a pound and if they are forced to pay it they are going to drive them into bankruptcy.

You might think that is a bit far-fetched, but that is some of the things that some of the processors have been saying to me. They do not like the idea that the four biggest processors in the Province can actually become the official bargaining agent. Now, once they become the official bargaining agent, there is another clause in here that says that they can apply for accreditation to the Labour Relations Board. If you become an accredited official agent for the processors, just like if you are the official agent for the NLTA bargaining unit, then you can write terms and conditions. You can write down terms and conditions that everybody has to abide by in order to be part of that group. Just like today in the FFAW and the NLTA and the nursing association, or any of them, that bargaining agent, or the ones who are officially certified, can write down a whole bunch of rules and regulations under which all of the industry then has to play, all of the processors. They are worried, if they become the accredited body, what some of these rules and regulations might be. I can understand why a lot of the small processors in the Province have a concern about the 50 plus 1 when they already know that a very small number of fish processors can make up 50 plus 1.

In fact, in another species, let's take pelagics, we know who the biggest pelagic producer in this Province is. I don't know if that company makes up 50 per cent of that industry, the pelagic fishery, but it could be conceivable that when they go to negotiate a price for pelagic, one company - maybe not one - could ask to be the official bargaining unit . In pelagics there might be a whole group of fish plants around the Province that buy some herring and buy some mackerel and buy some caplin, but there is one in the Province that is larger than all of them put together, and he could become the official bargaining agent for all of those who buy those species. They have a problem with that because it is weighted in favour of the big guy.

The amendment that my colleague asked to be considered here this afternoon to this bill would say: Okay, that is fine. Those four processors who make up 50 per cent of the crab fishery, that is fine, they can come forward and ask to be accredited. What he is saying is, besides making up 50 per cent of the product that was put through you should also make up 50 per cent of all of the fish processors who produce that particular product. If there are twenty crab processors in the Province who own thirty-eight plants all he is asking to do is, besides saying the group that comes forward and wants to bargain are doing 50 per cent of the product, they should also be 50 per cent of the number of the producers.

I know, Minister, as you said, there is going to be come conflict there, and maybe you won't be able to get ten out of those twenty crab processors to agree, to come together and go forward to government and say, we want to be the official agent. Like my colleague says, that doesn't have to be the case. You say there is a possibility they will never negotiate. Well, if they don't negotiate there is another kicker that Mr. Cashin put into this report and that you are putting into law. If, for example, they can't get 50 per cent of the processors to agree, at the end of the day the panel that you are going to select yourselves can make the decisions. So, it is in the best interests of that group to come together. In fact, I would say it would strengthen your legislation rather than weaken it, because it would be in the best interests of those processors to come together as a group and agree that, boys, listen, the only way we are even going to be allowed to sit at the table to negotiate price is if we agree, or at least 50 per cent of the numbers of us, agree that we are going to go forward and ask government to be a bargaining agent. At the end of the day, whether they come forward or not, we are still going to have a fishery and we are still going to have a price set because that is what your panel is going to do.

So, I say to protect the smaller people in the industry, the smaller processor in the industry - they are the ones that are in my district and other districts in the Province. I would go so far as to say, minister, they are the same ones that are in your district. They are the small processors -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, that is right. The same one is in my district, in shrimp. The small processor who does not carry a lot of weight in that association of seafood processors. I do not even know if he is a member. He carries very little weight in there when he is stacked up against the four big guys who are going to make all the decisions. All they have to do - they do not even need to go to a board office or anywhere. They can have a cocktail at one of their houses and determine that we are going to be the bargaining agent and we are going to be the ones who are going to go forward and ask the government to be the official board agent and then they are going to ask for accreditation. They are going to sit down then and make rules and regulations that are going to be enforced upon the other sixteen processors in the Province. To me, that is not fair. We live in a democracy and I think that we should strive to come as close to what is democratic as we possibly can.

Minister, all I ask is that you reconsider and ask for the 50 per cent of the processors and keep the 50 plus 1 per cent of the product in there as well.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would certainly like to say a few words on this. I have listened very carefully to what has been said on both sides here about this. There has been some talk of democracy. I know we are all interested in democracy, in theory at least, in this Province. Let me suggest that democracy, when it comes to fish companies, is not the same as democracy when it comes to individuals. Just because you have twenty companies does not mean that each of those companies ought to have an equal say. It really does not. From individuals - if there are ten individuals or twelve individuals fishing and they are equal individuals, they may well be entitled to an equal say.

What has been said here is that you cannot have the big boys - I do not know if that term was used - the big companies tell the little guys what to do. The reality is, if you follow the rule that has been suggested as an amendment to the act, then a little guy could actually throw the whole thing out because you could have a producer who might produce 2 per cent of the fish and yet that producer - the word he has been using - but these are all companies. They are corporate entities. There could be an individual holding the cards, but they are a corporate entity. So, this corporate entity that produces 2 per cent of the fish, because he is one of - he is the number six of ten, let's say, who are involved in this business, and he can throw the whole thing out. I only have 2 per cent of the product here and we have this accreditation but I do not like what you are doing here. If you are not going to treat me any better I am going to throw your accreditation out the window because I am going to write a letter to the Labour Relations Board saying I want this revoked. I want this revoked. Guess what? The Labour Relations Board would have to revoke the accreditation. They would have to because you no longer meet the requirements of 50 per cent plus 1 of the members. You might have 98 per cent of the fish or the species but you will not be able to be accredited anymore because Mr. 2 per cent or his company no longer wants to play by the rules, or does not like the rules that were made.

That is the opposite side of what you are saying. I have heard what you said and I understand the concept of democracy but democracy does not work this way if you have an individual labelled to upset the apple cart. I will say, and I do not mean this in a mean way, that is the way it is right now. The way it is right now is the way that it continues to be under the legislation. Yes, there has been no accreditation. Nobody has applied for - well, someone applied for accreditation but they withdrew it because they could not keep their organization together. The way it is right now, it is not on a species by species basis, but the previous government recognized the fact that you could not do it on a number of processor's basis, you had to do it on a percentage of the fish basis. It was for all species. You should not have to be able to prove that you had control over all species as opposed to a single species. It was done that way for a reason. Probably getting the same advice from the same people saying: Look, if you do it any other way it is not going to work.

With all due respect to small processors and the fact that they may have different challenges if the price is higher, the fact of the matter is that I do not see - I mean, maybe it would happen, but I cannot see the two or three big producers driving the price up and having to pay for 90 per cent of a particular species at a particular price, which was suggested, high enough to drive somebody out of business on purpose. That may happen. It may happen but there are other laws to prevent that. I mean there are laws of torte and unlawful interference with economic relations and conspiracies, and all kinds of other laws that are out there that might be used to prevent that, or at least to suggest that it should not happen. Secondly, there is the basic law of self-interest that might not work in your favour. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but I believe the consensus is that if you let a small producer, one or two upset the apple cart, then it is not really going to work and you are not going to get the kind of organization that you need.

Now, you may never get anyone apply for accreditation under this system. They may not perceive it to be in their interest. There may be ten different combinations that could get you 50 per cent of a particular species in a given year. What we have seen in the past when FANL disbanded or when other efforts failed, the Fishermen's Union was able to go out and make an agreement with one particular processor that it ended up setting the price for everybody else as they either fell into line with it or they were not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) auto industry.

MR. HARRIS: It happens in the auto industry.

They either fall in line with the price or they do not get any of the fish, or they do not go fishing. That is how strikes have been broken in the past or cessations of business activity, as the act calls it. If the fishermen tie up their boats and they are only going to go fishing for a particular price, well if you do not pay that price you do not get in. This at least provides for an orderly way of dealing with that.

The minister says it happens in the auto industry as a sort of pattern bargaining type of thing and this is really what we are talking about here. In this case the pattern is going to be set by the people who are selling the majority of fish or the majority of a particular species. It may be one or two processors, that may be, but they cannot buy all of a particular species (inaudible) everybody is around the geographic system works.

So I have some sympathy for the argument about democracy, but let me say here and now that democracy does not apply in the world of business. There is no democracy inside a company. How many shares do you own? How many votes you get around the boardroom table depends on how many shares you own in the company. If you have one share in FPI, do not think you are going to influence the affairs of FPI if you are one of fifty shareholders. You are not going to have one-fiftieth of the interest and you are not going to have one-fiftieth of the influence of what goes on at FPI because the persons who collectively own more than 50 per cent of the shares are going to make all of the decisions. Now they cannot trample the minority, and there are rules for that in the legal business world, but it is not a democracy. Business is not one person one vote, it is one share one vote.

In the fishing industry and the operation of this particular collective bargaining regime, the suggestion is being made conceptually in the legislation that whoever has half the fish, whoever bought half the fish last year, they have the majority interest in what the price the fish is going to be next year. It may give them increasing power. It may lead to concentration in the industry. I do not know, it may not. I do not know enough about how the industry works to be able to predict what is going to happen in two or three or five years time. I do know this, that if you set up a situation where two or three small operators can destroy an organization or destroy an accreditation you are creating a recipe for trouble. I think we should avoid it. I know the government in the past avoided it when they first set up this accreditation in the act in the year 2000. It was not this government, it was the previous government. I am not saying that the previous government was any more right than this government, but I think it is there for a good reason and I do not think we should upset it.

I do not support the amendment, although I recognize it is well meaning.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: I was petty well finished my comments, but I am really surprised to hear my socialist friend extolling the virtues of the capitalist system here this afternoon. Realistically, but with no disrespect, I think that to say that a company with 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the crab sector can actually throw this whole thing out, you are misunderstanding what I am saying here, or that a couple of companies with 1 per cent or 2 per cent can do that. I am close to the numbers I think, Minister, when I say there are twenty processors in the Province, four of which can own 50 per cent of the crab or process it. If you go with 50 per cent, you need ten processors to make up 50 per cent, if you go with the recommendation we are making this afternoon. I do not think that even if four or five or six of them had 1 per cent or 2 per cent, they are going to be able to outweigh the wishes of those that are left.

You are saying too, that they can through this whole thing in kilter. What you are forgetting is that they cannot, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, because there is a hammer in this piece of legislation that was not there before, and that is if this group cannot decide on what group is going to represent them at the table then the panel will decide the price and the terms and the conditions of the sale. I might add, this is the first time-

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would take his seat for a minute. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I ask members if they would stop their conversations in the Chamber or be kind enough to take them outside, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If they listened we might have to discuss this again in a few minutes, because the points I am making probably will not be heard and then we will have someone standing up and making the points that the Member for Signal Hill just made a few minutes ago.

What we have right now, for the first time in the history of this Province, as far as I know, will be an opportunity for a fish processing company to be the accredited agent of the processors. We have never had it before. You can correct me if I am wrong, minister, but I do not think that we have ever had a group of processors who have been accredited. Under this legislation they will be accredited and they will be able to come up with terms and conditions that will govern an association to processors, and that means all processors.

What the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is forgetting is that we would not have an FFAW today if less than 50 per cent of its members voted against it. You are not going to have an FFAW today that is representative of every single fish harvester in this Province based on 30 per cent of the total. If only 30 per cent of the fish harvesters in this Province said that they were going to form a union and their wishes were going to be spread over every other fish harvester in the Province we would not have a union. Why can't we have something similar put upon the fish processors in the Province? If they want to come to a table, sit down and negotiate price, or any other thing that deals with the fishery, tell them that they cannot sit down unless 50 per cent of them plus 1 come to the table.

I do not think my colleague heard me when I just said that. What I said is, we would not have a Fishermen's Union today representing all fishermen and fish harvesters in the Province if 30 per cent of the fish harvesters could sit down and determine that we are going to set up a union under which every single fish harvester in the Province had to obey. That is how the Fishermen's Union came about. The majority of fish harvesters in the Province agreed that they were going to form a union. Right now, we are going to have four out of twenty processors who are going to come forward and say, yes, we want to form this association. All of our rules and regulations have to be binding on all twenty. To me, that is not democracy. It is something more than democracy that we are talking about here. It is the majority rule.

I think you missed the point, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I have discussed this with the head of the FFAW. He said it is not a bad concept that you are talking about and I can understand where you are coming from, but it might be difficult to get 50 per cent of the processors to come on side.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been told that it is impossible.

MR. REID: The minister is saying that he has been told that it would be impossible. If it is impossible, what about it? You have your panel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Maybe they might come to their senses in future years, that if they do not want to be dictated to -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. REID: If, for example, in the public service of this Province, if the public service of this Province was only made up of one-third of the people in this Province who are working for the government who want to be part of NAPE or CUPE, I do not think the government would be sitting down negotiating contracts with them. They would want a bit more than one-third of the total members represented at the table. Here is the problem I have with it. All we are asking is that 50 per cent of the processors agree that they want to become the bargaining agent for the harvesters or the processors in the Province. That is all we are asking for. How can you inflict the will of a minority upon a majority? That is what you are doing regardless of what percentage.

The Member for Quidi Vidi-Signal Hill said: Oh, then we could have a company with 2 per cent of the total products throwing all of this out of kilter and everything else. No, we don't, because we still could rely on the panel to beat some sense into that crowd and tell them that it is in their own best interest.

The Minister of Fisheries laughs. All through the Cashin report and every statement that I have heard him say, and every statement that I heard the previous minister say: We have to have more co-operation in the industry. People have to come together and come to grips with the attitude that we have to have more co-operation. Now he is telling me that it is literally impossible, not improbable, impossible, for a group of fish processors in this Province to come to an agreement. Not even all of them, 50 per cent of them. If that is the case, what are you worried about? Have the panel rule, I say to the minister. All we are asking is that you submit, along with the 50 plus 1 percent of the total product, 50 per cent of the processors.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not really want to get into a big long dissertation on democracy, but I want to say this. There is a very big difference between an individual and democracy as it affects individuals, and the notion of corporations as if they were individuals. There is a very big difference. When you are talking about the members of the Fishermen's Union or any other union saying that they want to be represented, yes, they are all ordinary workers, Mr. Chairman. Whether they work as bus drivers, or whether they work in the fishing industry, or whether they work in the auto industry, or whether they work for the government, they are individuals who have individual jobs and they have their wages and work conditions, and they have an individual right to participate in a union and help make an agreement for themselves. Each of them as individuals are affected by it and democracy plays a role.

When you come to a company, Mr. Speaker, and an industry, you are not talking about equality. Equality applies to individuals. Individuals have equal rights with one another; companies do not. They do not in reality, they do not in law, there are different kinds of companies. So, if you are in a business that has multi shareholders, a whole bunch of individuals own that company but no one asks how many shareholders are there, let's take a vote amongst the shareholders. They do not say, well, if we have - if you take any publicly-traded company, you might have 5,000 shareholders but it might turn around that only fifteen of them own 45 per cent of the shares. Check out who owns Husky Oil. Husky Oil is a publicly-traded company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and 89 per cent or 79 per cent of the shares are owned by one man. You can go buy shares if you want. You can even go and vote at the annual meeting. You can buy shares. Anybody can buy shares on the stock market. You can probably go to their annual meeting and have a vote, and your share is worth one vote. The man who own 79 per cent of the shares has 79 per cent of the votes.

When you get to the corporate world, democracy does not operate on equality of individuals. It is equality of money and power and control, so the same principles do not apply. I am not saying that I am a fan of that system, but I am saying that is the system. That is the reality. If you are a member a co-op, it is a different story. I am a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, as one member one vote in the credit union. Each member, no matter how many shares they have - and you can buy shares in the credit union - you only have one vote. It does not work that way in a corporation, and it does not work that way in the fishing industry, because you do have a totally different dynamic operating in the fishing industry in this Province than you have in a majority-ruled democracy or an organization of individuals.

All I am saying is that dynamic is totally different, and you cannot sit down and say we are going to have a fishing industry that is twenty processors so the majority of them can make the decisions, because the majority of them might not have the sufficient - they might not be big enough players. There may be that there are 15,000 fishermen or fish harvesters in the Province and they are not dealing with all twenty of these people. Most of them are dealing with a handful of companies.

The whole notion is that the people who represent the bulk of the industry, they are the ones who are going to have the significant ability to set the prices, and everybody else is going to be bound by them, because they have the economic power to do so. The protections of the system are there - are supposed to be there - for the union, and they are supposed to be there for the fish harvesters.

The reason this legislation is being put in place in the first place, the reason the legislation is here, is to protect the fish harvesters to have some stability in the industry and to have a price that can be relied upon without having the whole system fall apart, and the chaos that we can have in the industry happens when you have people out there doing things that have caused problems and disruption, making separate deals, imposing their will on people. The stronger the bargaining relationship is, the better deals you are going to get, the better the industry is going to be. So, to suggest that the small players, the majority rules applies to this is too simplistic in my view. It is too simplistic. It does not apply to the industry and it is not a question of democratic values being taken away from the fish processors. It is a question of recognizing the economic reality of the industry, and recognizing that there may well be a small number of players who control the industry but they are going to have to abide by these rules now. They cannot go out and do what they like. They cannot upset the applecart as big players or as small players, and, as someone said, it is a practical solution. I think it is a practical solution and I think it will work. We will find out, only time will tell, but if we put in something that I think is a potential recipe for a disruption by one or two small players, or even three or four small players, then I think we should avoid it. It was avoided in the past when the notion of accrediting the fish processors was thought about and put in legislation, and I do not think we should experiment with it now and hope for the best. I think if we start this now we will see what happens. The suggestion has been that if you require a majority of the fish processors you are not going to have any kind of organization and you are not necessarily going to have any kind of a deal. If that is the case, then we should not try and put together rules and obligations that cannot lead to success.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. It is not a debate, really, about democracy. I think we are trying to impose notions of individual equality upon corporations, and I do not think it works.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment as put forward to clause 3 of Bill 73, by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to rise to make an amendment to clause 5. I will propose the amendment so you can have a look at it and then I can speak to it after.

That subclause 5(5) of Bill 73 is deleted and the following substituted. "(5) In this Act, except in paragraphs 2 (1) (a) and (i) and section 24, a reference to the province does not include Labrador."

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair understands that there is some confusion with the amendment as put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I think the amendment should have been made in a clause that we have already passed, which is clause 1.

In the spirit of fairness, I think, if I am not mistaken - I could be wrong - in clause 1, section 5(5), I believe, on page 6 -

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Even though we have passed it, I think it would be important, for the sake of the debate, if we wish - and we would have to do this by leave with all members - I am certainly prepared, on behalf of the government, to give leave, to revert to clause 1, section 5(5) on page 6 of the bill, to deal with the amendment that the member has put forward, if that is okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Can we deal with clause 5, since clause 5 is on the docket right now? Can we ask if clause 5 can be carried and then revert?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, may I make a suggestion?

It is my understanding - well, we will deal with clause 5. Maybe what we will do, if I can so propose in my capacity as the House Leader here, why don't we deal with all the clauses on a go-forward basis and, if there are no other amendments, which I understand there may not be any other amendments, then come back to clause 1 for the debate on the amendment. That way, then, we have isolated all the other clauses, the rest of the bill is completed. Then we can come back to clause 1, let the member put her amendment forward and let a debate, as it normally would happen, ten and ten, occur between the member and the minister or any other members who may wish to participate in that amendment.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to revert back to clause 1 for the amendment as put forward?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair needs direction again from the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: We have agreed, Mr. Chair, to move forward with clause 5 and the remainder of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis. Then, once all of that is completed, we will come back, by leave, to deal with the amendment put forward in clause 1 section 5(5) on page 6 of Bill 73.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 5 to 24 carry? All those in favour, ‘aye'.

Obviously, I say to the hon. House Leader, this is not going to work.

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

MR. HARRIS: I did not think the Government House Leader was proposing that we just pass everything and go back to (inaudible). We were expecting to have debate on some of the other parts even though there are no amendments yet on the floor concerning them. In that context, I do want to ask the minister directly, whether the government's intention was that this price-setting panel should have fairly broad powers or not. I know we are referring to it as a price-setting panel. It is a Standing Price-Setting Panel, but it is also a panel that has the power - and I guess this debate would have happened under clause 8 if we actually went one by one. I do note that the panel that is established here is called the Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel, a long unwieldy name I might add, but nevertheless we are stuck with it now because the government has chosen to adopt the wording of Richard Cashin and called it a Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel.

This panel, Mr. Speaker, is obviously key to this legislation and is going to have enormous power to establish price, to establish so-called drop dead dates for negotiations to commence between the parties, and if they are not commenced by a certain time to have the power to impose prices. That is an extremely strong power. The intention of Mr. Cashin, in his report, was certainly that the board would have, in addition to that, power to deal with any unresolved matters. I am reading from page 85of Mr. Cashin's report, the Summary of Recommendations. The board should have the power " to deal with any unresolved matters pertaining to the conduct of the fishery that either party or the government may refer to it for a binding decision. These would include inter alia....", which is some kind of Latin for amongst other things ".... : trip limits, quality requirements, marketing strategies, the use of tied sales conditions, sharing arrangements etc. that influence the commercial conduct of harvesting and processing operations."

Mr. Cashin envisaged a broader set of powers and the government, in this legislation, particularly in clause 8, in setting out the powers of the board or the duties of the board said that the duties are to facilitate access to collective bargaining et cetera, and providing marketing information to establish criteria for collective bargaining, to provide assistance et cetera. What is interesting here is it says: "to set prices and conditions of sale for fish species where parties have engaged in collective bargaining and have been unable to agree or they refuse to engage in collective bargaining." So, the powers vis-á-vis collective bargaining of the board seem to be limited to the setting of prices and conditions of sale for fish.

I what I want to know, and I guess this is really a question to you, Mr. Minister: Does this mean that the panel would be able to deal with unresolved matters that involve things like trip limits, quality requirements, tied sale conditions, sharing arrangements, et cetera? Is the board going to have the power to decide that? Because what I am concerned about here is that, you know, do we want a collective bargaining process that tries to solve some of the other problems, quality problems. For example, we have circumstances where someone says, I will only sell you my crab if you are going to buy my cod or my flounder or whatever else I have here because I am in a small place. Are these things that the ministry and the government intend that the panel would have the right to deal with or are they only dealing with the limited notion of conditions of sale?

One of the problems that Mr. Cashin pointed out in his report was that as a result of the mechanisms that we have had, the strike and lockout situation, the only thing that really got bargained was the price of fish. The collective bargaining, you could not have more content, you could not solve some of the other the problems, you could not deal with the issue of quality, hard to pay a premium for quality. Those kinds of issues were pretty hard to resolve when it was an all or nothing, are we going to fish or are we not going to fish, and the only thing at issue became the price of fish. Is it government's intention to leave it that way with the panel, or is it the intention that the panel will have the power under what is called conditions of sale? Does that mean conditions of sale could deal with other issues, quality issues, or is it restricted to the issue of price and the time of delivery and various other matters, who pays for the cost of trucking or whatever?

Can the minister elaborate on that, because I think it is a really important question? Mr. Cashin delved into it and a man with his experience obviously in collective bargaining and an interest in the fishery wanted to see collective bargaining that had more content than just price. Maybe the minister can address that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again I thank the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for his observations here.

Mr. Speaker, what the panel will be permitted to do is outlined in section 19.2 on page 11 of the bill. I think I said earlier in the debate today, when I spoke on second reading, not everything included in the Cashin report as it relates to collective bargaining, as it relates to matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as it relates to a whole range of things, have been accepted and put into this bill as it stands today. This bill, as it stands today, has a primary focus of getting a price set for fish by a drop dead date, by April 1. Therefore, in order to facilitate that there are certain things that the panel will provide to all parties.

I suppose if we still had the old fishing industry advisory board, some of the duties that we are assigning to the panel here now in terms of market intelligence and that kind of thing would have been done by that group before it was disbanded. Those are a lot of the things that the old board did in terms of providing information on the Boston blue sheet price for lobster and that kind of thing.

There has to be some market intelligence made available here, and we are saying that the panel has the jurisdiction and the legislative mandate to do that. We are saying that the panel can establish a criteria that is not inconsistent with the Act. We are saying that the panel can provide assistance to parties engaged in the Collective Bargaining Act. Assistance. Help them if they need help. Provide market intelligence to them if they need market intelligence. Facilitate them getting together and getting the collective bargaining process and if they can reach an agreement on everything, God bless us. If they can reach an agreement on everything, that is the ideal world. But we are saying that just in case, because of our past experience - in particular, in terms of price and conditions of sale. In case the parties on their own, with the assistance of the labour agency or in assistance with the panel, if they cannot reach an agreement by certain dates for different fisheries - they will set drop dead dates. If they cannot reach an agreement on price and condition of sale, not on trips or production limits or anything like that, but on price and condition of sale, if you cannot do that, then if both parties agree, we are going to ask you to put your best foot forward on their Final Offer Selection and we will do the job for you. Now, that is it. There are other areas that Mr. Cashin - and we may, as we get experience perhaps, I am not discounting the fact - there may be a time in the future as we get experience working with this kind of operation, and both parties might come to us and say there are other things we would like this panel to do, but, for now, the drop dead issues are price and condition of sale.

Also, Mr. Chair, for greater clarity, just in case anybody wanted to read something into the Cashin recommendations regarding production limits and RMS, just in case somebody wanted to read something into that. For greater clarity we have included, at the request of certainly one particular party to all of this, we have included section 19.3 which says: "The panel shall not..." - not may not, cannot, might not - "...have authority with respect to (a) raw material shares; or (b) production limits." These issues are beyond your jurisdiction. They are beyond your competence. You cannot advise on them or take them under consideration. They are outside of your jurisdiction. You are not set up for it, so you cannot do it.

So, the bottom line is doing whatever they have to do in terms of market intelligence in co-operation with the department, providing assistance to the Labour Relations Agency in co-operation with that department to make it possible to arrive at a price by a drop dead date and a condition of sale by a drop dead date. That is everything else that we want to say about this panel. I suppose it could be called window dressing, but the bottom line, coming to the chase, that is what the panel will do.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 5 to 24 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 5 to 24 are carried.

On motion, clauses 5 through 24 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Committee have leave to revert to clause 1?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is an amendment put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The Chair will read the amendment into the record.

The amendment states that clause 1(5) of Bill 73 is deleted and the following substituted:

"(5) In this Act, except in paragraphs 2 (1) (a) and (i) and section 24, a reference to the province does not include Labrador."

The Chair deems that this amendment is in order.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to speak to the amendment for a few minutes. In the second reading of the bill I think I highlighted and outlined the reasons that I feel this amendment is particularly important at this particular time.

I understand the minister, in his response, did make a couple of comments. In his comments I sensed that he certainly understood the situation that we are being faced with here with these amendments and how it could impact upon processors in that particular area. Mr. Chairman, he also used an example in terms of how a company like the shrimp company could become a part of an accredited bargaining agent. He talked about if they had joined with Quinlans, and I think Barry Group of Companies, then they would make up a 50 plus 1 per cent of the allocation of shrimp and therefore could be an accredited bargaining agency for shrimp in the Province with the union.

Mr. Chairman, the point that I am trying to make is this. Even though they can join with these other processors, they are island-based processors and their seasons are different. Their seasons of operation, a lot of their conditions of operation are different, very different from Labrador. As you know, there is only one shrimp plant in Labrador. To my knowledge, as of today - I do not know if it is officially announced and all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted, but to my knowledge, officially today, that plant is solely owned by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and is no longer into a partnership agreement with the Barry Group of Companies. So, Mr. Chairman, it is very different. It is like comparing apples and oranges, in fact. It does not give any reassurances in terms of the issues and the problems that I have raised with regard to these particular amendments today.

The other issue that the minister talked about was competing for product and how Labrador companies, now with the road - well, the reality is this. The road between Red Bay and L'Anse au Clair have been there for thirty years and the only competition out of Labrador to the Island is coming from The Straits area and it has been done for years and years and years. It is not anything that is new. It has nothing to do with a highway going through Labrador. In fact, there has always been negotiation of fish between companies in the Gulf for a long time, back and forth across the Strait of Belle Isle and into the 4RS area. So, that is nothing new.

I do not think that we should confuse what I am asking here today with the competition for product, because competition for product will be determined based on the conditions of sale, based on guidelines that will be outlined by the panel that the government appoints. So, in my mind, that is not a factor that actually enters into this particular equation. So, I think that what you would have to do is, basically, look at it from the point of view of how it is going to affect policy and procedure and operations of these particular companies. That was what I was outlining, because we know that in the last four or five years, that Final Offer Selection negotiations or collective bargaining negotiations or arbitrated decisions that were made in the fishing industry between the unions and the processing sector have not always fit in the scope of production in Labrador plants. That is the point that I am making. By bringing this in today, what you are doing is you are, in essence, tying their hands. You are not allowing for any flexibility like they have had in previous years.

I used a couple of examples about 2002 in the shrimp industry, where all the plants across the Island were closed down and Labrador was the one plant that stayed open. The reason was because they have to produce shrimp and process it in the summer months when all the other operators are opting to close down the processing sector and the harvesting sector for shrimp in those months for quality reasons. The difference in Labrador, being the water temperature is colder, the conditions are different and therefore the operations are different. I do not think you can tie it to the competition for product because the competition for product, who buys where and all of that stuff, is always going to be there. I think it is something that would be looked at under the guidelines that would be set out by the panel. I do not think it can be directly linked to what is going on here in this particular legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment should be made in light of those factors. I think it should be made, because everybody knows that when you have interest based bargaining you do not know what the outcome is going to be. If there are parameters there that allow you to lock in certain situations, you do not know what the situation is going to be. The variables that we do know is that, on the Island portion of the Province, the fishery can start earlier, the processing can start earlier than it can in Labrador. We also know that there are different times in different season when fishing is better between the two, and those things are what is going to drive the collective bargaining or drive the industry in Labrador as a whole.

When it comes to the price setting piece to it, that is not an issue. Whatever prices that have always been settled under final offer selection or arbitrated by an independent arbitrator or panel were always the prices that were followed by the Labrador-based companies. They did not go outside of that. They respected those particular agreements. So this is a different situation, completely different, and it is one that certainly cannot be looked at in terms of competition for product. It certainly cannot be looked at in the context of one co-operative company with small allocations in processing in Labrador depending upon the partnership of larger companies on the Island to support terms and conditions that they want as part of a negotiation or collective bargaining.

Mr. Chairman, I am really disappointed, and I have to say this, I am so disappointed, that the FFAW has not seen fit to make a formal request to the minister to have this exempt. In fact, I am absolutely appalled, I am astonished, that they have supported this and supported having Labrador added to this bill because it is absolutely ridiculous, and even more ridiculous coming from them because they are the group that has worked with the fisherpeople and worked with this company that is owned by fisherpeople for decades. They know the issues more intimately than anyone else, and I cannot believe that the FFAW and the head of the union today have decided to go against the recommendation in the Cashin report as it relates to Labrador, and ask that government make sure that it applies. I think that is totally ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, furthermore than that, they are doing an injustice to those members in Labrador who are part of their union. It is a complete injustice, and I can guarantee you one thing: that the people in my district who have been part of that union have been faithful followers from the beginning. This is a company that they built up as shareholders. They built it up to be able to provide employment in the area, to create jobs, and to be able to have a viable fishing industry. Now, Mr. Chairman, they are not only being subject to the conditions that are being laid out by government who, Mr. Chairman, I do not think have thought this out very well when it comes to the Labrador piece in it, I really do not, and I think there needs to be an amendment to accommodate them.

Mr. Chairman, the union has failed them as well, and I think that is really disgusting, and I know the shareholders in the shrimp company, the fisherpeople who hold the shares in that company today, are not pleased. They are not one bit pleased that this legislation is going to go through and that it is going to impact upon their company - a company, Mr. Chairman, that is already having a difficult time because of reductions in quotas and changes in the fishing industry as it is. This is just going to place them in a much more volatile position - a position, Mr. Chairman, where they are going to be at the beck and call of Island-based processors that will negotiate collective agreements and conditions of agreements that will be outlined in terms of how they can run their operations.

That is unacceptable and it is unfair, and that is why I think this legislation should be amended, despite what the union is saying, despite what FFAW is saying, and despite whatever recommendations were made to the government by the Labour Relations Board; because, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Cashin got it right. He is the one who put the thorough thought and work into all of this and put the detail into it. He made a recommendation, and he made it for a reason: because he knew that it had to be included in order to protect this company and those small operations in that part of our Province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask, in line with what Mr. Cashin recommended in his report, that the following amendment would be passed through the House of Assembly and that Labrador would indeed be exempt from the accreditation.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am going to let my colleague, obviously, speak to the amendment in his role as Deputy Premier and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but I do want to just bring to the attention, according to the Standing Orders of the House, at 5:30 p.m., if I do not put the motion, we automatically come back at 10:00 p.m., so what I am proposing is that by agreement we agree to stop the clock, conclude the debate, and then move on from there. I will seek some guidance and hopefully some unanimity on my request.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the consent of the Committee that the clock stop at 5:30 p.m. and we continue with the debate on Bill 73?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to repeat everything that I said earlier in second reading debate on this matter, except to say that I understand the concern that has been shared here with us by our colleague who represents the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in particular, as it relates to onshore processing activity in Labrador. There is no intention here to create any difficulty for the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company or any other operator that is outside of the Inuit Land Claims settlement area, no intention.

If, by some chance, Mr. Chairman, there is a difficulty here we will fix it. This legislation is the best information that we had available to us at the time that it was drafted. If we are wrong, we will fix it. If there is a glitch, we will fix it. We do not think it is necessary to do it now, Mr. Chairman, and here is why: the hon. member said that the operators in Labrador operated last year when the Island was closed down. Nothing will change under this. There is no accreditation. There is only accreditation based on species, 50 per cent plus 1, for collective bargaining purposes. There is no accreditation for anything else other than the item of price. The legislative regime here, the member tell us, and I understand it to be a fact, that price is not the issue. What is going to happen here is, at the end of the day, if a collective bargained price cannot be put in place there will be a price and condition of sale put in place by this legislation that will apply to everybody except processors who are located in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims settlement areas. It will apply to everybody in the Province. That is all it is.

The member is telling us that the operators in Labrador, particularly the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, always paid that price anyway. Therefore, from my perspective, the perspective of the government and the fishing industry, we do not see how this is going to create any difficulty for anybody in Labrador, southern Labrador in particular, over and above what it is today.

Having said that, very similar companies are already part of the Association of Seafood Producers. Fogo Island Co-op, for example, I think are still a member. The Fogo Island Co-op operates very much like the Labrador Union Shrimp Company, very much like it, almost identical, Mr. Chair. It has some of its own quotas including shrimp, like the Labrador Union Shrimp Company does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not think the date of opening has anything to do with it, with all due respect, I say to my colleague. It does not matter if you do not open until August. When you open you are going to open under a price and condition of sales mechanism that is set by the board if it cannot be bargained collectively. That is what this is all about. You can open in April, you can open in May, you can open in June. If the ice conditions are such God forbid that you cannot get open until July, you are going to open under a price and condition of sale agreement that if it could not be bargained collectively, it is going to be put in place at the end of the day by the panel.

Mr. Chair, there is nothing more untoward than that. There is no hidden agenda trying to create any difficulty for any operator anywhere in the Province. It is to put a framework in place that at the end of the day there will be a price and there will be conditions of sales and the industry can open on time for that area; on time for the Island, maybe the middle of April. The Northeast Coast could be full of ice and it might be the last of April or the middle of May. In Labrador it may be later again. The whole idea here is on time, a set of conditions that allow the drop-dead dates to occur if it cannot be agreed to from the collective bargaining perspective. It is no more complicated than that in our view.

If we are wrong, let me say again and let me reiterate for everybody who might be listening, Mr. Chair, if we are wrong we will fix it. We will be back here again, I suppose, in a couple of weeks time and we will always be able to find a way to fix it if there is a problem, but we do not think there is, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 1, sub-clause 5, as put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to Bill 73.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The Chair deems the amendment defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 73 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 73 carried, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, passed without amendment. When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 73 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 73)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 73)

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

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

I want to compliment all members of the House for the debate today and for, I guess, taking the time to understand this piece of legislation prior to coming to the House so the debate was an informed one, and understanding, I guess, ultimately, how important this piece of legislation is, and how time-sensitive it was, and how important it obviously is to the fishing industry. I do want to comment and to say to my colleagues opposite, I thank them profusely for their co-operation in this matter.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move the adjournment of the House to the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House, on its adjournment, be at the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

This House is now adjourned at the call of the Chair.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.