MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members’ Day and the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North seeing fit not to present the petition but move into his private member’s resolution, I call now on the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North to present his private member’s resolution.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand on Private Members’ Day and present this private member’s motion. It is moved by myself, from The Straits & White Bay North, and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. I will read the motion into the minutes.

WHEREAS the fisheries historically has been the basis for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and can continue to contribute to growth and employment under sensible and prudent management; and

The aggressive pursuit of a joint management regime with the federal government including securing custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks;

Cooperation with industry to develop and implement a comprehensive, long-term marketing strategy aimed at promoting the Province’s seafood industry with a goal of increasing sales in world markets;

Promoting the utilization of a variety of marine species in food processing, as well as new industrial uses of marine products in pharmaceuticals, biomedicines, and other chemical products;

Forming partnerships with industry to implement an international procurement program to secure primary seafood products for local seafood processing plants; and

Committing to a program of adjustment for older workers and a comprehensive voluntary cost-shared harvesting license consolidation program.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery is so important to the survival of rural Newfoundland. We can talk about innovation, we can talk about diversification, and we can talk about all kinds of things, but I honestly believe today, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not have a fishery in rural Newfoundland, in the coastal communities of Newfoundland, there really is no opportunity for some of them to exist.

While we welcome other developments, while we welcome other ways and means of earning livings, and of really moving our economy forward, Mr. Speaker, in the coastal communities of this Province the hurt by the closings and the challenges in the fishery today is seen like it has never been seen before.

Mr. Speaker, in this private member’s motion, I have stated four or five issues that we as an Opposition today call upon government to be more involved in, to be proactive, and to really move the whole idea of rationalization and restructuring our industry forward so that it benefits us all in the years and decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, from a custodial management point of view, we would know that back in 1997 Canada extended its jurisdiction over the 200-mile limit. However, we do know that it did not stop overfishing nor did it really stop the decline in our fish stocks. Long seen as the only way to truly protect and to really make sure that our fish stocks would remain and so on, this extension of the fishing zones, of the limit, of the jurisdiction certainly was seen as a way forward, seen as something that was very necessary.

Mr. Speaker, NAFO has long been seen as basically being ineffective when it comes to the control of our fishing zones and of our limits, of our 200-mile limit and the fishing resource in terms of protecting it. They obviously have shown along the way that they really are not doing that to the degree which we need it to be done.

Successive provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, have strongly advocated for custodial management. They have recognized that it is necessary. We go back to 2003, the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada recommended that Canada should prepare itself and the international community for the reality that strong, unilateral acts including custodial management will be necessary should effort within NAFO fail.

Mr. Speaker, it has been there for some time. Federal Administrations after federal Administrations, as well as provincial, have promised custodial management of the Grand Banks but all really have failed to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper, in his election of 2005-2006, promised to this Province custodial management. In January of 2006, he stated, "A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit," – this was a promise of Mr. Harper to the then Premier Williams – "to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."

Mr. Speaker, not only did he fail to produce this but what is even more drastic, I believe, is just recently from that time frame to this, 2009 I believe it was, when his government, the federal government, endorsed NAFO amendments that would, in fact, allow NAFO to have a say within our 200-mile limit on fisheries management. In other words, really, it was a reverse custodial arrangement compared to what we had been expecting.

Mr. Speaker, in the recent letter that our Premier tabled here in the House just a week or so ago, Premier Dunderdale failed to even mention custodial management as an election issue when she wrote the three parties and wrote the Prime Minister of the country of the day, custodial management was not even mentioned in that letter.

My question this afternoon for the government is: Has it gone off the government’s radar? Because, somehow or another, it seems to not be an important issue any more as it was over the past three or four, four or five years and, indeed, decades in our past.

In 2003, Mr. Speaker, in the Blue Book of that campaign there was a promise to carry out a nationwide public information campaign, aimed at persuading Ottawa to take custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and to undertake whatever regulatory and enforcement activities are necessary to manage sustainable fisheries on the entire Continental Shelf.

That was a part of the platform of this government, Mr. Speaker, when they came into power, when they campaigned in 2003, nearly eight years ago. Yet, we see the failure by both levels of government to achieve custodial management after all these years. Mr. Speaker, it is really nothing short of a grave injustice to our Province, to the country, and certainly to the renewable resource that we have there and we can enjoy. That is one of the things that I put forward in this motion today is the necessity of custodial management.

Another piece, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to in this resolution is the part of marketing, of having a marketing strategy. The Minister of Fisheries in his reference to the MOU in Question Period a few moments ago talked about some of the good things that is in that document. We believe, as an Opposition, that one of those good things is reference to marketing strategies, is reference to ways of being able to work together so that we can more effectively market our seafood products in this Province for the benefit of all those who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, if we go back to 2006 and to the Fishing Industry Renewal, we read in that document when it talks about collaborative marketing, it recognizes that in that particular time. Now, almost five years ago it recognized that in marketing seafood products worldwide that the Province’s seafood producers are faced with a number of challenges, and it outlined some of those. Mr. Speaker, they are basically brought forward again in the MOU of this year that was brought to this House of Assembly, or not brought to the House, but that was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the hon. member who is recognized to speak.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult hearing yourself here today, but anyway I will continue and try to ignore all of the background noise if you will. The MOU report, as I was saying, when it comes to the marketing piece, this report basically suggests two major recommendations in the area of sales and marketing, and they are basically a seafood sales consortia and a seafood marketing council.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that these suggestions have merit. I would certainly suggest that our government ought to be looking at ways of even moving that piece forward, rather than just sitting back and waiting for a response again from the industry, as the minister says, and from the processors and just waiting to see what their next move would be. There are pieces, I believe, that we can move forward, and marketing being one of these pieces.

The issue, when it comes to marketing in this Province, is the fact there are 102 fish plants today that are owned in this Province and they are owned by more than eighty-five firms. I would suggest that when you are into manufacturing and producing of any product in a province or a country, and certainly in a province the size of Newfoundland, when you look at the fact that you have eighty-five companies trying to get into a particular market, and they are doing it essentially on their own, then there is no doubt that that is a recognizable issue. I believe there ought to be a way, and I believe that the companies that have made tremendous investments in producing in secondary processing and so on of seafood products in our Province, that they would want to see a way of being able to market in some collaborative fashion.

I would suggest that is one of the areas that I would see, and I would suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that this is something that really can have a lot of attention today. It does not need to wait for another report. It has been recognized, as I said, five years ago. It was probably recognized before then. It is recognized today. The issue really has not changed, so there are a lot of things that we can do to move that forward. I would look forward to seeing that. I would look forward to the minister speaking to that, possibly, as he speaks to this private member’s motion today.

One of the other areas that I would like to speak to before I finish my opening remarks this afternoon is to the piece where we are calling upon government to commit to a program of adjustment for older workers and a comprehensive, voluntary, cost-shared harvesting licence consolidation program.

Mr. Speaker, an early retirement package would allow those who are currently employed in the fishery in this industry, obviously, to retire earlier than they would otherwise be able to, that they would otherwise be able to afford. It would give them the opportunity, those who fall in a particular age category, to be able to look at being able to leave the industry prematurely, not unlike many industries do. Not unlike many companies would offer their employees when there are times of restructuring, when there are times of downsizing, when there are times of challenges in terms of bringing new entrants into the labour force and so on. One of the things that you can do is do an early retirement package or program.

Government, itself, has committed to a 70-30 cost, somewhere along the way, a shared program back in 2007. Policy documents from the PCs committed to press the federal government on this issue. Yet, despite requests to the federal government, Ottawa has simply not stepped up to the plate.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent letter from the Premier – just a couple of weeks ago, as I referenced a moment ago – this was one of the issues that she put forward again and she basically said to Mr. Harper: Would the Conservative government support development of an early retirement and licence buyback on a seventy-thirty federal-provincial basis?

Mr. Speaker, this government needs to be challenging, more directly, the federal government. It needs to have a louder voice. It needs to put a stronger say out there about this whole issue; it has been there, we want a response. We want to know are you in or are you out. In fact, back in 2009 this provincial government, the previous Minister of Fisheries went on record as saying that the government stated that they were actually eyeing a plant-by-plant early retirement package, but as of today we have seen no sign of that. I am not sure where that has gone. I am not sure if it was a bad idea in terms of how the government feels. I am not sure if it was something that he talked about, so to speak, on his own or whatever the case might be. Mr. Speaker, it is something that we need.

Even with the lobster buyback proposal from the FFAW, Mr. Speaker, the feds have committed their share. The FFAW has committed their share and we still have not heard as of today, Mr. Speaker, whether this government is willing to commit their share.

It is one thing to look at the federal government and say we are waiting on them but in this case, in the case of one piece of this industry, we are not waiting on the federal government, they have stepped forward. We are not waiting on the union, they have come forward. They are now waiting on the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, it is a way to lessen some of the stress and burden around the fishing industry as we are going to downsizing, as we are experiencing quota cuts and so on. An early retirement package is something that we ought to be seeing. It is something that I would have hoped to have seen in this Budget yesterday. Again, I would encourage the government through this private member’s motion that we see it shortly.

Mr. Speaker, my time has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: I look forward to responding a little later and certainly look forward to listening to the members speak to this motion today.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly pleased to be able to stand here today and make a few comments on the resolution that has just been put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

Having been born and grown up in a fishing community, and still living there actually, I do think I know a little bit about the issues and the concerns in the fishing communities in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to stand in this House or anywhere at all and be critical of things that government might be doing from day to day. It is very easy to stand there and say: You are not doing anything for the fishery in this Province; you are not doing anything to help rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery itself is a very complex one. It is one where we really have very little control as a government. As the hon. members opposite know, our main responsibility in terms of the fishery in this Province is related to the processing sector. We have very little responsibility for the overall management of the fishery. That, Mr. Speaker, rests with the federal government. The only thing we can do really is make our case known to the federal government from time to time. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have been doing that.

With reference to the resolution, Mr. Speaker, in going through it a little bit earlier today, from what I see most of what they mention there we are already doing as a government. It may not be to the satisfaction of the Opposition, but most of the items raised in that resolution are items that we have raised from time to time with the federal government in particular.

If you just take the first WHEREAS, Mr. Speaker: WHEREAS the fishery historically has been the basis for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador – which is true – and can continue to contribute to growth and employment – which is also true, Mr. Speaker. Then they go on to say: under sensible and prudent management.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was directly involved in the fishery back in 1995. I had fifteen years there. From 1995 to 2002, it was that government that increased the crab processing licences in this Province from seventeen to forty-three – almost triple the number of licences, Mr. Speaker. This came just on the heels of a report that had been completed which emphasized the fact that we should have fewer plants and more time for the people already involved in the industry.

Doing what they did at the time, Mr. Speaker, only downgraded what we already had. The hours of work that workers could have worked was downgraded because the sharing of the resource was taken from seventeen plants to forty-three. Mr. Speaker, if you call that sensible and prudent management I do not know what is. Mr. Speaker, I would have to say too that our current minister has done a noble job as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Looking back at last year’s fisheries, Mr. Speaker, it was through his effort, dedication and commitment that we had a fishery in this Province in 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, there is reference made to the MOU in the resolution. I take exception to the fact that the hon. member who presented the resolution is saying that we have abandoned the fishery. I mean that is not true at all, that we have abandoned the MOU. The minister – and he quoted here again today – has gone back to the main players in the industry – the processors and the harvesters, through the union – and asked them to come back with more constructive ideas as to what we should do for the betterment, the long-term industry in fisheries-related infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the MOU certainly was an opportunity for all of the industry, all of the people in the Province really, to have input into what should be the sustainable long-term industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, a lot of it was not addressed as such and that is why the minister has gone back looking for the information that was expected to be in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Mr. Speaker, in sections three and four in the resolution: "WHEREAS rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding whether or not this government is prepared to receive and manage these changes". Mr. Speaker, the next one: "WHEREAS restructuring is already proceeding, including fish plant closures and license transfers"; Mr. Speaker, the minister has made reference to this a number of times before. That is already happening in the fishing industry in this Province.

To give you some example of how that is occurring on its own right now, Mr. Speaker, it is happening through market forces and changes in demographics. The rationalization is taking place at a rate of 31 per cent reduction from 1998 to 2009 with a further decline of 6.6 per cent in 2010. It goes on to say further, Mr. Speaker, that 500 or more harvesters were projected to leave the industry annually in the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, with or without taxpayers’ money, rationalization is already occurring in the fishing industry in this Province. I think we would have to ask the question to the Opposition - and the leader mentioned it there again today - about paying down the deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is fine to pay more down on the deficit, but what is she saying with respect to the fisheries?

The hon. member mentioned it in his initial remarks: they want to take another half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to buy out the industry. Mr. Speaker, who out there in the general public wants us to put millions of dollars into some of the processors who are running this industry? Who out in the general public would want to see their money used in that manner?

Mr. Speaker, it goes on further to say about rationalization, about the processing sector. The rationalization would be financed by the public sector at a cost of over $200 million. Again, I would say, would the general public in this Province want to see money spent that way or would they prefer it to be spent on health care, on education, on roads, on bridges, and some as well, Mr. Speaker, in paying down the deficit? The Opposition has to make up their minds. Where do they want to use the revenues that we have coming into the coffers of this government?

Mr. Speaker, the number of processing workers, as well, in talking about rationalization, has fallen by 43 per cent since 1998 to now approximately a little over 10,000 people. It is becoming more and more difficult to attract people to the fishing industry, especially in the processing side of it when you have people working and earning only $10,000 and $12,000 per year. That is becoming a major problem, Mr. Speaker. The number of primary plants - and the member alluded to that as well - has declined to a low of 102 from 189 in 1993, representing a decline of 46 per cent.

In another WHEREAS in the member’s resolution, Mr. Speaker, "WHEREAS it is the responsibility of Government to manage the social effects of these serious economic changes and only immediate action will ensure the long-term survival of our harvesting and processing sectors". So, I have to ask the hon. member again, even though he does not like us questioning some of the things that he puts forward, what action is he talking about, and what plans does he have for the future development of the fishery in this Province?

The member also made reference to the custodial management. Mr. Speaker, as a resident of a fishing community, I always have been, and I still today fully endorse custodial management of our fishery. That has to come, as anyone affiliated with the fishery would know, from the federal government. Even before this current government now, our former Premier, Premier Williams, certainly made a number of attempts to have custodial management brought in by the federal government, through meetings with the federal minister, through meetings with the Prime Minister, and through correspondence. Our own current minister has followed up on that request. Mr. Speaker, with respect to custodial management, certainly it is something that is fully needed for the future development and sustainability of the fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, before I close I want to make reference to my own community and the fish plant in Valleyfield. I would say today that if we had more owners of the fish processing sector like we have with the Way family and Beothic Fish in Valleyfield, we would not have the problems that we have today in this industry. That is one of the major factors in why we have the problems that we do have, Mr. Speaker. I would have to say, and pay tribute again, and I have done it here before, to the late Mr. Boyd Way, the man who founded Beothic Fish Processors in Valleyfield. I would have to say, with all due respect to some of the other processors out there in the industry, there was no one who had the vision like that man did in terms of the fishery in this Province. It is unfortunate that we do not have any like him today.

Mr. Speaker, there was also reference made to technology in the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention a couple of things with respect to Beothic Fish again, and to see where they are coming from as an employer in the fishing industry in this Province. With respect to new initiatives, last year, in conjunction with our Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, this company initiated a new secondary processing venture in terms of filleting mackerel and vacuum packing the fillet for the Korean market. Mr. Speaker, that is ongoing. They are meeting again in a couple of weeks to discuss how the project went last year and hopefully, that it will continue this coming season. That is a product where we have very little input in terms of secondary processing.

Mr. Speaker, before I close I would like to say, because most of these issues are addressed that we are talking about in this resolution, I would like to move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the resolution be amended by deleting the second to fifth clauses inclusive and by substituting the following:

"AND WHEREAS rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding through natural attrition and government is maintaining its efforts to encourage industry to engage in meaningful industry restructuring;"

And by deleting the Resolution clause and substituting the following:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls upon government to maintain its existing policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the fisheries".

With that, Mr. Speaker, my time has expired and I look forward to the comments by the other speakers.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

We will take a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services and we find the amendment to be in order.

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

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

I guess I will say right from the outset that I will not be voting in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when I look over the private member’s resolution put forward by my colleague for The Straits & White Bay North, the only thing that is left in this resolution is the first WHEREAS, the other four are deleted. In the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, it goes on to say: maintain existing policies. I have to ask: What policies? The existing policies that are there, if they are there, I can assure you there is not much funding in the Budget for this year that we heard yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on for a few minutes and I want to speak to this private member’s motion because my district is very heavily involved with the fishery. A fairly prosperous fishery I have to say, but I have seen many changes over the last fifteen or twenty years. There used to be five or six fish plants there, now we are down to two. It has been a mainstay not only for that area but for the Province for some 500-plus years, not only for the communities that the fishery is involved in but also for the larger centres because the supplies and what have you come from those areas.

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of the issues that are in relation to why people look down at the fishery in more modern times is the attitude of different individuals. Only recently I heard an individual on Open Line who said for 500 years all the fishermen done in this Province was go out and get a few stamps in the summer, go home and lie down and do nothing until the moose time opened up and they go and get a bit of meat for the winter.

Mr. Speaker, I also heard the former Premier during meetings on the Bonavista Peninsula back in 2003, in reference to the fishery he said: We have to get away from the ways of the past. Mr. Speaker, only today when you had to bring order to this hon. House, I heard some hon. member across the way, when you mentioned that you could not hear my colleague up presenting his motion, say: It is not much odds if we could hear it or not. I think that is a very poor attitude, regardless of what is brought forward in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget for 2011, like I said, there was very little, if any, money in regard to the fishery. We know there is money there for aquaculture, and we are very pleased with that because we know that is another component of the fishery.

How often do we hear about the MOU here in the House, Mr. Speaker? Many times when questions are asked, the MOU document is held up to us, when you get to your feet, you tell us do you agree with this. Well, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we did not ask for it. We never asked for that document.

I have to say this as well: The minister himself stated in this Province prior to the document being released, quite a few days before that happened, that he had read it. He had read what was prepared and he was fine tuning it. Well, if he had it and he was reading it to fine-tune it, why did he accept it in the beginning and why was it released in the condition that it is?

There is no doubt about it, some things in that document we do not agree with; however, there are some things we do agree with. I know the minister says he wrote them back and is waiting for a response, but you have to sit down with the stakeholders to see what can be done for the betterment of the fishery in this Province.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I think the fishery is one of the biggest political hot potatoes that we have to deal, regardless of who is in government. We can have all of the summits, we can have all the MOUs and studies, and whether we put them on the shelf or we deal with them, they are very rarely dealt with because it becomes such a political issue in this Province, where so many communities depend on the fishery and where so many lives depend on that way of living.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, all too often it falls on deaf ears. The very first private member’s motion I brought forward in this House – I do not know if it was late 2001 or early 2002 – was on custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Our Speaker of the House today at that time, when it was all over, he was in Opposition and we were in government, said: Look, you are just wasting your breath. Nothing will be done about it.

I have to say now the shoe is on the other foot. That government that was in Opposition at the time is in government today. Eight years have gone by, and I do not know if anything has been done to deal with custodial management. I know the former Premier said he was dealing with Ottawa. He was going to tour the country on a speaking engagement about the fishery. He was even going to open an office in Europe at one point in time. Then we had the summit, and here we are today still debating the very same issues.

To some degree I sympathize with the minister, it is not an easy situation. I happened to be speaking with him one day on a private issue and I said to him: My friend, you are going to need three or four MOUs before this is straightened out. I believe that, because it is something that cannot be handled and dealt with in a very secure way that everybody is going to be happy.

When it comes to any department in this government, I guess the fishery is one of the most difficult ones to deal with. I know that back a few years ago I remember they had a riot here - seriously - when eighty or 100 constabulary officers came out in riot gear. I was there right involved in it, and it was over an issue about quality control. There are many issues that come forward and if we have various reports done or MOUs, whatever, and if we ask for it and we do not try to deal with it – I can understand where the minister is coming from saying do you want to bring this in. If we are asking for it, I guess we are going to have to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, because we all know the consequences if we do not.

Mr. Speaker, in the motion my colleague put forward, he was talking about utilization of various marine species for food processing and so on. I know it is very difficult to deal with. In the crab plant that is in my district in Port de Grave, back about eleven or twelve years ago I guess, I went to visit there one day and there was an issue about a licence being transferred from one part of the Province to the other. The people were there saying: Look, we are not going to get enough hours. We are not going to be employed like we were in previous years if this should happen. Lo and behold, I happened to ask the question to the owner of the plant at the time. I said: Why are you sending all your product out in sections? Why can’t you do like you always did here, extract the meat or do whatever you have to do with it? I thought I was going to be thrown over the wharf. He said: Don’t you bring that up here today. He said: Don’t bring that up here; that is what the markets dictate.

I have to say I think if we have a product and we can go into secondary processing, regardless of what species it is, let’s put it on the market if we have a good marketing arm. Those sections go out, someone else is doing the work on them; I guess they are probably getting it done cheaper. Mr. Speaker, those are the issues that have to be dealt with.

Then we go into talking about the older workers and the retirement package. I mean, that has been ongoing for quite some time. I notice on the local channel out my way now, you see advertisements looking for people to work in the fish plants; looking for individuals to go working on the boats, something you never heard talk of for many years; however, that is where this industry is today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the private member’s motion that was put forward by my colleague calling on the House, call on government to consider establishing "…policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the fisheries." He went on to include them all, like custodial management on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. I believe that has to be done. The federal government, I think they have dropped the ball on this one and we have to apply more pressure to them to see that that is done.

There are many other issues, Mr. Speaker. If Canada stood up the way they should have in fighting for the fishery for this particular Province, and other provinces, they should have done what they did in Iceland a few years ago. I am not saying everything is rosy in the fishery in Iceland but they went out with their destroyers, they chopped the nets away from the foreign draggers, and they rebuilt their stocks. When I mentioned about what was in the Budget yesterday, I do not see anything there to help us rebuild the stocks, and that is what has to be done.

Many people in this Province depend on the fishery and right now we are very fortunate that we have the resources, like the oil where our revenues are coming from, but we all know unless there are further discoveries in that particular resource, we know what will happen, whether it is ten or fifteen or twenty years. If we do not have a fishery, we might never return to what it was in the past, Mr. Speaker, but if we have a fishery at all, we know many communities on this Island portion and throughout Labrador, we know that many fishermen from this Island travelled to Labrador years ago, but if we do not see that the stocks are built back and protect them, I guess we will not have that either in a few years.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. I have to say I do not agree with the amendment that was put forward and to say I will be voting against that particular amendment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose normally we would have seen the minister responsible for the portfolio would have gotten up after the resolution was presented, but I wanted to hear what some of the comments were before I had the opportunity to get up and speak, because we can come into this House and during Question Period we do what we do. We banter back and forth, but when it comes down to it, I do not think there is anybody in this House who would argue with what I am going to say next. Everybody in this House would love to see a fishery that starts on time every year; that everything runs smoothly every year, but, unfortunately, that is not what happens.

The Member for Port de Grave got up and mentioned that the Liberals did not ask for the MOU. Well, Mr. Speaker, who asked for the MOU was industry. The shrimp fishery was tied up for a period of time, an extended period of time, almost three months I do believe it was, and in the interest of getting the fishery up and running it was agreed to by three parties, that being the ASP, the FFAW and government.

Government was asked to facilitate a process whereby industry would bring forth proposals for rationalization and restructuring. I am not going to stand for my time here today and criticize members opposite for their stand, or I will not ask in the next few minutes do they support. All I am going to point out to you is some of the points that came out in the MOU. The member just identified one of those points. On the community channel there is an advertisement for plant workers. No one five years ago, or seven years ago, would have ever anticipated that we would need to put advertisements out looking for plant workers. In fact, there was an over supply of them. We had three companies that recognized that challenge and put out a call in The Telegram in February looking for plant workers.

Now, if we go back to the evidence that came out in the MOU it will clearly show you why they are having trouble getting plant workers. It says in the MOU that with a 30 per cent rationalization, plant workers’ revenues in crab plants will go up from $6,700 to $9,500 a year. Mr. Speaker, I can ask anybody in this Province if they truly think we are going to get the number of people that we need to go into plants, and in particular young people, if they are going to go into a plant to work for $9,500 a year, plus a bit of EI, and that they might get ten weeks or fourteen weeks.

I have not heard from the NDP yet, but I cannot wait to see what the Leader of the NDP’s response is going to be. If we look to the situation that the plant workers find themselves in, if they cannot get their hours - the wage of these plant workers is going to go to $9,500 and they do not get their hours, what are the options? Grants. She was very visible last year acknowledging that some of the projects people had to go on, because they could not get their hours in the plants, were degrading. I believe that was some of her commentary. I would certainly hope that she would not rise in her place and say that is acceptable for the people who are going to go into our plants.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at particular areas of the Province, and I look to the Leader of the Opposition, in 2J, I do not think anybody would ever think that there is going to be 82 per cent taken out there in that particular area. If we go and speak to the Labrador Shrimp Company or harvesters that are on the ground in Southern Labrador, I doubt very much if they are going to be in favour of a rationalization of the harvesting sector even to 50 per cent. So, there comes a time when we have to get on with the business here.

The Member for Port de Grave referenced that there have been reports. I can name them. I have been in this portfolio now for about a year and a half and I keep hearing about the Vardy report, the Dunne report, the Cashin report, the Gregory and Broderick report, and you can go on and on. We seem to be caught in a cycle whereby if this does not work we go to another report, and we never get on it. So, it does not matter about this resolution, what is in here today, or what the debates are, the thing is we have to get on with the business of restructuring this fishery.

Let’s take a look at the plants. If we see companies advertising for workers and they do not get the workers, well, Mr. Speaker, I see two roads for us: one, we go down whereby the product is caught at sea, it is frozen, and it is shipped off somewhere else to be done; or, as other jurisdictions have discovered, they have to import workers. I do not think there is anybody in this Province that wants to head down that road. I definitely do not think there is anybody that wants to head down that road. So, we are left with the task.

I go back to one of my points, that government, while the call is for us to put leadership, the leadership piece is there, Mr. Speaker. We are saying to the industry: come to us with suggestions around restructuring. How is it that we are going to make the lot of those in the boats, and those in the plants better? How are we going to attract, how are we going to retain, and most importantly, provide for a strong industry so that it supports the communities as so many of us, as MHAs, have in our districts?

Most of us can get up and speak to the communities and the impact that the fishery has in our communities. I was in my community this weekend. The crab fishery, thank goodness, we have $2.15 a pound for crab, we have 65 cents a pound for shrimp, and we are seeing that the harvesters are eagerly out getting their catches. Mr. Speaker, we know, and many people know, and history repeats itself, that these are historic prices and they are not likely to stay there. We certainly hope they will, but they may not. So we find ourselves back in the situation again, and we have to, Mr. Speaker, we have to come up with ways to make this industry better for those people who are involved in it.

Now, if we go and we talk about some of things that we are doing to make the industry better: we have invested. The budget for our department, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has increased fivefold since we have come into government. Our total budget now is more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined, so don’t anyone get up and say that we are not investing money into it.

Our department is receiving money, and I can outline for you some of the initiatives. We are looking to technology. There is no doubt we have to continue to develop technology, because that is where the world is going, and for the past number of years, we put in place the FTNOP, the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. We put $6 million into that and we did an assessment, we did a survey of it and the responses were unanimous that this is a successful program. Again this year, we have invested in it.

Around the research piece, I hope everybody in the Province would recognize the investment that we made of $14 million. As part of that announcement the research vessel the Celtic Explorer – we leased that and we are leasing it for our own research. We doubt some of the research that comes out of DFO and if we are going to be strong as a Province and ensure that our resource is there, this is the reason we put in this research vessel. Dr. George Rose, renowned in the Province, carried out that first set of research this year. We have CCFI and the work that they do is all around advancing the cause of the fisheries within our Province; very professional, very technical people who are into it.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is winding down and I want to conclude my next four minutes with making a couple of points. One, that if we are going to have a processing capacity in this Province in the next few years and we think that we are going to attract and retain people, we better get on with the business of restructuring this fishery. There is no doubt about it. The numbers that are coming out of it will not see it replaced with the wages and the weeks of work that we presently have.

I can use the example of Arnold’s Cove whereby they provide thirty-five-plus weeks of work. They have their workforce there; they know that they are going to get these numbers of weeks. That is the type of structure that we have to be in. I certainly want to see a process whereby we do not see women and men out doing jobs on the side of the road during a winter season when we should be looking at having them in their workplaces, those being the fish plants, for longer periods of time. We have to take a look at how we can extend those work seasons.

I am very interested in sitting down with the parties that are involved; all I am waiting for is the response. It just cannot be a response that will not see productive change for those people who are in the industry. If that is where we are, then we are just throwing our hands up in the air and the industry partners are throwing their hands up in the air and saying well the way it is, is fine. Give us a bit of money every now and then to downsize it a little but there is nothing that we can do structurally that will change and make the lot for those who are involved better. I think that is simply unacceptable. I am eagerly waiting what the industry is suggesting because government has shown again and again that through report after report after report that we have not gotten on with the business that needs to be done.

Our Premier, Premier Dunderdale, and Premier Williams before her, were always interested in doing something to support the fishery. We can never seem to get to the point where we have the industry coming and saying: this is what we need to do, other than we need an early retirement or here is money that we need to rationalize. There has to be that second component of it and that has to be the restructuring piece. I would hope that neither party on the other side would suggest – and I look forward to their comments on it – would suggest that a ten to fourteen week, 6,700 wage income going to 9,500, is what we see as acceptable and that if that does not work out, that there is a grant structure that falls in place that will get them their hours so that they have a meagre – and when I say a meagre, I mean a meagre – a meagre income that will see them through the next year and hope that it gets better.

This fishery needs to operate more than on hope, Mr. Speaker. This fishery needs to see a structural change that will make it better for everyone who is involved and that fishery will be a strong, viable support for rural Newfoundland and Labrador well into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what was a good motion that spoke to the fishing industry and direction for the fishing industry in this Province has been basically cut out of the entire motion, Mr. Speaker, and government is asking for us today to stand and only support that government maintain its existing policies centered on prudent and long-term management of the fisheries.

Well, Mr. Speaker, how do you support something that does not exist, I say to hon. members? How do you support policies in the fishing industry that you claim you have when they are non-existent?

Mr. Speaker, the minister today, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province, stood in his place and gave a great speech. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? We have been hearing that speech for eight years from government members opposite. For eight years we have been hearing the same messages echoing across the House of Assembly.

What we have not seen and what the fishing industry has not felt in their communities, in their enterprises, in their plants, and in their homes, the very people who live and breathe this industry, what they have not felt is commitment and leadership from their government when it comes to the fishing industry. They say that this government does not care about the industry. They say it, Mr. Speaker, with great certainty because they have facts to back up what they believe. They have many facts to back up what they believe.

Mr. Speaker, they have watched this government over the years as they have allowed for spending in all different sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have watched government members opposite, their own MHAs, their own people who they elected and sent here from their fishing-dependent communities. They sent them here to stand up for them and their industry and they watched them every year, year over year, tap their desk and support monies being invested in the oil and gas industry in this Province and monies being invested in big companies and huge corporations. They have not seen their MHAs, who they sent here to the House of Assembly to represent them, tap their desk because the government was going to invest in the fishing industry. They never saw it because it never happened. It never happened, Mr. Speaker.

Again yesterday in the Budget in this Province, when we are talking about sustainability and when we are talking about investing for the industries of the future, why would you not invest in the fishing industry? Why is it that this government sees the fishing industry as an industry that is on the way out as opposed to an industry that, with stability, can sustain many communities, many people who are partaking in that industry today, if it was done properly and appropriately?

Mr. Speaker, this government first of all decided that they were going to have a summit. The summit on the fishery was supposed to give the clear direction and leadership for this industry. Here we are four or five years later, and what have we seen as part of this summit? We have seen one thing: It was the document called the Memorandum of Understanding on the fishing industry, known as the MOU. That document had three signatories in this Province, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was one of them. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the members opposite that form that government today, they took one thing from the summit on the fishery and that was they would move forward with an MOU. It took them eighteen months.

Every day in this House of Assembly that the Minister of Fisheries was questioned he stood up and said: We are going to wait for the MOU. The MOU is going to be the answer for the fishing industry. It is the MOU that is going to deal with the restructuring. It is the MOU that is going to reshape where we go as an industry. Leading people to believe that the government was actually leading a path forward for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, convincing people in communities all over this Province that we are on top of the fishery and we are going to deliver for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. What did we see, Mr. Speaker, after two years of questioning the government? After two years and seventy or eighty stakeholder meetings being held, after $800,000 of people’s hard-earned money in this Province being spent, what did we see? We saw the minister come out, throw a document on the table and wash his hands of it.

Am I saying that everything in that document is great and wonderful? What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the document we have, known as the MOU today, is neither to be condemned nor to be fully embraced, I say to you, Minister. I say to you, Minister: Are there things in this MOU document that can work in Newfoundland and Labrador in creating a path forward for the fishing industry? Indeed, there is, and people in the industry recognize that and see that. Are there things in this document that most people or a lot of people would not want to see? Yes, there are, but it was the government opposite that chose not to take a working, living document and create it into something that could be beneficial for the industry in this Province. Instead, they took it and they threw it to the recycling bin. That is where they threw it, Mr. Speaker. They threw it to the recycling bin. Then the minister stands up and says: I will wait for direction from the industry.

Well, Minister, you have had direction from the industry and now it is time for you to make decisions. It is time for you to provide leadership and with leadership comes investment in the industry. We need a process that strengthens the industry for all of our coastal communities, but also for all of the people who engage in it.

The minister likes to stand up, look across and say to me: What would you do? Would you implement this recommendation around 2J fisheries? I say to you, Minister: No, I would not. What I will say to you, Minister, is that there are things in this document that I would do, and I make no bones about it. There are things in this document that I would do, I would implement, and I think it would provide some clear path in the fishing industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the 2J area, which is my district: In Labrador, every single processing plant with the exception of one is in my district – every single one. We are engaged in fisheries in the offshore, in the inshore. We are engaged in Aboriginal fisheries. We are engaged in fisheries in shellfish and groundfish. We are engaged in fisheries that extend from the most northern regions to the most southern regions in those particular NAFO divisions. Mr. Speaker, we take our industry very, very seriously because it provides for the livelihood of every single community and I would say for about 75 per cent of the population. So, we take our industry very seriously.

We are a region in this Province that is investing in the industry, I say to you, Minister. You might want to take a page out of the book of companies like the Labrador Fishermen’s Union Shrimp Company that do not believe that this industry should be left to rationalize itself, or as the Member for Bonavista North said it is going to happen through attrition. It is all right to leave people out there in limbo, in chaos, wondering where their next dollar is going to come from, how they are going to survive in this industry. The Member for Bonavista North thinks that is fine for the people he represents in Wesleyville, Lumsden, Carmanville and all of these communities down there, but I do not think that is acceptable at all. I do not think it is acceptable to leave the industry to rationalize itself, and through attrition we will see what happens at the end of the day, may the survival of the fittest prevail.

If we were to use that analogy in every other industry in this Province, where would we be today? If we were to use that kind of philosophy and thinking around every other sector of government, where would we be today? Where would health care be? Where would social services be? Where would the oil industry be? It does not work that way, I say to the Member for Bonavista North. If there are other members in this House of Assembly who share your view on that, well I would say they are being less than accountable to the people who sent them here. They are certainly not representing what their best interests are.

Mr. Speaker, in areas like the one I represent where the minister likes to throw across the House every day on the fishing industry, they are building a new processing plant this year. They are upgrading other processing facilities. They are investing in the industry. They are investing in vessels, Mr. Speaker. They are expanding their fleet inshore and offshore. They are supplementing those who are in the industry. If government wanted to look for an example where people in this industry see prosperity and where they are still seeing some opportunity, he can look there. Maybe that will give him inspiration, Mr. Speaker, to provide some leadership to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista North talked about licences that were given out in this Province. Well, I would like to ask him a question: What ones would he like to see revoked? Which ones would you like to see revoked? Since the cod moratorium, we have seen something like 80 per cent of licences in this Province being revoked already, I say to the member. I ask him today: Which other ones would he like to see revoked?

We know what is happening in Port Union today. We know in Port Union today that plant will not open because of the damage that was done by Hurricane Igor. What we do not know, Mr. Speaker, is if it will open in the years to come. What we still do not know is what adjustment measures mean for workers in those plants.

What does it mean for the people in Jackson’s Arm? Maybe the Member for Humber Valley, who represents that area, would like to tell us what the future outlook is going to be, or is that one of the plants they believe the licences should have been revoked from and that it should never open again? Because when you make those kinds of statements as a government, you should be prepared to back them up, and back them up by saying what plants in this Province should close and never open again. Maybe it is Jackson’s Arm that should never open again. Maybe it is Port Union that should never open again. Maybe that is the message that government members are sending today.

What is really upsetting about all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that not only as this government not provided leadership, but it has given people false hope. It is not implementing programs around the fishing industry that allows people to have an exit strategy and allows people to make adjustments that are sustainable for them. The minister says: I hope no one in this House gets up today and says that make-work projects or cutting trees on the sides of the roads is acceptable.

Well, Minister, that is the only thing your government has offered to the fishing industry in this Province year over year. That is the best that you have been able to come up with. I have supported it, Mr. Speaker, because without it there are so many people in this Province who would not put food on their table. I say to you minister, too many people who would not put food on their table, but where are the real adjustment measures for the fishing industry? If you are going to make statements like that, put your money where your mouth is. Put your money where your mouth is and make the proper investments so that these people can have real jobs in their communities, so that they can exit the industry with some dignity. That is what they are looking for all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what they are looking for, Mr. Speaker, the people who are in this particular industry.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that not only do we have leadership in the industry but we need to ensure that there is investment in the fishing industry. We also need to ensure that there is a plan, and a plan that includes custodial management. The former Premier was very keen on custodial management. In fact, he made a commitment and took on Ottawa several times. Obviously, this government will not take on Ottawa on custodial management because when Premier Dunderdale sent her letter off to Stephen Harper she did not even include the words custodial management in her letter on the fishing industry.

We all know as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, that a way forward in this industry includes rebuilding the stocks for tomorrow; rebuilding the fish stocks off our Province and it requires us having control and having a say, and that is something this government has not been able to achieve for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians inside our federation with Canada. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they will cuddle up to Stephen Harper. They do not mind the fact that he came here in 2006 and committed to having more co-operation and custodial management on the fishery with Newfoundland and Labrador but he broke that promise. He broke that promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; yet, Mr. Speaker, the government opposite thinks that is okay and that is acceptable. Today, under their current Premier, they send off a letter and they do not even mention custodial management in the fishery any more. It has become a non issue for them, Mr. Speaker, a non issue, and therefore the fishing industry and the people in this industry have become a non issue to this government as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say I support the minister’s decision with the MOU. I think it was a good stand the minister had taken. I certainly do not consider myself as less than accountable for the people in my district, because I have quite a number of plants in my district, quite a number of people who would have been out of work today if we would have carried on with the MOU the way that things were being recommended. I certainly would not want to see those people coming back to me saying that you supported the MOU and now look at where we are, out on the streets, as we have done before.

I just want to go back a few years, going back in time to 1985. I was part of a plant closure in Grand Bank in 1985. Our Premier, who sits in the House today, was part of a plant closure in 1985 in Burin. I am going to tell you now; that this Premier certainly knows what it is like to live in a community where a fish plant is closed and where people are out of jobs every day of the year. I tell you now that this is not easy. We went through hard times back in 1985. Through that, the federal government in Ottawa, which was a Liberal government, through Michael Kirby, the Senator in Ottawa, did what they called a restructuring on the fishery. The Michael Kirby task force report came out, and what happened? We are still talking about a restructuring in the fishery today. Nobody had the resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the MOU. I think this was the best opportunity that the industry and the union had, was the MOU; the recommendations on how to restructure the fishery. I think they should get back to the table, as the minister said, and talk more on what is going to happen in the restructuring of our fishery because I think this is the best opportunity that we are ever going to have in Newfoundland and Labrador. Handing out money is no solution to the fishery, we seen that over the years. We seen that lots of times when companies were down, come back looking for $200,000, $300,000, and we handed it out, but we are still in the mess we are in today.

I want to talk about what Richard Cashin stated back in the 1990s. The provincial government, with the full knowledge of the mess we have been in for four years, or five years earlier, issued seventeen new crab licences. This was the Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, this was a Liberal government. Three more licences were issued from 1998-2000, and another six would be added later. This was under a Liberal government regime.

What happens to plants if they close? I would like to send out a challenge to the Opposition on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I would like for them to go out and visit the plants in all the districts throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I also want to say, she mentioned earlier about what plants will be revoked in the Bonavista area. Well, I would say that under the MOU, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would have most all of her plants revoked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Out in my district, Mr. Speaker, I have nine plants and throughout my whole district the plant workers are waiting to get back to work. They are eager to get back to work. If we had plant closures, what would it mean to the people?

I want to mention the plant that we should be following in the future and that is the plant with regard to Ice Water Seafoods, to see where Ice Water Seafoods came from. If we are looking at restructuring, Ice Water Seafoods is a model that we should use.

We talk about investments in the fishery. In 2004, government signed an agreement that saw the Province acquire the enterprise allocations from National Sea Products related to the Arnold’s Cove fish plant. About that same time, Ice Water Seafoods commenced operations because they were about to close too, Mr. Speaker. National Sea Products over in Nova Scotia wanted Bruce Wareham and his group at that time to close the plant in Arnold’s Cove and move everything to Nova Scotia. Is that what we want? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we want.

Bruce Wareham, with the heart of the man in Arnold’s Cove and the heart of the people in Arnold’s Cove said no, that is not going to happen in Arnold’s Cove. So, what Bruce Wareham did, he carried on and put his own dollars into the fishery in Arnold’s Cove, he restructured that plant, he brought that plant to a modern plant in Arnold’s Cove that we see today as a model for the whole fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Ice Water Seafoods has faced many challenges, tackling issues in the groundfish sector, resource availability, market challenges, trade constraints, intensive global competition, and I must say issues that have forced the company to be very creative in management approaches.

Ice Water Seafoods is one of the most highly innovative groundfish operations in the world employing the latest processing technology. Ice Water Seafoods has products in Europe and in North America where they compete head to head with leading seafood producers in Norway and Iceland. The positive result has been that Ice Water continues to operate its facilities successfully in 2011 employing a skilled workforce of over 200.

In the view of seafood marketing opportunities in Europe in 2009, DFA provided $6,000 in assistance to Ice Water Seafoods and harvester representatives to travel to the UK and to the European Seafood Exposition to carry out market research and intelligence on seafood marketing in Europe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Mr. Speaker, I do not see this in any way to what the Opposition is saying that it is doing nothing for the fishery. I want to speak a little bit on Dorset Fisheries and the processing facility at Long Cove. This plant operated in 1988 processing a number of species with concentration on pelagic species such as herring, mackerel and capelin, and operating from May until November. The operation employs between fifty and 100 people.

Like other communities in the seafood industry, Dorset is challenged by resource issues, competitive markets, trade issues, global competition, and an aging workforce. Dorset is an innovative company that is responding to the challenges. As an example of their innovative approach, the company partnered with the Department of Fisheries and Agriculture through the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program to develop and implement an automated conveying and weighing system for pelagics. The system helped the company improve its technology, with government investing $100,000 in Dorset Fisheries a couple of years ago to explore modern technology in sorting pelagic species.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little bit on the Carino plant in South Dildo, the seal plant. This plant is the largest plant in the world. Just a few years ago the seal plant in Norway closed its doors and everything was transferred into the Carino plant in South Dildo. It was through the progressive government policies that led to these investments in South Dildo to make it attractive for this company to merge with Carino. Today, they are doing very well despite the seal negativity portrayed throughout the world.

Some of the products manufactured from the sealskins are: boots, key chains, jackets, gloves, and hats. If you want to buy a pair of sealskin boots, I encourage you to go to South Dildo, they have boots for sale. The largest market for sealskin productions are hats. Eighty-five per cent of the sealskin market is in Russia. Seal oil is sold to the Norwegian market and this year Carino will ship about sixty-five tons of seal oil to Norway. It is expected that the plant will buy 6,500 seals this year. For every 1,000 seals there is 100 tons of seal oil. The Newfoundland sealing industry has formed a group called the Canadian Seal Marketing. The provincial and federal government has funded this group.

Mr. Speaker, last year our government put in $100,000 to this group. This year we have increased that from $100,000 to $200,000. This group has put product lines in the trade shows across the European market. I am also told that this funding has brought great results to the sealing market. The markets are improving you might say. The markets for sealskin boots have increased because of the contributions to the trade shows that they have on their lines when they visit these trade shows. They have increased 300 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some on the investments that our Province has done as well. The DFA’s budget for 2011, current account: Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program, $6.6 million, funding includes $6 million for program initiatives and $600,000 for program administration; Workforce Adjustment Program, $3,150,000 over three years to continue the Workforce Adjustment Program; Coastal and Oceans Management, $909,000 over three years to support DFA’s continuing leadership role in the establishment of the Coastal and Oceans Strategy; Sealing Communications and Advocacy, an additional $100,000, and like I said earlier this year, $200,000.

Mr. Speaker, Trade Policy Initiatives, $100,000 to support additional efforts by DFA to examine opportunities to liberalize trade with key trading nations; Fisheries Infrastructure, continuation of $300,000 for the Special Assistance Grants, $150,000 for the demolition and site restoration of fisheries infrastructure which is no longer of use in the fishing industry; Aquaculture, $343,900 to commence the collection of oceanographic and other biophysical data required to enable the establishment of bay management. The funding represents the first year of a three-year initiative which will cost $714,600.

Wastewater Treatment, $300,000, and I want to say that there are three sealing plants in our district and just a couple of years ago they were in trouble with regard to the system they had to use with the water treatment in their plants. Our government, with the help of our minister, sat down with these plants and the three MHAs involved and we worked out a plan that was a pilot project that they could do to treat their water in their seal plants, so that their sealing industry could carry on and the jobs could be secured.

Aquaculture Abandoned Sites, $100,000, and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker. That shows you what our government has been doing over the years with regard to our fishery and our investments in our fishery.

I want to say, too, we talked earlier about custodial management. I, too, am one that is in favour with custodial management. If you go back in time to the early 1990s, we have been fighting custodial management for years. I had fourteen years with the fishermen’s union back in the 1980s and the 1990s and I sat on the board with the fishermen’s union several times. Back then, Richard Cashin was the leader of the fishermen’s union. They took a protest out on the Grand Banks.

I guess everybody here in this room would know about it, when they anchored the dory out at the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks to show the point that we need custodial management and at least the management rights of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. What happened to that? That dory may still be out there, I do not know, but I do not guess she is. There were certainly demonstrations. We had demonstrations in Ottawa, on the Hill years ago, about the same thing – a restructuring of the fishery.

The fishery has always been in situations where we had our ups and downs. I can remember when I was a boy and I went fishing with my father in Placentia Bay. He used a gill net and he used to use trawls. Mr. Speaker, if he did not pull up alongside of a guy that had a trap fishery and they threw a few dip nets of fish aboard his boat, he would not make a fall to feed his family for that winter. We do not just talk about what is happening right now. The fishery has been in trouble from the day way back when.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PEACH: Leave it alone? No, we are not saying leave it alone. The point that I want to make to you is that you have all the answers, but I am going to tell you something: I have been around the fishery a lot longer than you have and I have never yet seen anybody come up with the position that makes this fishery viable and that can be long-term sustainable. That is the point I want to make.

As far as I am concerned, the opportunity was there for the union to do that. The union has been fighting this for years and they flipped up on the opportunity. Why? If Richard Cashin was there as their leader, he would not have done that. If Richard Cashin had an opportunity, he would have put the fishery back to where it is to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: That is where the problem is. The problem lies out there with the people who are directly in the industry. Too many times have we passed our hands out to the people in the industry and we never, ever get any resolution to the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Obviously, I only have three minutes, but I do not want to let this discussion go without having something to say. I am going to pick up from where my colleague just ended, because I think we have got to think about joint management, and I am not ready to accept, and I know there are a lot of people in this Province who are not ready to accept that we cannot have a sustainable fishery in this Province, and we cannot get back to having a sustainable groundfish fishery either.

To say that we do not have to seek sustainability is a real issue for me, because I think we have a responsibility to do that. We have a responsibility because of the history of who we are as a Province, and who we were as a country. We have a responsibility even to the production of food and the global market, to make sure that we develop a sustainable fishery. If they can have a sustainable fishery over in Iceland, and Norway, and Alaska, and other fishing countries, then we can do it here, but we have got to get together, both federally and provincially, to make it happen. I cannot believe that it cannot happen, because I do believe it can.

I think the challenge to the government that is sitting here right now at this moment is that they have cozied up to the Harper team up in Ottawa, and if they think that the Harper team is going to get in again, then I want to know where they stand in holding his feet to the fire when it comes to the whole issue of custodial management. Two elections ago, he made a promise about custodial management, and he has done nothing about it since, and this government is doing nothing about it. We have to get back to the issue of the custodial management. We have to, that is a basic issue.

We have to get back to the issue of research. The little bit of research that the government here is able to do is a pittance to what is needed, and we have to hold the federal government’s feet to the fire with regard to getting back into real research that is going to give us a sustainable fishery. That is the bottom line. I do not have the answer, standing here, and probably none of us do, but if we keep saying there is no answer to be had, we are not going to come up with one, and that is not good enough.

The status quo is not good enough either. I do not see anything going on. I see things being maintained, but I do not see anything building for the future, and that is what has to happen. No matter who is in Ottawa after May 2, this government has got to sit down with them, and has got to say, sorry, you have a Department of Fisheries that is just as much responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador as it is for the Maritime provinces, for British Columbia, and for everywhere else in this country. We have got to put real money into the research.

We have to put real money into making sure that we really do build a sustainable fishery. We have to speak to the issue of the plant workers, the whole issue around the plant workers and getting into the early retirement for those older workers so that we can train new people. Whether these new people are young people in our Province or whether they are immigrants who come in, we have to get into training and we have to get a new workforce. That is the kind of action we need, Mr. Speaker.

My time is up, so thank you very much for being able to put that much on the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under Standing Order 63(6), this being Private Members’ Day, Wednesday, the Chair recognizes the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North who proposed the original motion.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the members who spoke to the motion this afternoon. It has been a privilege to bring it forward. It is a very important debate and a very important issue in terms of our Province and particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to thank the Minister for Bonavista North, my colleague from Port de Grave, the minister of course in speaking, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and also our Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair. I do not believe I missed anyone. If I did, then you will forgive me.

I have to say that the minister in particular when I question him, he questions me. That is fine. I do not really have an issue with that as such. What would you do? The Member for Bellevue was throwing the same thing across the floor in his little debate, in his little presentation there as well.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what I did do on behalf of the Opposition party today is I brought in a private member’s resolution that, in our opinion, gave some very clear indicators of what we can do. I would like to just reference them for a moment because they are not impossibilities. They are not things that do not make sense. They are very logical suggestions and resolutions to having some concrete and positive input into the fishery.

The resolution called for: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, number one, we would have an aggressive pursuit of a joint management regime with the federal government, including securing custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Mr. Speaker, that is something good to do. We were successful with that.

Last spring in this House in a private member’s motion I put forward, the motion that we would strike a three-party committee that would come together and prepare to go to Ottawa, to the federal government, to again voice our concerns and to be a strong, united voice in this Province from a parliamentary position and that we would challenge the government in terms of custodial management. This government, the government members, voted down that motion. We put it back on again today.

The second thing we say is that we would have co-operation in the industry to develop and implement a comprehensive long-term marketing strategy aimed at promoting the Province’s seafood industry with a goal of increasing sales in world markets.

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything in the MOU that is worthwhile at all it certainly is the piece in terms of the marketing suggestion that came back from the producers and the harvesters in their work over the past twenty months in that document. We recognize that there needs to be a stronger, solidified marketing effort in this Province in terms of marketing our seafood product.

The third thing we did, Mr. Speaker, is we said: Promote the utilization of a variety of marine species in food processing, as well as new industrial uses of marine products in pharmaceuticals, biomedicines, and other chemical products. The other thing we said is: Form partnerships with industry to implement an international procurement program to secure primary seafood product for local seafood processing plants. Finally, that we would commit to a program of adjustment for older workers in a comprehensive, volunteer cost-shared harvesting license consolidation program.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight for the members so that they know – because some of them may have forgotten – those particular resolutions came out almost word for word out of their 2003 and 2007 Blue Book promises by this government on the fishery. If you go back and read it, you will find it in there almost word for word.

Somewhere along the way they have lost their vision. What they did with this resolution – and what they brought back as an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to doing these five items that I just outlined there that I thought are very methodical, very sensible steps and approaches to the fishing industry and the crisis that we find it in.

What this government has suggested today – and it was moved by the Member for Bonavista North, I believe it was, and seconded by the Minister of Fisheries – it says here is what we want to do: We are going to call upon the House – Therefore be it resolved this House calls upon government to maintain its existing policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the fisheries. We do not quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, have any idea of what these policies are.

We are in maintenance mode in terms of the fishery at this point in this Province and that is very, very unfortunate. There is no plan to move things forward; there is no plan to really develop any new policies and so on. We are just going to call upon, we are going to vote now in a few minutes and what we are going to do is we are going to maintain the existing policies that we have today. Mr. Speaker, what a sad resolution to put forward to an industry that is so challenged in our Province at this moment.

The Member for Bonavista North when he spoke, I have to be honest, for an individual who was involved in the fishing industry and so on, I was disappointed that he could not find anything positive to say about the issues that were put forward here today in terms of how they affect his district. Nothing positive at all, not one positive comment about this resolution; just tear it down, talk about the history, go back into the 1990s, talk about what other governments had to do that, quite frankly, none of us here today, for the most part, really had anything to do with; we were not even members of it. Yet, that is the response to putting forth something that is constructive, practical as a possible resolution to the fishery.

I listened to the minister and I have to be honest when I listened to the Minister of Fisheries speak, with all due respect, it sounds like at times that he is talking about an industry that is far off, it is something that is out there somewhere. Not really sure where it is but it is somewhere. It is a little difficult to identify exactly and so on.

I have heard two or three times now – I heard it on the weekend on the CFCB news clip on the weekend when I was back in my district and I heard the minister speak something similar to what he spoke about here a few moments ago, talking about the advertisement for plant workers. Well you know the fact that there is an advertisement for plant workers out there is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. If you look at your paper every weekend you will see advertisements for all types of industries and employers in this Province. It is a way that we recruit workers. In and of itself the fact that someone is advertising for workers is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means there is work and they need individuals to work in the industry. That is essentially what it means.

Now how you want to interpret that and so on and what spin you want to put on that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is quite different. He made the point again of the fact that in his idea of things, that taking a person who works in a crab plant who makes $6,700 a year and if we implement the recommendations of the MOU, that person is going to make $9,500 a year. That certainly is not what is on for him. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not on for us either in terms of having an individual being satisfied with an individual making $9,500 a year.

What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister is not recognizing or not putting forth – he is kind of putting the information out there in somewhat of a wrong fashion, if you will; but we are talking about one species of our fishing industry. I do not know how many plants there are in this Province that strictly do crab; I am not sure if there are any actually. To take that one piece and to say: Okay, this crab industry, the crab quotas allow us to generate that much revenue. As a plant worker, that is not on. Mr. Speaker, many of our plants are multi-species and we want to see more multi-species plants so we can get to where we are doing nine or ten months of work a year and workers are making good incomes and so on. We want to see it become a year-round industry.

So to represent the incomes that people make from the crab industry, what about what they are making from the shrimp industry? What about what they would make from the cod industry if we had a renewed industry there?

He mentioned two options today, and I heard him mention them on the weekend as well. He said: If that is the case there are only two options. Number one is that we catch and freeze at sea. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not the vision of this minister and this government that suddenly we take all of our fish processing, take it to sea, and leave it there.

The other option was – and I think he used a different word today when he said we bring in workers. I know on the weekend he said that we have immigrants. In and of itself, I am sure there was nothing derogatory meant in terms of immigrants. There is nothing wrong with bringing in immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, this Province and the people of this Province who are involved in the fishing industry are looking for much clearer direction from the Minister of Fisheries, from the Premier of our Province, and from the government of today in being able to say: Well, I really only see a couple of solutions. I cannot guarantee you that your income can be anywhere near where you would want it to be and would like to see it to be. So we are going to close down the plants, we will process it at sea, and the only other option is to bring in immigrants who might be satisfied with lower incomes. I am not really sure.

The question that we have been trying to get across and myself, as a critic for fisheries, it is not to just be critical of what is taking place but to try to understand what is the vision of this government for the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

He talks about the MOU and asks whether we support the MOU. Well, if I could back it up to July 2009 when the MOU was signed, it was signed by first of all the government, then it was signed by the ASP, and it was signed by the FFAW. Over a twenty-month period and some eighty-odd meetings, according to what the minister suggested in the media and different places – over that period of time, there were eighty-odd meetings that took place.

Then there was a document put together and out of that document we have the recommendations of the ASP and we have the recommendations from the FFAW. I am not certain that we could expect anything different from what they put forward in terms of being from their position. What we do not have is the government’s position. There is no vision in there. There is no leadership. There are no recommendations from the government giving direction as to where we want to be when this process is completed.

Mr. Speaker, we sat back and we waited as the Minister of Fisheries used the MOU, so to speak, as his protection, as his direction. This is where we are going; we are waiting for it to come down. By mid-February we saw where he came out, said in this House that he has received a document, that it was a matter of doing some tweaking and so on, and that he would be ready to present it to us. Of course, we realize where it went.

He said this afternoon as well that he is interested in sitting down with the industry. Mr. Speaker, we just spent twenty months sitting down with the industry. Twenty full months this government spent sitting down with the fishing industry trying to understand what they saw as its future and, I would assume, them understanding the direction that the government would like to see the industry go in.

I am not sure there is a lot of appetite out there today, in terms of the fishing industry, of sitting down again to go through another process. This is where I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we really need to understand where government is coming from.

I would like to go back to the Member for Bellevue too; I would like to ask him, in terms of his condemnation as to whether he supports an early retirement program. I did not hear that stated. I am really interested to know which members here, as a matter of fact, I would like to know – my neighbour from St. Barbe, unfortunately he did not get a chance to speak, but I would love to hear his take on the fishery, the solutions and how we fix that in this particular day and age.

The member mentioned the shrimp licences that were given out in the 90s; my question is: Which ones would you take away? They asked us what would you do and I throw that question back there today and say: Which ones would you take away?

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis in the shrimp industry. We lost 29 per cent quota cut last year in 3O, this year we are working on an anticipated 40 per cent in the inshore, 10 per cent in the offshore. Mr. Speaker, our government has written the federal government about this.

Mr. Speaker that is just not on, that is just not good leadership, that is not a government who is representing and supporting the issues of the people. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this government had an impasse or had a downtime in the oil business in Newfoundland the way that we are having in the fishing industry this government would do more than write a letter to its federal counterpart.

My question, again, Mr. Speaker, is: When do we see some solid action? We know that a copy of the MOU was sent to the Federal Minister of Fisheries. We have heard nothing back in terms of whether there has been a response. Is the federal government offering anything? Are they committed? Those are the kind of questions that we are asking, Mr. Speaker, and really getting no answers on.

So I thank this House, Mr. Speaker, those who have spoken this afternoon to this motion. Unfortunately, the resolution, as it was amended, really takes away everything that we tried to put forward in concrete suggestions and so on.

We will let the people of this Province be the judge as to where we see the government taking this industry.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services 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.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Hedderson, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Ms Pottle, Dr. King, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Harding…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members for their co-operation so members can hear their name being called.

CLERK: Mr. Dalley, Mr. Granter, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Loder, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Young, Mr. Kent, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Forsey, Ms Perry, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution as amended carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the resolution as amended to carry, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Hedderson, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Ms Pottle, Dr. King, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Harding, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Granter, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Loder, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Ms Shelia Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Young, Mr. Kent, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Forsey, Ms Perry, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution as amended, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker declares the resolution, as amended, carried.