MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members’ Day, the Chair will now hear the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North as he presents his private member’s resolution.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to rise and share this private member’s motion on an interim fishery compensation and support program.

WHEREAS there is a crisis in the fishing industry of our Province; and

WHEREAS government’s focussed strategy to address these escalating problems has been to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, referred to as MOU, with only two key players in the industry; and

WHEREAS it has been nearly a year with no significant and practical progress on this MOU and there are concerns about its ultimate effectiveness; and

WHEREAS the process does not include a community voice or the federal government; and

WHEREAS the Province failed to allocate any funding to launch strategies of the MOU process; and

WHEREAS restructuring is occurring now, including fish plants closing and license transfers occurring, affecting people’s livelihoods and the economic viability of rural communities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to launch an interim program and action plan that would assist fish plant workers and communities affected, which would include an Early Retirement Package, a Workers Adjustment Program and a Community Investment Initiative to assist in this transitional process.

Mr. Speaker, there was a quote that I saw online, actually, in a little briefing. It was from an Open Line show caller back in April who said that the fishery really is about people. Certainly, that is a true statement. It is all about our people, and that is why this afternoon I am pleased to be able to stand on behalf of the Official Opposition to present to the Members of the House of Assembly this private member’s motion.

The troubled 2010 fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is a puzzle that really begs to be fitted together with the smartest pieces to ensure that its short-term survival and long-term future is evident for the benefit of people and of our communities, not only today but also into our future.

The 2009 fisheries Year in Review report that was presented by the government revealed that there was close to a 22 per cent decline in total production from 2008-2009. That is a statistic that we obviously are concerned about, and this statistic alone should be a wake-up call for both federal and provincial governments, really, to take a more bold and a more holistic approach to fishery recovery and to really reshaping the industry as is warranted today.

The annual turmoil in both the snow crab and the shrimp fisheries in this Province also highlight the need to really tackle this evolution head on and with all guns blazing, so to speak. The fact is that there has been a significant loss of people since 1992, in the collapse of our cod fishery, with very few of them coming back. The truth is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues to decline, and it should also heighten our sense of urgency to address this complex issue.

In response to the announced closure of the Jackson’s Arm plant just a few weeks ago, I challenge the Minister of Fisheries in the House of Assembly on what government is prepared to do to help communities like Jackson’s Arm. It is just an example, really, of what is going to happen in our Province, and how they deal with plant closures in the lead-up to the MOU being actualized. The people and community of Jackson’s Arm epitomize those who really will fall through the cracks while government hangs on to the hat of the MOU agreement, so to speak.

These plant workers have lost their plant this season, and they are fearful that it will be a permanent closure – and I realize that we do not know the outcome of that yet, but that is their fear - and there is no meaningful transitional support to help them make the leap to the future, so to speak.

The most common response that we have received as we have questioned the Minister of Fisheries, when questioned on the issue of investments in communities and so on, like Jackson’s Arm, I quote from Hansard on June 1, when the minister said, "The industry players that are involved in the MOU, those being the FFAW, the ASP and government, are instrumental in bringing about reform in this fishery." I agree with that in principle. He was quick to suggest that the Opposition may not have full faith in the process, but he was certain that, as a minister and as a government, we do.

So, all government can retort to at this point, as far as we can see, is that they have faith in the MOU process, hoping that it will bring about some long-term stability and that it will bring about a better livelihood for the people who are involved in this industry.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition hopes that the MOU will bring about some long-term stability as well. We support in principle what is trying to be accomplished here; however, we have no idea how it is going to play out. It really does not show itself. We do not see it unfolding before us as we reach almost the anniversary date that the minister speaks about sometimes being just a month or so away. As a result of that, as an Opposition party, we do not believe, nor can we accept, that this government should sit back and wait for it to unfold. That would just not be acceptable for those who are facing devastation as it comes down the road.

The reality is that it may take years for this process to unfold. We really do not know that today, so we cannot simply sit back and allow these workers and allow these communities, like Jackson’s Arm and other places, to be at the mercy of restructuring without the benefit of adequate support and without the benefit of long-term strategies.

Fish processing and the workers involved in that industry are within the Province’s jurisdiction. Because of that we are under obligation to look after them as a government, and they deserve such without really having to protest it.

In my district, the plant at Englee, for example, closed back in 2004. While there was some investment into work-making projects and so on, there really has been no investment by the government to entice other industries to the town to see what can be done to help that community recover. I can tell you that today Englee is reeling on its heels as it tries to understand its future and it tries to deal with the devastation of the closing of this all-important industry that it has enjoyed for decades.

The plant in New Ferolle is still not in start-up mode. It has been down since last year; it is into this year with nothing happening. Again, the people are asking the same kind of questions: What is the future of my community? What is the future of me, as an individual, of my family, and my ability to earn income in this community, as I have done for so many years?

If you look at Anchor Point, another community that is in my district and one that is of concern to me and I am sure it would be of concern to all of us in the Province, operating at a considerable reduced capacity compared to last year. As a matter of fact, they just opened on June 3. It used to employ 150 people. Now, 150 people do not sound big in St. John’s, but in Anchor Point 150 people are pretty important to the economy of the town.

Well, today there are approximately 100 people working at Anchor Point. That means one-third of its workforce has gone by the wayside in the past two years. Thirty-five or forty people, or so, of these are basically out of that particular sector, if you will, they are out trying to find other work and so on.

In the first year, three years ago when this new processor took that plant over, these people enjoyed thirteen weeks of work. Last year, they were able to get ten weeks work. This year, last week was the first time that they worked, and I will say what was shift A and shift B. Shift A had twenty-six hours work last week and shift B did not get any. This week, Shift B has nineteen hours work and Shift A will get thirteen hours.

Now, that concerns me, and I am sure it concerns each one of us here this afternoon. Where do we go with that? As we wait for the MOU process to unfold, what does that mean for the people of Englee and other communities like it and so on?

So, one of the shortfalls that I have noted, and we have noted as an Opposition, in this whole MOU process is that there is no community voice at the table. There isn’t anyone really lobbying for the community of Anchor Point and the community of New Ferolle and the community of Jackson’s Arm and so on. That voice isn’t really there in a very strong fashion. If the MOU process holds the future of those communities, as we believe it does, then I believe that as we await that plan, I believe that they have a right to have their voice heard as that process unfolds rather than having their voice heard once the process has unfolded.

Now, there is no doubt that there are some tough decisions that will have to be made in the fishing industry, and we acknowledge that as an Opposition. It is important for those communities to be part of the dialogue that leads to reform and not just the receivers of information once the reform and the decision have been done. These cuts are coming basically in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are happening now. Government needs to be to honestly acknowledge this to get a plan in place as they roll, so to speak, towards the MOU process.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that I put forward today by the Official Opposition called for an interim program. It called for an action plan that would assist fish plant workers and assist the communities in which they live, and this program basically would include three things. I want to speak to them just for a moment.

The first thing that we have asked for in this motion is an early retirement package. Mr. Speaker, this House ought to know by now, I am sure, that we have a large number of our 60 plus clubs, if you will, working at our local fish plants. Quite frankly, they have done an honourable job all of their lives in really helping that industry be what it has been, and helping support this Province in terms of its economy. Mr. Speaker, this group of individuals now find themselves in a situation where they literally do not know where their next dollar is coming from. Their plants are closing, and the question is: Will they have to uproot and move on, and if so, where will they go? Where does a person go at sixty-two years of age who has worked at the local fish plant for the past forty-five years or whatever the case might be? The options are very limited to them. If you try and retrain them, realistically, what can we retrain them to do for the next three or four years?

I have mentioned before, and I will mention again, during the by-election, visiting Englee, one of the things that really remains in my memory, so to speak, and entrenched in my mind, as I recall the by-election process and the excitement and just going through that whole thing, was visiting Englee and going to the municipal building there and visiting a classroom that was set up in the basement, if you will, where they were retraining displaced plant workers to do carpentry work. I spoke to a lady who was sixty-two years of age. For the very first time in her life, she was trying to introduce herself to a carpenter’s square, to the basics of doing carpentry and so on. She was very distraught, quite frankly. Her self-esteem was not as high as it was when she worked in the fish plant and so on. So, we are asking that for people who fit in that category, if you will, that there has to be something that helps them to be honourably introduced to early retirement.

It is not a new thing. If you look back – I have a news release here, back in June of 2004, when the then Minister of Fisheries, Trevor Taylor, who was the MHA in my district, as you all know, he talked about the aging plant workers for Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, and the fact that fish stocks were declining and so on. The quote in his news release is this, it said, "The outlook for plant workers is unclear given that technological innovations continue to reduce the labour demands of the fishing industry." So, that is six years ago that this government has known that there is an issue, in terms of the aging population of plant workers.

We could on from there, in 2007, Premier Williams, during the election campaign or coming close to the election campaign, he expressed concern about the Province’s fish processing industry. He said that the industry would collapse in five years due to an aging workforce and younger workers moving west and so. At that time, the Premier said that in the absence of an early retirement program, there would be a serious problem to the industry. So, he expressed to the federal party leaders at that time for the need for an early retirement initiative, obviously trying to get the federal government on side, and we know that the pleas for that basically fell on deaf ears. That means that the onus then falls back on this government to try to understand what it is that we are going to do with these displaced fish plant workers. I think that an early retirement package is a must in terms of what we do as we get ready for the MOU. We know what is going to happen. We know that there are going to be drastic cuts and things that we probably do not like and we do not need to sit back and wait for that to unfold.

A second thing that I have mentioned in this private member’s motion - I am trying to rush a long a little bit because my time is running out - is a workers’ adjustment program. Again, I saw that last year during the by-election as well. A workers’ adjustment program, looking at displaced older workers, it kind of sheds some light on what the current status of the situation and so on is. Basically, while we have find programs, it is important that these programs are meaningful. It is important that they are not programs - and while it is good to cut brush by the side of the road and it is good to do other things that really keep the face to our Province and so on, I think we need to look for ways that really help it to be more meaningful, if you will.

Also, probably the more important piece of that is the time frame in which we do it. We know, this year, that long before December comes that there is going to be a need for that type of work. So, rather than wait until September and October to try to get for ready, these programs need to be ready for August. We know that an adjustment program is going to be necessary and we can have that in our back pocket, so to speak, have it ready to roll out, give people an opportunity to have their income boosted for that year to where it needs to be and just let it happen.

The last thing that we have mentioned in this private member’s motion is that of community investment initiative. That can take the form of many things but it is important, whether it is investment into a business that may be able to hire four or five of these people who have been displaced by the fishery, or whatever the case might be, it is important that that is allowed to happen.

A couple of examples that I could use, Mr. Speaker, in my district in Shoal Cove there is a seal tanning place there where basically they are doing great work and so on. In the midst of doing a community enhancement investment, probably that is a type of business, if you will, that can be expanded with the help of government with funding available to support these displaced fish plant workers, it can be used to expand that process and so on. So there are many things.

I am pleased this afternoon to present this private member’s motion, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to our debate on it in the next little while.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not suppose there is enough time in this session, and probably for the next two or three weeks, for all of us in this House to get up and debate and to speak about our thoughts on the fishery and where it should head. There are about 500,000 people in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I swear to God, in the last five months I have heard 250,000 different opinions as to how this fishery should be restructured, but with it comes much challenge.

The hon. member who just spoke mentioned that this is about our people. Anybody who – I do not suppose anybody, I think everybody. Everybody in this Province has a strong connection to the fishery, whether they are a banker, whether they are a teacher, whether they are a welder, whether they are a fish harvester or a processor, a plant worker. We all, in this Province, have an attachment to the fishery; we have an attachment to the water. Mr. Speaker, it is in our blood, and anybody who comes to this Province and travels to this Province knows exactly that. In my former portfolio, I remember someone saying that when people come to the Province to visit, they do not come so much to see the urban parts of our Province, the bigger centres. They want to get out and see what is happening in our rural communities and see the fishing equipment and see how that is carried out.

Mr. Speaker, for all of us, we find this issue around the fishery a very, very troubling one. Since I have been involved in this portfolio and in this process called the MOU, there are two questions I have asked people over and over, and I think everybody in the Province should reflect on them a little bit carefully. Question number one: Why is it that we as a Province – it seems that we are the only jurisdiction in the fishery who have what I will call a snarl every spring with the opening of the season. Alaska, who is in the crab fishery, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, that are in the waters adjacent to our Province, they start every spring without any issue. So people need to ask themselves: Why is that? The second thing I think people need to ask themselves is: Why is it that the price of our crab seems to be generally lower than in other jurisdictions?

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you can get to the bottom of those two questions, we will not have a snarl in our fishery every season. Mr. Speaker, we have to move with something that is going to change the shape of this fishery in the Province. There are two things that are involved. I will agree with the member that we do need measures that get people through this particular stage.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment will speak to some of those issues shortly. Because in the case of Jackson’s Arm that the hon. member mentioned, we had started on that anticipating that something was going to happen in Jackson’s Arm. The Member for Humber Valley and the minister and I met this morning, as to what it is we need to do to get in there and support these people immediately. Mr. Speaker, that is the short-term thing and the second thing is the longer term.

Mr. Speaker, we have people working in our plants that I do not know how they survive on the income that they make; a total income of $12,000 to $15,000 annually. That is what they have to operate their households. That is what they have to operate their vehicles, just the ordinary day-to-day operations of living. Mr. Speaker, these people in some ways are, I suppose, ransomed by the situation that they are in. As soon as I say this, that we have too many plants, there is somebody out there who will react and send me an e-mail and say you are wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to invoke a process whereby the parties, the key players in this game have to come up with the action plan to resolve this. To say that there has been inaction, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. I will not say that they are lying or anything like that, but, Mr. Speaker, we have made progress. Meetings are continuing.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, in one of the amendments they said that the government did not support this financially. Mr. Speaker, we put $800,000 into this last year to get this process carried out. We have gone through that process. We have hired two firms to do financial analysis of the harvesting and processing sector. Just this past week, Mr. Speaker, we provided more support to look at some possible scenarios and have that individual work with the MOU participants, the working groups, to let’s find our way forward here.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, because there were a couple of times in Question Period this week I wondered if the Opposition were in agreement with the MOU. I am glad to see - and I had to go back to Hansard to get the hon. member across the way, I swear to God, I said that I do not think they want to see this process working. Well, he rose to say: Let me say first of all, certainly we do hope the MOU process brings us a good solution. I have said that before and I will say it again. In the same session, he repeated the same thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very much pleased that the Opposition supports this process.

I will be bringing forward some amendments to the hon. the member’s motion. I did not hear him today, but somebody told me he said on Open Line that he hoped that we did not water it down. Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think what we are going to put in here will strengthen the resolve of the MOU and will allow us to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition will support us with those amendments, it will show to the people of the Province that we are coming forward with an MOU motion that will come out of this House today showing that everybody is committed to making this a stronger process.

I issued a news release this morning that indicated I would be meeting with Minister Shea on Saturday. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is certainly top on the agenda is to inform her of the status of the MOU because, again, Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions, it is not much point in us going to Ottawa if we in this Province do not agree with what we are bringing forward. That is what this MOU process is about. It is about the partners sitting at this table, walking away from this MOU process and saying – the FFAW, the ASP - we as a government saying: All three parties agree, federal government, and we are bringing this forward to you. We think it is reasonable. We think it is workable. We know it is long-term and we expect your support in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House and I have indicated in the media that the anniversary is fast approaching. July 11 was the announcement of this and I have asked the chair, in conjunction with the groups, that I want a progress report by the anniversary, and that shortly after that I would like to have a written report, an agreement of what we can present to Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, the onus is on us. We are the people engaged in this process, so the onus and the responsibility to the people of this Province, the fishery, the plant workers, the harvesters, the deckhands, the processors, all of us involved in that, the onus is on us to put forward that plan. Mr. Speaker, that is going to mean some very, very, tough stands. It is going to mean the opening up of the various parties to say that I am going to have to let go of this to make this happen. There will be challenges. There will be communities – everybody seems in agreement that there has to be some kind of restructuring here; that is, Mr. Speaker, until it hits their community. That is very tough. There is no doubt about that, that is tough. Anybody who has sat in government and has had an industry close down in their district will tell you, it is one of the toughest things that we have to deal with as government members. So, Mr. Speaker, that will require a challenge on everyone’s part.

Mr. Speaker, I will propose an amendment to the motion, seconded by the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame: To move that the private member’s resolution currently before the House be amended:

(1) by deleting, in the first recital clause, the words "is a crisis" and substituting therefore the words "are challenges";

(2) by deleting, in the second recital clause, the word "only" and substituting therefore the word "the";

(3) by deleting the third recital clause;

(4) by deleting, in the fourth recital clause, the words "does not" and substituting therefore the word "will" and deleting the word "or" and substituting therefore the word "and";

(5) by deleting, in the fifth recital clause, the words "failed to allocate any funding to launch strategies of" and substituting therefore the words "invested $800,000 to launch";

(6) by deleting the sixth recital clause; and

(7) by striking out the resolution clause and substituting the following therefore:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to continue its ongoing programs and action plans for worker adjustment and community development to assist fish harvesters and plant workers through the transitional process in communities affected by fishing industry challenges; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work of the government, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU - to work with the federal government to implement measures to ensure the economic sustainability of the Province’s fishing industry.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this is seconded by the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, have you had a chance to see the changes to this resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has asked that we recess to give you time to look at the resolution and make commentary after.

This House will now take a brief recess to allow for that action to take place.

This House is now recessed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition if they have had an opportunity to review the amendment, and if there is any commentary?

MR. DEAN: No, no commentary.

MR. SPEAKER: No commentary.

The Chair has also had an opportunity to review the amendment as well, and the Chair provides that the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and seconded by the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame as being in order.

Further commentary on the private member’s motion?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments with regard to the private member’s motion that was put forward by my colleague, and it was a pleasure to be able to second that private member’s motion.

Mr. Speaker, just some opening comments with regard to the amendment that was put forward. I want to say from the outset, maybe some of the minor changes that were made in this amendment I could agree with but the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that was listed in the private member’s motion that was put forward, where it was to encourage the provincial government to launch an interim program and action, that has been taken out and the word "continue" put there.

So, Mr. Speaker, based on that, as well as the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in the amendment, where it states "that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work of the government, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU - to work with the federal government to implement measures…".

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is another reason why I think something should be done now, because the fishing industry in this Province is so important. I know the word "crisis" has been removed and exchanged with "challenges" but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, from the people that I speak with, not only in my district but throughout this Province, many people think the fishery is in a crisis situation. So, Mr. Speaker, based on that, I want to advise the hon. minister that I personally will not be supporting the amendment that was put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back over a period of time when we talk about the fishery in this Province. I understand fully the position that the minister finds himself in, and I can assure you, many ministers before him found themselves in very difficult positions because it is a situation that cannot be resolved very easily.

I want to go back, Mr. Speaker – and I know how important the fishing industry is not only to my district, even though we have one of the, I suppose, most prominent and richest resources that we have there in the Town of Port de Grave, as well as all of the surrounding area in my district. We have to go back quite some time, many years. We always find ourselves in a crisis with the fishery within our Province. I can go back to a very early age, my father being a fisherman who would spend the summers in the trap fishery and would have to go away in later years on the draggers. Prior to that, he would have to leave his Province because of the downturn in the fishery and take part in the dory fishery out of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back to 1985, when our party was in Opposition at the time. The Conservatives were in power. There was a major, major issue that came forward from the fishers around this Province. It was not only totalling around the crab fishery because at that time the crab fishery was not what it is today; it was more or less along the lines of the cod fishery. I know there was a committee put in place that travelled throughout this Province. They went to places like Port de Grave, Port Rexton, Summerford, Fogo, St. Barbe, Triton and many other areas. They sat down and they listened to what the fishermen had to say, the people who knew what was going on. They came back with staggering comments about what was happening in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, that was twenty-five years ago. The message of that day that the fishermen of this Province put forward fell on deaf ears. Regardless of who was in power, it had nothing to do with it; both federal and provincial governments did not listen to what those people were saying. All of a sudden we ended up with a moratorium, which was a tremendous downturn for the economy of this Province and to the people who were involved in the fishery. It only this week, I read an article - because I think many times, all too often if we do not come together and listen to what those people are saying, we are heading for a very serious situation with the fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reference the capelin fishery, which is a component of this fishery. We are wondering why the cod stocks are not returning as they are. I read an article the other day where the capelin fishery in the North Pacific, which is shared between Japan and Russia, and what they do – they are the very people who come here and buy our capelin. They take them back to use as they want. They do not catch their own capelin. They leave them in the ocean so that the cod fish and the other species have a food supply for them. Maybe that is one of the problems that we have when it comes to our groundfishery. I know that is not as prominent as what it was a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 there was a document put out through Memorial University in conjunction with the Harris Centre, and it was called: Memorial Presents Fishery Policy and Rural Revitalization. Some of the key things that they brought up in that report, under one component was the human resource crisis. How they mentioned - and the minister mentioned it in his opening comments, about how the plant workers income was some of the lowest in this country. How the reliance on EI, they were becoming dependent upon it, and how the youth of our Province are not interested in the industry. Many of them are getting away from the industry. Each and every week I have someone who is trying to retrain to get away from the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, the other comments that came out of that report was the uncertainty of the resource. We know today, and I hope this figure is correct, I think it is somewhere around 75 per cent of the value of our fishery today has to do with crab and shrimp. No doubt about it, some of the fishermen will tell you that there are areas where they see a decline now in the crab fishery. There have not been any major significant replacements in the cod stocks and we wonder why. Even though science will tell us that there is a slow return of the cod but many fishermen will tell you that they see, in different areas of our Province, more cod than they ever witnessed before.

Only last week we heard the minister, and I hope our minister will speak with the federal minister when she arrives here for the meeting on Saturday, about - I think it was in the Gulf, where they are going to have a cull on the grey seal because of the damage they believe it is doing to the stocks. I hope the minister will encourage her to look at a cull with the harp seal in our waters because we can only imagine what 6 million seals, or that is the estimated number, are doing to the cod stocks. Only this year we had a report saying that when the seal hunt was on, and I cannot verify this but it was a legitimate call on it, saying that the seals were now even eating the younger crab.

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct, and I believe my hon. colleague when he brings it forward. The present structure cannot last the way it is. The fishery cannot continue in its present format. If we think that the industry is going to depend upon the crab solely into the future, I think we are sadly mistaken. We cannot continue, and fishermen will tell you that it is fine now, it is a very lucrative fishery even though it is not what it used to be but something has to be done. I believe that there has to be a joint venture between the provincial and federal governments to deal with this issue. I know the minister stated in his amendment that once they carry out the work that the MOU has to do, they are hoping to then present it to the federal government. I believe that the federal government should have been involved in day one because they play a very important part in the fishery of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the fishers have been speaking out for years, and I know it is a very difficult situation. My fear is - another thing that we hear from the fishermen around this Province - that once the small processors – and we heard the minister say there is going to be major changes, and that is why I am very fearful about the MOU, what will come at the end of the day, even though we are hoping that this will resolve the problems that we encounter in the fishery. My fear is that by eliminating the small processors and the buyers the small boat fishermen will be unable to sell the small quantities of the very species that they have to sell. That is a concern that they are expressing on a regular basis.

Then, we get to the moratorium of a Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Speaker. We know this started, and the minister said the anniversary date is July of this year, I hope that the parties can come together with a situation that will resolve it, not only for this year, the short term, but something can come out of this for the long term. I believe, sincerely, that the federal government should be involved. We always hear when we talk about environmental issues, well, that is a federal issue. I can tell you the fishery is also very important when it comes to the federal involvement, and I think they should have been involved.

The other thing I believe, Mr. Speaker - and I know the FFAW is involved and I do not want to take anything away from the union, but I believe that the harvesters should have representatives there as well. Even though the FFAW represents them, they also represent the plant workers. Mr. Speaker, those are the people – and I have had people say to me in the district: Look, we are hoping that this is going to work. We hope that there will be no problems. What is happening? They are having meetings; we do not know what is going on. We are represented by the union, but there is nobody reporting back to us the way that we believe that it should be reported back to us.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard so much in recent years. We have had a summit on the fishery. We have had major issues when it came to the raw material sharing. We have had meetings where the Premier and others went to the EU countries. We have had numerous private members’ motions down through the years. I know the first one I did was back in 2001. We have had them both provincially and federally, but, Mr. Speaker, it seems like all of this falls on deaf ears. I think now that we have the opportunity, whether we wanted to call it the MOU, or whatever it is, I believe that everybody should be at the table: the voice of the community, the federal government and, as I said before, representatives from the harvesters, even though they are represented by the union.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but bring up the comment, and I think it was during one of the very first caucus meetings that this government had in 2001, I believe it was – I am sorry, 2003, that is when you formed the government. My apologies for putting you there a lot longer than I wanted you to be there. Anyway, there was a meeting that was held, a caucus meeting. I think it was on the Bonavista Peninsula, if I am not wrong, and I could not find the article – I have it somewhere – where the Premier made a comment. Now, whether it was a slip of the tongue or what, I do not know, but he said: We have to get away from the involvement that we were always used to with the fishery. I can understand where he was coming from, that changes have to be made, but if we are going to get away from the fishery of the past, because one of those days – and it is not going to be too long, I hope it never happens, but we are going to see where the shrimp and the crab fishery will not be what it is today. The fishers around this Province in all the small outlying communities now who that rely on the small quantities of cod that they are allowed to catch, they are going to have an opportunity to be able to say: I hope that is going to be there for me.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what we have to do to try to protect what is left of this fishery. I know, as I stated before, I was EA to the Minister of Fisheries, it is no easy task. Whoever sits in that position, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, have their hands full. From the time you have to deal with the processors, the union, and everybody involved, it is not an easy situation. We have seen situations that became very explosive here in this Province. I remember seeing as high as sixty constabulary officers here in the lobby of the Confederation Building dressed in riot gear because there were 1,000 or 1,500 fishermen parading up the road coming to this building. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see that any more.

I hope that when the minister meets with the federal Minister of Fisheries that all issues, regardless of what they are, will be laid on the table. I believe that he has to lay them there strong and firm because the federal government, I believe, is getting away from their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, just to say, as stated in the amendment, that once the work is done, I believe something has to be done now in the interim, because in a very short time, we are going to be hearing right throughout this Province, each and every one of us who represent the districts, wondering if there are any programs going to come down this year. What is going to happen when my plant closes? We have to put something in place that those people still can live in the communities that they were born in and carry out the livelihood that they were always used to, and that is their involvement in the fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and speak to this amended motion. Though my district certainly does not lend itself to fishing, being Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture hit it on the head when he said that the fishery and our oceans and our way of living are aspects of our identity that are part of who we all are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So, it is absolutely my privilege to stand and to speak to this particular amendment and this motion.

Mr. Speaker, whilst fishing is not a particular concern in my District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, we certainly have known the effects, however, of industry loss, of downturn, of downsizing of industry, and so on as it relates to the mining sector, as it relates to the pulp and paper and the forestry sector. So, I can certainly understand the concerns of people in our fish plants, people in the fisheries itself, because those are issues that are near and dear to my heart as well.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite who spoke just in advance of me make some comment about he was fearful of what might happen to the MOU process and where it might go and where it might take us. Mr. Speaker, I just have to comment that from my observations from sitting around the tables that I sit around, from the discussions that I have been involved with, I think that this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is perhaps one of the most dedicated, one of the most determined, and one of the most unrelenting ministers –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – that we have seen as it relates to trying to find solutions, not simply identifying problems, Mr. Speaker, but seriously looking at trying to find solutions as it relates to the fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the MOU process that he is part of will make progress. In fact, I think we have reason to be happy with the progress that has already been made in terms of fisheries restructuring in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The minister has certainly requested and received many proposals on industry restructuring and rationalization and marketing from various participants of the MOU process. He has received particular information from ASP, from the FFAW, and from others who are not directly participating in the process: for example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Inshore Shrimp Fleets, the Newfoundland and Labrador Independent Fish Harvesters Association and so on. He has also involved the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in these discussions and, as he mentioned today in the House, and several times during Question Period, he is in regular contact with our federal counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Gail Shea, as well, as this MOU process moves forward. So I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker, that through the process, through the MOU steering committee that is put in place, through the various working groups that are engaged in this particular process, that the analysis that will be needed and the industry restructuring that we hope to see is a process that is well underway, that is well in hand, Mr. Speaker. Independent consultants, as well, Mr. Speaker, have been involved in this process. So, basically, I think all of the players have been put in place to deal with the particular issues.

The success of the MOU, as the minister has alluded to on many occasions, however, rests in the hands of the participants in the process, rests in the leadership, the true leadership that those participants are able to show as this particular MOU and the process itself works forward. Of course, I, like everyone in this House, and like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all look forward to the completion of the process and being able to see exactly the results of this particular Memorandum of Understanding.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to address today, as well, is something that pertains to my department specifically, my Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and that has to do with what we do to support people affected by a downturn in the economy, by people who are affected by closures of particular industries, by people who are affected by industry adjustment and so on. So I would like to speak to the particular suite of programs that we put in place to ensure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government is there for them, that this government will hold on, will find a way to help them through these difficult times in their lives; because certainly the loss of a job, certainly the closure of an industry, all of those events are difficult times, not just for the workers involved but, Mr. Speaker, as well for their families.

Through my department, and through the Department of Municipal Affairs, as well as INTRD, we have a number of supports that we put in place. In particular, I would like to make reference to one of the programs that is in place through the Department of Municipal Affairs, and this particular program is referred to as the Fish Plant Worker Employment Support Program, and that focuses on creating short-term employment for workers from fish plants designated by government as permanently closed.

When we are speaking about Jackson’s Arm, of course, that is not a fish plant that has been permanently closed, but in any case that is a program that has been in place that has benefited many of our fish plant workers in the past. Hopefully, that is not the scenario here, but if it were to come to pass then that, too, is a program that people can avail of.

As well, through Innovation, Trade and Rural Development there is another program, the Fish Plant Workers Employment Assistance Program for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Mr. Speaker. It is another well-known program, and a program that does well in terms of supporting our workers who have lost opportunities to continue to work in their traditional means of employment. This program provides new entrepreneurs in expanding small businesses with funding to employ fish plant workers negatively affected by the closure of a fish plant. We have seen those kinds of employment opportunities work, and work very successfully, in the past. In fact, anecdotally I have heard of a situation just recently where there has been an employer who has taken advantage of that type of a program to employ some fish plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, within my own department there are a number of programs, a number of services that we are able to offer. I would like to point out that we have been very proactive on this file, particularly in terms of Jackson’s Arm. Notice was given by the company last Friday, Mr. Speaker - June 4 was when the notice was given - but I would like to point out that my department has been on the ground, has already made contact with the workers, the fish plant workers, with the management people as well in that particular fish plant about two weeks ago now. What we intended to do was to be proactive, to make those initial overtures, to speak to people in the fish plant to say we have a suite of programs and, should you need our assistance, we will be there for you. Our government’s priority is to support employees but also their families, all of those who will be impacted by a plant not reopening, or a plant closing, or a plant downsizing.

As a result of our previous experience working with individuals affected by industry downsizing, we have determined that the most important thing that people want in a situation like this is that they want access to information, Mr. Speaker. They want access to the programs that are available to them. They want access to the services. They want an opportunity to ask questions generally or questions that are specific to their own circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently in the process of working with other local service providers to see that we put that access to information in place for the workers of Jackson’s Arm. When I talk about other service providers, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about other governmental departments as well: the Department of Education, through the industrial education piece; the Department of Municipal Affairs; we are talking about partnering with the College of the North Atlantic; we are talking about our own EAS offices – our Employment Assistance Services offices, Mr. Speaker. We partner with Service Canada as well for the EI Part I expertise that we need in offering that access to information.

What I started to say as well is that in doing that we will provide information sessions for the people once they have given us the indication that they want those particular sessions. We will work out dates with them. The information can be provided to them in a group setting or we can provide individual sessions for those particular workers as well. Some people have individual questions they want to ask, they have privacy issues, and they often ask us for individual counselling sessions or individual information sessions. We are happy to provide either, Mr. Speaker.

We have many programs in place to provide a wide range of supports to workers – a suite, in fact, of labour market adjustment supports - to respond to the needs of displaced workers. We have some very professional staff as well. Through our fourteen Career Work Centres across this Province we have offered those supports many times in many areas.

So, depending on the needs of the individual workers, Mr. Speaker, these supports may include one-on-one career and employment counselling by group workshops, or, as I indicated earlier, individual consultations, if an individual so desires. Up-to-date labour market information, as well, is provided to people. As well, we would help people with wage subsidies. If they have opportunity to go to work some place else, but that particular employer may need a wage subsidy in order to employ them, then we have particular programs that may be of benefit to them. Again, one-on-one or in a group session, we are able to counsel them with regard to wage subsidy programs that they may be able to access.

As well, there are training opportunities that we are able to provide service for, Mr. Speaker. Now, I know that the proposer of the bill in the first place talked about that, and seemed to indicate that training is not a route to go, that people do not want education. Well, Mr. Speaker, that has not been my experience, particularly in Grand Falls-Windsor where we had a major, major, loss in the closing of the AbitibiBowater mill. Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the member opposite that the training opportunities that we provided were very highly regarded by the workers in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas. Many of them have taken advantage of that, many of them have found employment opportunities as a result of that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly we are not saying that is the answer for everybody. I just listed other opportunities and other things that we might be able to do. Certainly, training is an aspect that people do truly want to look at when they are facing situations of this magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Jackson’s Arm as well, I do not know if the member opposite is aware of the age, he talked about older workers not particularly wanting to go back to school. I have seen some of the statistical information already with regard to Jackson’s Arm. The average age there is a lot younger than we would anticipate. So, these people certainly would be interested, I would believe, in training opportunities that would help them to up-skill or re-skill or find opportunities to transition to other jobs within the labour force here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, that is part of the current suite of labour market initiatives that we offer, and I think it is one that will be very well-received out there. Again, it is not for everybody, but is certainly one of the initiatives that we are able to put on the table to offer to the people in the area. Upgrading their employment skills better prepares many of them for emerging employment as well. As we have new megaprojects coming on stream here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly know there will be opportunity, particularly in the skilled trades area. So, opportunity at this particular point in their lives to take advantage of that training may well be something that they would like to be involved in.

HRLE has a partnership already established in the Jackson’s Arm area with the White Bay South management committee, Mr. Speaker, to deliver these programs and services through the Employment Assistance Services office, which is also known as the Career Assessment Centre in Pollards Point, Mr. Speaker, so that access to those services should be fairly easy for the employees in question. We also have been in touch with Service Canada. Service Canada is located in that same office. So once again, we are able to facilitate the ease of information transfer because people are working out of the same office, and because we have a very good partnership organized between or among all of those particular partners.

Our services will be available, Mr. Speaker, to all of the impacted plant workers. That would include the unionized workers, the non-unionized workers, and the management employees. There are a number of initiatives that we are prepared to offer, and we would be prepared to offer them to all of the impacted plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first instance where the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment had to become engaged in offering these kinds of services, and not particularly to fish plants either. We have provided supports to Englee, to Marystown, to Fortune, to Port aux Basques and most recently in Trouty, where fish plants have closed permanently. So, we have some expertise in this area, Mr. Speaker. We are happy to be involved. We will offer whatever support we possibly can to the workers in this area.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to support the original motion that was put forward by my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

Mr. Speaker, the motion was put forward to support the fishery in this Province and to provide support for those individuals today who are finding themselves being displaced in an industry that they have been a part of for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret what has been happening in the fishing industry, even over the last couple of years in Newfoundland and Labrador as we continue to see quotas decline to a certain extent, we continue to see enterprises being amalgamated, and all of this affects the onshore production in plants. In the last couple of years, we have seen a number of plants downsize to half the workforce that they once had. We have seen their production levels cut, some of them, in some cases, by ten and twelve weeks in a year. We have plants today, Mr. Speaker, that one time would provide sixteen weeks of employment where workers are having a very tough time just trying to get ten weeks of employment out of those particular plants.

So it has not been easy. It has not been easy for any of these individuals who are dependent upon the fishing industry. Whether, Mr. Speaker, you are an owner in the industry, in the processing sector, or whether you are a harvester or whether you are a plant worker, all of these sectors have been challenged in many ways.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real alarm always comes when we see closures. I go back a few years ago when we saw the plant in Englee close down. It was absolute devastation is what it was; there is no other way to describe it. Whenever you walk into a rural community across Newfoundland and Labrador, a community whose entire economic base had been founded around the fishing industry, a community of hundreds of individuals who got up every day, put on their fish plant clothes and went to work, whether that was through the groundfish days or whether it was through the shellfish days or a combination of both. Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, you are getting up this morning and that industry is not there for you any more. That job does not exist in your community. How devastating is that? Not just in the fishery, but in any industry. That is what happened to the people in Englee, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened to the people in Englee. That is what happened to the people in Stephenville when the mill closed down out there, and that is what happened to the people in Grand Falls just a couple of years ago when their pulp and paper mill closed down. What a horrible, devastating blow to a community and to individuals when those things happen.

What happened in Englee since their plant closed, Mr. Speaker? Of course, government moved in with the suite of programs that the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment likes to talk about today. They moved in with those programs, and there is nothing wrong with those programs, Mr. Speaker. Do not get me wrong. In the years I have been in this House, I have pushed for programs like that, and I think they are valuable. When there is an opportunity that people can retrain, when there is an opportunity that you can provide some kind of supplements and supports to people who want to be able to look at re-entry into the job market in a different field, those things are fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, Mr. Speaker, but are they the solution for every industrial crash that we see in the Province? No, they are not. Are they the measures by which every person will be saved in terms of employment opportunities and career plans and changes? No, they are not, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I am going to go back to Englee again, because let me tell you what happened in Englee. Those programs were all available, and guess what? Make-work projects were available as well - job creation. The same programs every year, Mr. Speaker, I come begging and fighting and lobbying to the government for to get money for workers in my district, because I know that without those programs, many of those workers are going to end up on social assistance, or forced to move out of their communities because the industry no longer gives them the amount of seasonal employment that they need to be able to sustain a year-round income.

Mr. Speaker, those things are temporary measures. They are not the replacement of an industry. They are to supplement industry when industry is in a stagnant period, or is in decline. That is what those programs do. They help get people through a transition. They are not a career, they are not an industry and they are not an economic base for a community. Mr. Speaker, that is the difference. That is what happened in Englee. When all of the industry collapsed there, the plant closed down, the government went in and they did the responsible thing. They provided employment programs to people in that community. They were responding to a decline in an industry and a closure of a fish plant. What came behind those job creation programs, Mr. Speaker? What came behind them? There was no economic development agenda for the community. There was no infrastructure money. There was no task force to work with the community, Mr. Speaker. There was no investment with the town in economic development to bring new industry in to attract people into that community, to attract something to replace the 150 jobs they had just lost in this one region of the Province.

So once the job creation ran out, once the bump of the closure of the plant was done, there was nothing left. There was nothing left. What happens in a community, Mr. Speaker, when you do not have an industry? People eventually are forced into living on lower incomes. They are forced into either having to move out of the area or settle for low-income wages. That is the options that they are left with. Is that where we want to see rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that where we want to see communities in this Province that have hit a bump in the fishing industry, or end up with the most devastating result, and that is one of their plants closing. I do not think that is a good enough response.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was not how the government responded when the pulp and paper industry collapsed under their watch in this Province. Even though they said there would never be a mill close on their watch, we had two close. We had nearly 800 or 1,000 people in this Province who were affected as a result of that, but there was more than a retraining allowance and a job creation initiative to get them through that particular cycle, Mr. Speaker. There was a task force of Cabinet ministers who went into those communities, who organized other task force groups in the communities of local leadership to go out and to come up with ideas. They put money into the towns, millions and millions of dollars into the towns to build infrastructure, to create an economic development strategy, to entice new business to come in. Did we ever see that in a fishing community when there has been 150 jobs gone in this Province? No, we did not. No, we did not, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harbour Breton.

MS JONES: Well, the minister says we did in Harbour Breton. Maybe he can tell me about Harbour Breton because we certainly did not see it in any of the other communities, Mr. Speaker. We did not see it in the other communities and I can guarantee you that we did not see it –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I was already ruled today for causing disruption in the House and now I cannot hear myself speak again, and I ask for your protection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure we will hear about Harbour Breton. I know the government did, at the time, put some money into Harbour Breton because they held a number of announcements and they also invested in aquaculture. I do not know if that directly went into Harbour Breton or went into that area. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there were no programs like that in the area of Englee that was affected by all of this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with another situation in Jackson’s Arm. I have heard members say that Jackson’s Arm is only temporary; it is a one-year thing. I hope they are right, but I do not see anybody putting that in writing, that we are only going to be closed in Jackson’s Arm for one year. The reasons that the company has given for closing Jackson’s Arm is the 30 per cent reduction in shrimp, which I do not see changing in the next twelve months, and the issue of trucking product in and out of the area. I do not see that changing.

Ever since the plant opened, Mr. Speaker, in Jackson’s Arm in 1999, when the licences, in fact, the minister complains about that were given out I think at that time, because there was a number of shrimp licences in the Province that were given out for onshore processing. They talk about the new licences issue, but what you have to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that shrimp was all done by factory freezers offshore, and if you did not give it a licence to do it onshore, I guess it never would have gotten done onshore. Anyway, that is another issue for another day.

Mr. Speaker, since production in Jackson’s’ Arm has occurred there has been a trucking component to the industry. So that was nothing new. What I am saying is that the reasoning the company is giving today for closing that plant, those two reasons in particular are not going to change in the next twelve months.

What we are asking the government to do, Mr. Speaker, in the motion that we presented today, we are asking the government to respond to fishing communities in this Province the way that they have been responding to other industrial communities that have lost their industry. We have not seen that consistency applied in the fishing industry in any way, shape or form, I say to government members. We have not seen it. In fact, it seems like wherever government is going to invest money, the fishery is at the bottom of the scale. It is always the lowest on the rung in terms of investment. That is not just words from me. That is being felt by the industry across this Province. That is being felt by the pundits who listen and talk to the people there. It is being felt by the people who live in these communities, by the fishermen who work in the industry, and the plant workers who work onshore.

Mr. Speaker, they all have televisions, they have radios, they have newspapers, and they keep up with what is going on. They see this government every day developing land in mining that private companies should be doing. They see them drilling holes in the ground for oil, which oil companies should be doing. They see them buying equity in offshore oil projects, Mr. Speaker, when they should be collecting royalties instead. They see them putting money in and writing off money for failed companies in this Province who could not pay their debts to the government. They see all that. They see the standard that the government has set for investing in communities that have lost industry in the pulp and paper sector, Mr. Speaker, but they are not seeing the same consistency applied in their communities, their rural communities, I say to government members. Rural as rural can be is where the fishery is based in this Province. Not that there isn’t any in other areas, Mr. Speaker, not that there isn’t a full fleet of boats down on the Harbour Front in St. John’s. Do not get me wrong, there is lots of that, Mr. Speaker. There is lots of fishery goes on in urban areas as well, but the economic impact is felt in rural communities, Mr. Speaker. The economic impact is felt in these rural communities just like it is going to be felt in Jackson’s Arm when 150 paycheques is taken out of that community this summer and the impact that will be in that community.

Mr. Speaker, our motion today was asking the government to do the right thing by these workers, to step up and not just ensure that there are employment programs – which should be ready to go within a couple of weeks, not within four months – but also to ensure that there are long-term strategies and plans in place, that there is money being invested so that the communities can look for other industry, so that the infrastructure related to the fishery remains within the communities and not be owned by some processors forever who want to put the locks on the door. Can communities buy that infrastructure? Of course, they cannot. Most of them have a tax base, Mr. Speaker, of less than $100,000 a year. They do not have the money to buy out that kind of infrastructure. Workers, Mr. Speaker, who are over the age of fifty-five or sixty – I think fifty-five is the standard set in this Province – for early retirement in the industry. Why is that not being afforded to individuals? While Jackson’s Arm is a relatively young workforce, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas that are affected where workers would be able to make a transition to early retirement if it was offered to them.

All of these things we see as important in responding to crises in the fishing industry; however, they are not on the table, and government’s response is always the MOU. Well, Mr. Speaker, they made an amended motion here today that guts everything I have just said and says that, as a government, we will do nothing only go talk to the federal government once we have an MOU with processors and the union.

Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. If they were really serious in doing their job, the federal government would be the first key player at the table for any MOU. There would be four signatures to that MOU, I say to the minister, and the federal government would be one of them. To bring a motion here to go lobby them after you have an agreement, what kind of a partnership and co-operation is that, Mr. Speaker, with the Government of Canada whom this Province is going to expect at the end of the day to pay the bills?

Mr. Speaker, no one is saying that there is a problem with the spirit of the MOU, but we do not know what the MOU is. For all I know, Mr. Speaker, the MOU might be the recipe to gut every fish plant in this Province. It might be the recipe, Mr. Speaker, to gut rural Newfoundland like we have never seen it before. Am I going to sign on to that today when I do not even know what it is? No, I am not; but, do I support the spirit and the intent of having a discussion amongst all of the players and reaching a strategy? I do; but, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that all of the players are not even at the table. All of the players are not even there, and the motion, the government says, is, after a deal with the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU, they would work with the federal government to implement measures to ensure the economic sustainability of the Province’s fishing industry.

What they are saying, Mr. Speaker: We will try and get a deal with the industry at home, and then we will go lobby the federal government for some money. Are you going to support us or are you not? It does not affect the workers today who need those (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

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

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise today and make some comments on the motion put forward from the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and certainly to have some comments about the amended motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about gutting rural Newfoundland, and gutting the fishery, and fear mongering again, and espousing to things that are just not talked about on this side of the House, not planned, not a part of any process, but yet continues to kind of ramp up and support the federal government, wanting the federal government to be a part of our issues, and to sit at the table. I can take her out to a number of people I have talked to in recent weeks, and I can tell you they are no fan in support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and what they have done for our fishery in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, having said that, and looking at the motion today, and it is certainly great that we would bring the fisheries issue to the attention of the House again, we recognize that there are some serious issues in the fishery right now, in some of our communities, like Jackson’s Arm, Hermitage, places like Little Bay Islands. Mr. Speaker, we just came through a month of where our crab fishery was shut down, with dispute over prices, many people out of work and facing a lot of uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, we just came through a series of announcements, quota cuts in shrimp and crab, and these are challenges. These are challenges, Mr. Speaker, that exist in the fishery, but they are not new.

As the Member for Port de Grave referenced, we can go back in history and we have many challenges, perhaps none greater than we faced on July 1, 1992, when the moratorium was announced and we lost a fishery that impacted individuals, families and communities. Mr. Speaker, you go to every bay and every cove and there was doubt. People were afraid. There was fear, anxiety, and, Mr. Speaker, there was the largest layoff that we have seen in our Province – some 40,000 people out of work. At that time, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of reference - our character, our spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador, our rural communities, is gone.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if we looked back in history from 1992 to now, the fishing industry grew to be a billion dollar industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks to the resilience of the people involved in the fishery and the fishing industry in this Province. We recognize that the fishery is certainly the heartbeat of our economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

While we have seen, since 1990, some forty-two plants close in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have survived. We have survived. Through the period of the 1990s when we saw the closure of the cod fishery, it was an opportunity for us to reshape and restructure our fishery in this Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, if we go back, very haphazardly there were plants going everywhere. Some twenty-one shrimp licences were issued. Some twenty-eight crab licences were issued in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, without a vision and plan, without a strategy. As a result of all of that, now a lot of our harvesters, our communities, processors, are facing some uncertainty, some challenges. We are paying a price and, Mr. Speaker, we missed an opportunity. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to miss another opportunity right now.

Speaking to the motion today – and there have been several interpretations coming from the other side on the motion – one of the basic premises of the motion today is they want government to step up and again put some money, throw money, a band-aid solution, into the fishery. Mr. Speaker, our government is on record as supporting rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on record. The premise of throwing money - I am a little confused about their motion today, about stepping up with an interim program. Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up for many communities in this Province that have been hit hard by the fishery. We have gone into communities like Arnold’s Cove, Grand Bank, Harbour Breton, Fortune, and the list goes on; and we will be there again, Mr. Speaker.

When I specifically look at the motion that was put forward, one of the things, I guess, that struck me in terms of talking about the MOU - and they are on record as supporting the MOU, and we certainly thank them for that, but - one of the statements in the motion today was the fact that they referenced the MOU, that it has nearly been a year and we are losing confidence.

Mr. Speaker, our fishery has had challenges for a lifetime, for years, decades, and finding a solution is not going to happen in a short time. There is a process, and this process needs to unfold. Mr. Speaker, through that process and the challenges that we meet our government will invest and support harvesters and plant workers. Just last spring we demonstrated that, Mr. Speaker, with some $5.3 million that was put forward for the harvesters and plant workers of this Province. Some 375 harvesters and some 1,150 plant workers benefited from that funding to help them through the winter. Mr. Speaker, almost $500,000 of that was spent in my district alone.

Mr. Speaker, recently I had an opportunity to speak to a fisheries symposium in Twillingate. My district, some thirty-seven communities, fishery communities, we recognize the fishery is certainly the heartbeat of our district. Mr. Speaker, I have five plants, some 600 plant workers or more, and last year 932 harvesters registered in my district. Mr. Speaker, we realize when we talk about the fishery and the future of the fishery, the importance of it not only to our communities but indeed to our Province. We have a great responsibility to do what we can to support it.

Mr. Speaker, realizing that our Province has gone through a period of prosperity thanks to, perhaps, our Premier and our government being able to position our Province to take advantage of our resources, we realize, certainly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the staple of our economy is the fishery. The fishery has so many direct jobs, not only harvesters and plant workers, but we have the trucking companies, the graders, the monitors, the people who off-load the products; it is endless, Mr. Speaker. The spinoffs are great.

We have also seen, Mr. Speaker, in the fishery much improvement in recent years: better education, better training, better technology, professional development. We have seen some young people make a big commitment to the fishery. Mr. Speaker, despite that, we still recognize we have a troubled industry.

There are many complex challenges in this industry. When we talk about the MOU and putting forward plans of where we can support our fishery in our community, we need to recognize that there are many, many complex challenges that are not easy to deal with and many not in our control, Mr. Speaker.

If I might reference some, through the last few months I have had an opportunity to meet with many fishermen and plant workers and have a discussion about things like the availability of resource and declining stocks and the uncertainty of the stocks. Mr. Speaker, I talked to people about the capacity, the processing and harvesting capacity. There are many studies referencing overcapacity.

We talked about the prices for product and what people are getting paid in other jurisdictions and what issues are there, as the Minister of Fisheries alluded to earlier, in terms of what is happening in Nova Scotia. Why do they get paid for their product more than we do? Is it a quality issue? Mr. Speaker, one of the complexities of this, is the increasing cost for processors and harvesters to do business. I have spoken to harvesters who have made investments in the fishery, banking on a certain quota only to realize that next year they are cut by 12 per cent or 30 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the bonus issue which not many people want to talk about, but do we know what the true impact of the bonus system really is on our fishery?

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to fishermen who want to stay in this industry. They are inshore fishermen and they want to invest in the fishery. They want to find a means to be able to borrow without having to be tied to a particular company. These are issues out there that people want some answers to.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other challenges that we face: things like the Canadian dollar and our dependency on exporting to the US markets; global competition; quality issues. The whole issue of marketing products is certainly another issue in terms of do we brand our products. Can we be doing a better job out there in the markets? It has been referenced here today about plant workers and a retirement package and an aging workforce. These are realities of what we are facing, but do we have a solution and an answer to that once they do retire?

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the federal government. The federal government is responsible for our harvest management plans and we question the science and some of the decisions that are being made. What about all the regulations that we hear about? I talked to fishermen who are tired of all the regulations. The issue of combining and ‘buddying’ up and the challenges that presented to many inshore fishermen. We talk about the licensing fees and it goes on because the federal government does share in the jurisdiction of our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, when we are trying to find solutions and answers to our fishery, a part of that is that all of these people have to make money, it all about a profit and a business. So, these are some of the challenges, Mr. Speaker, that we have to confront, we have to deal with and how do we do that; there is no short-term answer to it. I have spoken to a lot of fishermen, as I said, and a lot of plant workers and, Mr. Speaker, the sense I get is that the future of the fishery is in question and certainly begging for answers. Was there one answer? I doubt it. Are there sacrifices that need to be made? That is for sure. Mr. Speaker, can one group solve these problems? It is not likely. Certainly, another band-aid solution is not going to solve the problems of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do, we need to pull together, we need to make investments in a solution, not be investing in the problems. I think for too long we have done that. One of the comments today in the motion put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North is, "…WHEREAS Government’s focused strategy…" I think it is a very positive statement that he has made because he has recognized that our government recognize the challenges that we have, and we do have a very focused strategy on how we are going to deal with and support the fishing industry. We are not sitting back, Mr. Speaker. Our strategy is about the MOU process. We are collectively, governments, all levels of government, fish harvesters, plant workers, unions, the business sector, everybody is going to have an opportunity and have a role to play in the future of our fishing industry.

On June 14, Mr. Speaker, the MOU was signed, in 2009, where the provincial government, in support of the FFAW and certainly the Association of Seafood Producers, consider the long-term structural issues of our fishery, look at the financial state of the fishery, consider the long-term marketing strategy and look at the restructuring models of the harvesting and processing sector. Mr. Speaker, our government put $800,000 towards that process, and I believe that the major stakeholders of the fishing industry look at their own responsibility to this industry and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they demonstrate their vision and share their input and their interest. I am sure we will come to a resolution where we can add some stability to the fishing industry.

Today, Mr. Speaker, when I read the motion, hence I think the reason why we see some amendments to the motion, there is some cynicism there in the motion, and we have sceptics, but we must remain positive. We must have the hope and the confidence in the MOU process that it is going to provide the valuable insight into this troubled industry, but not only that, more importantly, provide a framework, Mr. Speaker, for a sustainable and viable future in the fishery for many years to come.

This whole process, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the stakeholders are engaged and a part of this speaks to the very essence and the very need for us to get involved in a very detailed process where we can pull together and deal with the challenges that land in this industry. Mr. Speaker, we have to give it a chance. We cannot undervalue, we cannot underestimate the importance of the fishery to the people of this Province. As we work through this process, we have the harvesters and plant workers working with their unions and getting the message through. We have our processing companies who employ some 13,000 people in this Province collectively with community leaders and business people, Mr. Speaker. We have to work together. We have to pull together through the MOU process and through that process we have to develop a plan, a master plan. Mr. Speaker, that is not a government plan. That is a fishing industry plan with the support of government, a plan that offers solutions, a plan that addresses the problems, a plan that, when created, will provide the stability and optimism for many harvesters and plant workers and the communities who depend on the fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is the plan that we need to take to the federal government. That is the plan that when we sit down with the federal government they can see that we have our house in order, we have our work done, and collectively the Province and certainly every member of this House supports the plan. We go forward with Ottawa, who shares in the jurisdiction of our fishery, to sit down with us and find, again, the ability to work through and find the right solutions to put our industry in a stable position.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, and certainly as a rural member - and I know I have spoken to my colleagues, the Member for Humber Valley, certainly as of today as well speaking to the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale and the Member for Ferryland, we talk about the fishery a lot. It is so important in our districts, Mr. Speaker, and I can commit to these people. We can commit to the people of the Province that as a government we will do what we can to support the fishing industry and continue to support the communities in this Province. The people deserve our best effort, Mr. Speaker, and together with the industry, we have to get this industry in a stable position where we can, and continue to support communities throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to stand this afternoon and to take part in the discussion, the motion that has been put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. Of course, now that an amendment has been put forward by the government side of the House, I want to make comments on that amendment. That is what we are speaking to now, basically.

Obviously, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do not represent a fishing community, although in times past there would have been two fishing communities in the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but as Leader of the New Democratic Party I do spend time in other parts of the Province. I need to do that as leader to represent my party elsewhere. So I have a broader notion of the issues in the Province than if I were just a Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is because of that role that I play as leader of my party that I feel it is important for me to stand today and to speak to the issue that is here on the floor.

When I look at the amendment that the government side of the House has made to the motion that was originally presented, I have to say that it discourages me, because it discourages me when I do not see the government recognizing that we do have a crisis. I am pretty certain that the reason is because while there are an awful lot of people over there on that side who represent communities that are fishing communities, there are also an awful lot over there who have not been out and seen what is going on in some of the communities.

When I read this amendment from the government talking about the programs, its ongoing programs and action plans for worker adjustment and community development to assist fish harvesters and plant workers through the transitional process in communities affected by fishing industry challenges, I ask: What programs are we talking about? Are we talking about the kind of programs that I saw last year in the fall of 2009 up on the Northern Peninsula? Are we talking about programs based on upping people’s stamps so that they can get EI over the winter?

I have mentioned this in the House before, and I am going to mention it again. Women plant workers – middle-aged women plant workers out on the side of the road in snow in the fall in 2009, out there cutting brush without any place even to take care of their personal needs during the day, from 7:30 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon, in order to get enough stamps to get EI over the winter. That is not a program, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection in having meaningful work for people when the plant closes so that they can get their stamps, but what I saw going on up there, that was not what we should be doing for people. That is not dignity. That is not dignified work.

Cutting the brush, I have no problem either, but why not have what is needed for people when they are out in the out of doors like that, doing that work? For example, porta-potties; I was shocked, and that is only one example of what I saw. I know the member for that district saw that himself. We were all out there campaigning at the time. How anybody could look at that and say that was satisfactory and that was a program to help people, than I am shocked. This is what upsets me, is the refusal to acknowledge that people in the fishing industry are out there desperate, are out there suffering.

I remember in 2007 being at the plant gate in Marystown at 6:30 in the morning and seeing, again, middle-aged workers going through those gates. I think the average age down there in the plant is almost fifty – going through those gates. People who are looking at wanting to have early retirement, wanting to be able to stop, who have been at it for years and whose bodies are worn out from the work in the plants. I do not know how many of us have been in plants, I have, and I know others in the building have as well, others in the House of Assembly have as well, but I do not think we all have. That is really hard work. I know I would not be able to do it. Yet, I saw people in their late fifties going through that gate, knowing the kind of day that they had ahead of them, and yet we cannot get a government to support early retirement? An industry that they should be proud of and they are proud of. You know, I do not understand it. This industry is the heart of who we are as a Province.

Fishing people over in Norway are not ashamed to say they are in the fishing industry. They are not embarrassed to say they are in the fishing industry. People living in Iceland are not ashamed to say it either. I do not think they are ashamed to say it over in the Maritime Provinces or out in B.C., but here, there is a pall over our fishing industry, which was the heart of who we are, and a pall over the people who work in the industry. Not over the processors, but certainly over the small boat fishers, the small boat harvesters, our plant workers. We have people who no longer feel proud to be in the industry that they were part of.

Now, we have an awful history in our industry, we know, with the role of merchants and the role of those who did the work. I am not sure that we are much past where we were 200 years ago in terms of the structure that we have in this fishery. Unless we name it, we do not deal with it. It is absolutely unacceptable that the people who do the heart of the work in this industry get nothing from it. That is the shame of our industry, and what are we going to do to turn that around? I do not see us turning it around.

One of the things that - I hope we can turn it around but I do not see it happening yet, and that is my concern, Mr. Speaker. I do not see it happening yet, and I do not see the sense of leadership in this government and I certainly do not see it in the federal government. If we do not get all governments together working, we are not going to get anywhere. We are now eighteen years next month, we will be celebrating, in quotation marks, the eighteenth anniversary of the moratorium. Eighteen years since we had to stop fishing the Northern Cod stock, yet we still, eighteen years later, do not have a plan. We do not know what is going to happen to that cod stock. Nothing really has been done to really deal with the rejuvenation of that cod stock. There is nothing on the horizon for people with regard to that. It is like we just accepted that there was nothing that could be done. There are all kinds of things that could be done and there are people out there, people who have been working on these issues, who know that something could happen.

One person in particular and we all know his name is Dr. Jeff Hutchings, the Chair of Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. Some people sort of treat what he has to say lightly. I do not think we should. He is a professor of biology at Dalhousie and he talks about what a recovery plan would be, and we do not have a recovery plan. He tells us first of all, a recovery plan should have a recovery strategy with quantitative targets for recovery. You decide how much can be recovered. You name it and you go after it. We have not done that. You set a stock abundance level that you do not want to go below. We have not done that. You set a timeline for rebuilding. Well, we certainly have not done that. We do not have a timeline for rebuilding, there is no doubt.

You set rules that govern catch levels. What kind of rules do we have? Nobody knows from year to year what is going to happen with regard to catch levels. So, we need to look at other countries. We need to look at countries like New Zealand and Australia and Northern Europe. They know how to put recovery plans in place and we do not seem to know how to learn from other people. That is one of the frustrations here in this Province for me and in this country. Why can’t we learn from others? We just do not seem to have the will in this country to turn the Atlantic cod stocks around, and I believe they can be turned around. It is a renewable resource. Every renewable resource can be maintained, so why aren’t we maintaining our Northern cod stocks?

The minister said last week he was happy to hear me stand up and ask about the MOU because I never talk about the fishery. Well, I have asked him questions on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, about the fishery. I am speaking to it again today because I know how important it is. The MOU, what is there to ask? We do not know what is going on. We have no idea what is happening. We really do not know. The minister says he hopes to have an update on the progress that has been made before the July 11 anniversary of the signing of the MOU. He hopes to have a report, so what is there to ask about it?

Then, they are asking me here today to encourage the government, upon completion of the work of the MOU, to work with the federal government. I would encourage them first to get in there at the table and get an MOU in place, to get a strategy in place, and to have something to bring to us to show that they really know what they are doing, that this government is really giving leadership, that this government is really involved in the process because I have no sense that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am concerned about the fishery and I have questions, but we never get answers to the questions, so sometimes you get tired asking them. The answer MOU is not the answer for me. I want something concrete. Until I get something concrete, then I am very disappointed. That is one of the things that bother me about the amendment that has been made to the motion that was on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, because the amendment takes out the concrete actions that were being asked for in the motion. Those concrete actions are the actions that we should be voting on today instead of the amendment.

I know I am coming to the end of time, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of that, so I just want to close off by saying that we have to do something in this Province to not only maintain but to revitalize in a mayor way an industry that is already a $1 billion industry, but an industry that will benefit the people who are doing the work in that industry, the small boat fishers, the harvesters, the plant workers. The communities where those people live have to be revitalized. Until we do that, no matter how many meetings are held, it will not mean anything to me until we know that industry is not only growing but is benefiting the people who are really doing the work in the industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 63.(6), the Speaker recognizes the proposer of the motion.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank those who have spoken here this afternoon: the Minister of Fisheries for his comments; also the Member for Port de Grave; the Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment; the Leader of the Official Opposition; the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Quidi Vidi –

AN HON. MEMBER: The Isles of Notre Dame.

MR. DEAN: The Isles of Notre Dame – I know I missed one, sorry. I believe that is it, and I would like to thank each one of those for their comments.

In closing, I would like to take a few moments just to speak to the amended motion – the amendment that the minister put forward to the motion that I presented to be debated here this afternoon.

If I could just kind of read down through it a little bit, if you will. The first WHEREAS clause that has been changed from there "is a crisis" to "are challenges". It is a play on words and really we do not have a lot of issues with that – or I do not have a lot of issues with that.

The second WHEREAS talks about "…Government’s focussed strategy to address these escalating problems…" We said "…with only two key players in the industry." The minister changed that to suggest that it would be changed to "the" two key players in the industry. That concerns me because I believe there are more than two key players. One of the groups that we have been identifying as missing from this MOU process is those who work in the communities, those who work in the fish plants. They are not involved in this process and they just do not have any say.

So the communities involved, where we know that fish plants will close, where we know that there will be reductions and so on in place, there really is not a voice there that is representing those communities. So to suggest that changing from "only" two to "the" two key really stresses again the missing of the mark, if you will, with the importance of them being involved.

The next WHEREAS we said "…the process does not include community voice…" and it says that it "will" include. Again, we have been asking that if the community voice is going to be included, it needs to be included today. We have asked that the MOU be amended so that they can be included, and from this point forward, so to speak, allow them to be a part of the process, allow them to have their input, allow them to be a part of the bargaining, if you will, and so on, so that when the outcome is there, when the MOU process is complete and is presented, it is presented with their voice as well, not to them and asking for their approval.

The other thing in that particular line, as well, that says "…WHEREAS the process will include a community voice and the Federal Government…" – and this is the one that really concerns because we are saying that the MOU process will include the federal government, then when we go down to the resolution that has been totally changed at the bottom, the second paragraph says "…BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work…" talking about the MOU process, upon completion of the MOU process, that they will work with the federal government.

So, on the one hand we are saying that the process will include the federal government – that is talking about the MOU process. Then, on the other hand we are saying that the federal government will not be involved until the MOU process is complete. Again, as the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggested, certainly the federal government, and as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, certainly the federal government needs to be involved in this process. We recognize and we realize that they are one of the key missing links.

It is interesting that the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame suggested that the federal government does not need to be involved. Yet, in my presentation, I would remind them again that it was in 2007 that the Premier expressed concern about the fish processing industry, and he says that the federal government needs to be involved. He pressed the federal government to be involved and to have their support for an early retirement program. Yet, here we are today saying that we do not need the federal government involved. So, absolutely, the federal government needs to be involved. Absolutely, it needs to be involved today.

I would suggest, as well, and agree with the member who said that it is harder to bring them in after decisions have been made, after the process is complete, and I believe it is very difficult to bring the federal government in then to buy into the program, especially if we are asking for their financial support and so on, than if they were at the table through the process. So, I realize they were not there when the process began. We cannot change that, but I certainly would encourage them that they be involved in the process now, if that is possible. I would certainly urge the Minister of Fisheries to encourage that to happen.

So, in terms of the amendment, I, personally, cannot support the amendment for the reason suggested. What we have put forward today was the request for an early retirement package. If we continue the programs that we have today, we will not have an early retirement package. Again, I go back to the Premier in 2007; he lobbied the federal government for their support to an early retirement package. Three years later we do not have that package, and what we are suggesting in this amendment is that we can leave it until the MOU process is complete.

Mr. Speaker, I feel we cannot leave it until the MOU process is complete. I feel it needs to be there today. There are a lot of workers that as things are unfolding, and as the example that we used of Jackson’s Arm - and I understand we realize that we do not know where that plant is going to go and how it is going to play out. Yet, as plants close in the interim of waiting for the MOU, I believe there should be an early retirement package that people should be able to retire from this profession they have worked in for so many years. They should be able to do it admirably, and certainly there is no reason that that cannot take place.

The minister mentioned that everyone has a strong connection or attachment to the fishery, and I certainly would agree with that. All of us in this room do. It does not matter if you live in rural Newfoundland or if you live in the larger urban centres. It does not matter if you have travelled even to rural Newfoundland very much, as I am sure most of us have, but yet we have that attachment to the fishery. It is the industry that has shaped us, and I believe it is the industry that binds us today as a Province. So, as we go through this restructuring process – and yes, the minister wants to put us on record as supporting the MOU, and in principle we do support the MOU, but I do not support the outcome until I know what it is going to be. If we want the right outcome, than I believe if we have someone left out of that process, then we can switch gears, we can stop, we can fix that, it is not that big of a thing. I think we should have community representation, and we definitely should have the federal government there as soon as possible. To leave them out would be the wrong decision.

The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment mentioned in her commentary on the motion - one of the comments she made was basically in the fact that, mentioning my comment regarding training. My comment regarding training was in reference to an early retirement program and someone who is age sixty-two. We obviously understand – I understand the need for someone to be trained, someone who is thirty-five, forty years old. I believe she mentioned, or the minister mentioned the age bracket of the people in Jackson’s Arm. Yes, they are a much younger group. They are a group who can be retrained. They are a group who can go and find other professions and so on, but in the situation where someone is in the last two or three years of their working time, if you will, then retraining most times – I would not say all times, but most times it is not on for them, I would think. It is in that situation that the early retirement really speaks to.

While the MOU process gets close to that year - again, while it is dragging itself along we are asking today, or we did ask today for a program that would bring interim solutions to the industry, to the crisis in the industry. That is what we are asking for. The fishing resource that was delivered by this Province to Ottawa back in 1949, as we all know, is a mere shadow of what the fishing industry was at that day. We have lost 80,000 of our people, we have lost 25,000 of our jobs, it continues to downsize, it continues to go, and certainly we need to have strong leadership, we need to be involved, we need to know where we want to take it, and we need to offer the programs that are available. I would commend the Minister of Fisheries for the job he is doing, as his counterpart did, but I would suggest that it is not the end-all be-all where we are today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege today to have been able to present this private member’s motion, and the debate that ensued, and I now take my place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion, as amended, is carried.