Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 12 June 2007 (45th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLV No. 28)
2007-06-12
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June 12, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV NO. 28
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery, a
gentleman who has been visiting the House of Assembly for many years and has
been seated in the public galleries. We usually see him day after day in the
gallery located at the far end of the Assembly.
Chester Harris began visiting the public galleries of our Parliament at the
Colonial Building during the National Convention. At that time, Mr. Harris was a
student at Memorial University College located on Parade Street, and he tells me
he may have missed the occasional class while listening to the numerous debates
that characterized Newfoundland's road to Confederation.
He was born in New Chelsea, Trinity Bay, nearly eighty-three years ago. He
served his beloved Province as a teacher, a social worker, and as a salesman. He
also writes short historical commentaries that he often shares with the Corps of
Commissionaires.
Mr. Harris, it is a pleasure to recognize your participation in the public
discussions that formulated so many policy initiatives over the past sixty-five
years. This afternoon, we recognize your consistent attendance in the public
galleries over so many decades.
Sir, as you said to me many times, you wonder why, after all those years, you
still have to come in under the category: Admit strangers.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the
District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North;
the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the
Member for the District of Topsail; and, the hon. the Member for the District of
Grand Falls-Buchans.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, June 8, I had the opportunity to attend a Festival 500 celebration
announcement at the Gentleman's Garden in Ferryland in my district. Festival
500, Mr. Speaker, is an international festival of choral music and celebration
of song which every two years welcomes 1,200 to 1,400 international choristers,
family and friends who share the joy of singing with our Province. Choral groups
coming from Australia, Canada, Ireland, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom and the United States will participate this year.
This year, in addition to the regular programs in St. John's, two rural
components of the Festival were announced - "Up the Shore" in
Ferryland and "Around the Bay" in Carbonear. The Festival will run
from July 1 to July 8. This expansion of Festival 500 into our rural communities
will no doubt build on and celebrate the strong historical, cultural and musical
heritage of rural communities like Ferryland.
On July 7, Mr. Speaker, Festival 500 programming will move to Holy Trinity
Church in Ferryland where three choral groups will perform, including: The
Mornington Singers from Ireland, High Park Choirs from Toronto, and the
Quintessential Vocal Ensemble from our great Province, Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the ticket sales raised from the performance in the church will
be used to continue the restoration project of the 143 year old church in
Ferryland and continue to build on our expanding tourism sites for tourism and
the overall industry.
Mr. Speaker, the ability to host such an event is truly an honour and a
tribute to the volunteers, including the Ferryland Tourism Group led by Mr.
Jerome White and the partnership developed with the Festival 500 board. I also
extend our appreciation for the Festival 500 group for allowing Ferryland to
host this event and the opportunity for the participants to spend the day
exploring the rich history and culture in the area, and the worldwide exposure
it allows us and our communities. Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt another
enhancement to the ongoing tourism efforts of so many groups in the region.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the Festival 500 for
expanding their Festival into the region, and extend an invitation for one and
all to take in the performance on July 7 and experience the celebration of the
international choral music.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the
RCSCC237 Truxtun Corps in Lawn. The Newfoundland and Labrador Cadet Marksmanship
Team, represented by RCSCC237 Truxtun in Lawn, has claimed a National Bronze
Medal.
The medal was presented after three days of intense competition in the
"unit team" category at the National Cadet Marksmanship Championships
held in London, Ontario, May 6 to May 11. Twenty-four marksmanship teams
consisting of Sea, Army and Air Cadets represented their provinces and
territories in a bid for a place on the medal podium.
Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Truxtun's team consists of: Chief Petty
Officer First Class Jennifer Drake, Petty Officer First Class Justin Power,
Petty Officer Second Class Jonathon Strang, Lieutenant Commanders Shelby Jarvis
and Scott Jarvis, and team coach Lieutenant Maurice Tarrant. Lieutenant
Commander Jonathon Strang and Petty Officer First Class Justin Power placed
among the top twenty marksmen in Canada, finishing tenth and eleventh
respectively. Lieutenant Commander Strang also edged Petty Officer First Class
Power by a single point to claim the Top Sea Cadet Marksman in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Marksmanship Team of Lawn, and their coach, and wish them success in all future
competitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge two organizations
that have had an indelible impact on the lives of the youth in Bonavista North:
the 2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps and the 840 Indian Bay Lions
Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron.
The 2910 Corps is based in the New-Wes-Valley area and has been providing
service for thirty-five years. The Indian Bay Squadron has an equally impressive
history and has been operating for thirty-two years. Both organizations have
given generations of young Newfoundlanders the opportunity to develop skills,
experience the world, and become leaders in their communities.
Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour and privilege of attending the Annual
Ceremonial Review for both groups, and I can say that the level of proficiency
and discipline shown by these exemplary young men and women was nothing short of
extraordinary. Captain Juanita Hoben, the Commanding Officer of the Indian Bay
Squadron, and Captain Paul Batstone, the Commanding Officer of the 2910 Corps,
should be very proud of what their groups have accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the
2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps and the 840 Indian Bay Lions Royal
Canadian Air Cadet Squadron on the completion of another exceptional year of
service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to extend congratulations to a Carbonear Collegiate student,
Daniel Mackenzie, who was the top competitor in the Province for the Michael
Smith Science Challenge Exam held at Carbonear Collegiate in March.
Mr. Speaker, the Michael Smith Science Challenge Exam is sponsored by the
University of British Columbia. The challenge was developed by a group of
professors at the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry, Botany and
Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia to raise high school
student awareness of the many branches of science. Named in honour of the late
Nobel laureate and University of British Columbia professor, the contest is
based on Grade X science curricula and is written by Grade X students across
Canada. The exam is designed to test the problem solving skills in physics,
astronomy and related mathematical concepts.
Daniel was presented with the first place provincial prize of $100 from the
challenge that took place at Carbonear Collegiate recently. He placed
twenty-second out of the 538 students across Canada to take the challenge. He is
the son of Shauna and Robert Mackenzie of Harbour Grace.
Mr. Speaker, also from Carbonear Collegiate, Mark Ryan wrote the exam and
placed third overall in the Province. Mark is the son of Ray and Debbie Ryan of
Carbonear.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Daniel MacKenzie, who placed first provincially and
twenty-second nationally, and Mark Ryan who placed third provincially at the
Michael Smith Science Challenge Exam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 2, I had the pleasure of
attending the Annual Review and Inspection of the 905 Viking Royal Canadian Air
Cadets in Paradise.
The 905 Squadron has just completed their seventh year anniversary and is
comprised of seventy-three Cadets from Paradise, Conception Bay South and St.
Philip's-Portugal Cove area. Their Annual Review winds up the year with an
inspection of the cadets, a display of mobile and static events and award
presentations.
The top first year to fourth year Cadets were: Kayla Viguers, Brandon
Bartlett, Charles Borg and Stephanie Smith. The Lord Strathcona Medal, which
recognizes the highest achievement as a cadet, was presented to Warrant Officer
1 st Class, Stephanie Cranford.
The Squadron meets at Holy Family School each Thursday night and utilizes the
Paradise Community Centre for weekend training. The cadets range in age from
twelve to fifteen years and undergo weekly training in various levels of the
cadet program qualifying them for advancement and their attendance at camp.
Their training includes physical fitness, citizenship, music, aviation and
leadership. It is a tremendous program, Mr. Speaker.
I ask all Member of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating all of
the award recipients, and all those who participated to make this a very
rewarding experience for so many of our youth.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to two
Grand Falls-Windsor students, Emily Hatt and Jonathan Pye who were recently
honoured with the Exploits Valley High Female and Male Athlete of the Year
Awards.
Mr. Speaker, athletes cannot excel without dedication, commitment and desire
to perform their best every time they play their game. Emily Hatt was named the
Female Athlete of the Year at Exploits Valley High for performance and
dedication to her school's basketball and volleyball teams. She has played
both sports since Grade 6 and now in Grade 11, her continued involvement has
garnered her this coveted award.
Mr. Speaker, Jonathan Pye has again been singled out as Male Athlete of the
Year. He was first awarded this honour when he was a Grade 9 student at Exploits
Valley Intermediate and this year for his involvement in sports at Exploits
Valley High. Along with the award for Athlete of the Year, this Grade 11 student
was also named the most valuable player of both his basketball and volleyball
teams.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
extending congratulating to Emily Hatt and Jonathan Pye who were honoured with
the Exploits Valley High Female and Make Athlete of the Year Awards.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statement by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, thirteen of our Province's brightest young
scientists recently returned home from the Canada-Wide Science Fair. The
competition was held in Truro, Nova Scotia earlier this month. As expected, Mr.
Speaker, they did our Province proud.
Each of the students made the provincial team by winning regional science
fairs and four were recognized at the national competition as having exceptional
science projects.
Stephanie Gallant from St. Peter's Junior High in Mount Pearl won a silver
medal in life sciences, Saraj Hamodat from Holy Heart in St. John's won a
bronze medal in health sciences, Cayley Linehan from Exploits Valley High in
Grand Falls-Windsor won a bronze medal in biotechnology and pharmaceutical
sciences, and Paula Slaney from Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn won honourable
mention in life sciences. These four young women should be proud of their
accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, and feel confident that they represented their
schools, communities and Province well on the national stage.
Today, science and technology is an integral part of everything we do. In
today's science classroom, students learn about the fundamental principles of
science with a focus on applying this knowledge to the world around them. New
courses encourage students to learn through hands-on experiences that build
valuable scientific skills. These are skills that last a lifetime.
The provincial government strives to strengthen scientific literacy by
providing our students with the best modern learning resources relevant
curriculum and an environment in which to succeed. Budget 2007 provides $1.65
million to improve laboratory safety. This is in addition to last year's
commitment of $2.2 million. This funding will be used to improve safety
standards, provide professional development, and develop a school safety science
manual. The manual is expected to be ready for the upcoming school year.
Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to these young people and to the
thousands of other students in the Province whose determination and drive will
help build a prosperous and self-reliant Province.
We have many success stories in our school system and students need to feel
confident that they can do just as well as any other student, anywhere in the
country. I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in acknowledging, celebrating and
encouraging this success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advanced copy of her ministerial statement. On
behalf of the Official Opposition I want to congratulate all those who took
part
in the Canada-wide science fair recently in Truro, Nova Scotia.
Truly, Mr. Speaker, we congratulate each and every one of them because they
are all winners after having won the competition at the regional level. Rather
than to go into all the names, I want to congratulate the four young women on
receiving the silver, the two bronze and the honourary mentions at this
competition.
Truly, Mr. Speaker, technology and science, no doubt, is an integral
part in
our school system today. As they expand on their knowledge in the various fields
as noted here, I also want to pay tribute to, I guess, the department with the
new manual that will be coming into effect in this school year. Not to be
critical on anything after this good news story, the only thing I say to the
minister, I hope that she will move swiftly on the problems that we are having
with the math curriculum so that our students in this field, as they take on
people in national competitions, that truly this will be another success story.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the young women on their
accomplishments to date and wish them every success in their future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, our artists make a valuable contribution to
the social and economic life of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government
invests in our artists through several existing programs and we are committed,
Mr. Speaker, to increased investment in original artistic creation within all
disciplines and at all levels and stages of artistic development.
In recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the efforts of our creative people, it is my
pleasure today to announce the establishment of the Status of the Artist Working
Committee which will assist this government to increase direct support to, and
recognition of, working artists.
I am pleased to inform the House that Pam Hall, a visual artist, film-maker
and writer, will chair this working committee. Ms Hall's work has been
exhibited across Canada and internationally, and is represented in many
corporate, private and public collections. She has worked extensively in the
development of both federal and provincial public policy in arts and culture,
education, and communications.
Mr. Speaker, other committee members include: actor and playwright Amy House,
the Artistic Animateur of the RCA Theatre Company; printmaker Audrey Feltham,
who has exhibited her work in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia; award-winning poet and author Carmelita McGrath;
and, Stan Hill, who has exhibited and won awards for his Iroquois bone carvings
throughout Canada and the United States and is president of the Association for
Aboriginal Artists of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, our cultural plan, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The
Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture , contains a commitment
to give priority to creative people and their artistic endeavours, and to better
recognize their unique value to our culture and to our economy.
The establishment of the Status of the Artist Working Committee will help us
to achieve this goal, to ensure that the work of our artists in all disciplines
and at all career levels will be highly valued and that artists will receive
greater recognition as working professionals.
Mr. Speaker, our professional artists and the art they create are the heart
and soul of cultural activity. It is important that our creative people are
properly valued and compensated for their artistic endeavours. I look forward to
working with this committee on the implementation of practical measures that
will have a real impact on the lives of artists in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Again, Minister, this is another good news story for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. While all of the people who you appointed to that
working committee are knowledgeable and capable, Minister, the next time that
you add a committee of this nature - not to criticize the appointments or the
committee - let offer a little suggestion: The next time you appoint a committee
of this nature, add a little more heritage, add a little more culture, Minister,
and add someone to these committees from Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, on many occasions, to
clarify his department's inaction on protecting Newfoundland and Labrador
companies who work on the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. We know that
at least 50 per cent of this work will be completed by Quebec companies in
Quebec.
Section 7 of the Public Tender Act states: We understand and agree to list
the names of all sub-contractors and suppliers whose bids have been used in the
preparation of this tender price in Appendix A. The list will be subject to the
approval of the owner.
I ask the minister: Did the Quebec companies awarded this contract, Pomerleau
Inc., follow
section 7 of the Public Tender Act and provide a listing of
sub-contractors? If so, are they using the sub-contractors named in the tender
documents?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To answer the member's question, I am glad he has gotten it right because
in his comments the other day, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, he said: I will say to
the minister again, it is the Public Tender Act, I think it is
section 27.
Indeed, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it is
section 7. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker,
right off: We have followed all of the requirements under the Public Tender Act.
In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, this is a design bill for the long-term
facility in Corner Brook, and since the bidder in this case is using their own
pricing there is no requirement to list the contractors.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member for the Bay of Islands, before he
goes off yapping about this again, that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the hon. House and
the people of the Province that benefits are accruing to the Province, indeed to
the city and to the area in Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands.
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, Pomerleau Inc. now has one superintendent
who is from Nova Scotia. We have two carpenters, Mr. Speaker, from the Bay of
Islands, from the member's district. We have a labourer from the Northern
Peninsula. We have two electricians from the Bay of Islands -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as I knew, the list of sub-contractors in
section
7, that was put in the tender document, the minister did not protect the jobs of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and out of a $57 million project he is bragging that
a superintendent from Nova Scotia is doing the project. That is just
unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, last week there was a meeting in St. John's to discuss the
Agreement on Internal Trade. While government was willing to award the contract
for the long-term care facility in Corner Brook to a Quebec company because of
the interprovincial agreement, the minister has made it quite clear that the
fibre optic contract and the contract of the new provincial ferries will not be
subject to this agreement.
I ask the minister: Can you explain the difference between the long-term care
contract in Corner Brook and the fibre optic and ferry contracts that would see
one subject to the Agreement on Internal Trade while the other two contracts are
excluded?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the Opposition continue to
mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would just like to read some excerpts from a letter that we received from
Marco Limited, and I am just going to take some of the sentences here. "We
tendered on the project..." - this being the long-term care facility in
Corner Brook. "We tendered on the project in December of 2006 and placed
third behind a local firm based in St. John's... While we were disappointed in
the result, we never had any objection to the tender process or the awarding of
the contact to a Quebec firm."
It gets better, Mr. Speaker. "The Official Opposition and the local
television media have left people with the impression that Marco objected to the
process and the awarding of the contract to a Quebec firm." Now, in all
fairness to the television media, it is coming from the hon. gentleman opposite.
"This is entirely false. From the outset, we disagreed strongly with any
argument advanced with the view of protecting local contractors and giving
preference to bidders because of their physical origins. We currently have
offices in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia and Moncton, New Brunswick. We regularly
compete against Pomerleau Inc. and other firms from across the country in the
three Maritime Provinces and are successful in many tenders."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will, Mr. Speaker.
"If there was any preference given to a bidder dependent on the location
of their head office, we would never be able to work outside of our own
province."
You can have a copy of that if you want it, anytime.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, and I thank the Premier for the copy of his
documents, but you should stand up for the people in Corner Brook, in your own
district, who are calling me and asking me for Pomerleau's address in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question again to the minister or the
Premier, whoever wants to answer it: How can you explain the difference between
the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and the fibre optic and the ferry
contracts that would see one subject to the Agreement on Internal Trade while
the other two are excluded? Can either the Premier or the minister explain how
you can pick and choose which one will fall under the Internal Trade Agreement
and one does not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just say to the member opposite, because he obviously does not
understand the Agreement on Internal Trade, the fact of the matter is that all
of this stuff is covered under the Agreement on Internal Trade. It is not that
one is exempt and one is not, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to ask the members opposite: Why, here in 2007, do they all
of a sudden have a problem with the Agreement on Internal Trade? Why, all of a
sudden here in 2007, do they believe that we should have provincial preference
for contracting work in the Province, when in 1994 they were the very people who
signed the agreement and did away with the Provincial Preference Policy?
The fact of the matter is, under the Agreement on Internal Trade for economic
development opportunities and regional economic development, we can apply for an
exemption, Mr. Speaker, or state that we are having an exemption.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: In the case here, Mr. Speaker, the contracting businesses in
Newfoundland and Labrador, obviously, believe that they would rather have open
access to our Province so that they can have open access to other provinces.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure the minister, not all of them, and that is why there is a case
down at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, not all of them agrees
with what you are saying there, I can assure you that.
Mr. Speaker, government recently announced that the Torbay Bypass Road will
be constructed on a fifty-fifty cost-shared basis with the federal government.
The total commitment from both levels of government was a combined $10 million.
I ask the minister: What is the total cost of this project? What work will be
completed this year and when will this project be completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just to make a correction on that, the total cost of the Torbay
Bypass will be $13 million. The provincial government will be putting in $8
million and the federal government will be putting in $5 million.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that has been on the books for something like
thirty years. When the former Administration were in power - the Minister of
Transportation and Works at the time was John Efford - they put the Torbay
Bypass on a back burner with some 15,000 cars a day going over the Torbay
Bypass. It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. Again, as I said, $5 million from the
federal government and $8 million from the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not know I was so good, having to get four different people to answer
the one question for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I see the Premier came to the defence of the
Minister of Transportation and Works. It is too bad he does not come to the
defence of the workers in Corner Brook who are looking for work, with $25
million done up in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that the environmental assessment has
been completed on this project and when is the completion date expected for the
bypass?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The environmental preview is actually being done as the contract is being
completed, Mr Speaker. The Torbay Bypass is scheduled to be completed in the
fall of 2009.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the doctors of this Province are concerned enough
about wait times that they have placed ads in newspapers around the Province.
Doctors are saying that people are waiting too long to see family doctors,
waiting for tests, waiting to see specialists. We have almost 100 vacancies in
this Province, many in rural areas, and a turnover rate of 10 per cent a year.
Doctors and patients say that they have been waiting too long and there is not
enough being done.
I ask the minister: What additional initiatives are you planning to address
this serious situation in our health care system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr Speaker, just to comment on a couple of things the member
opposite has raised. The issue of wait times, let's take that particular issue
firstly. If you look at the measurements that we have in this Province, where we
compare ourselves to other jurisdictions across the country, we compare
favourably with wait times in all the areas where we have benchmarked ourselves
against the rest of the country. I say, Mr. Speaker, in those areas where all
the provinces in the country have agreed to compare themselves, we compare very
favourably with other jurisdictions with respect to the wait times in those key
areas.
The second thing he raised with respect to the whole issue of resourcing, I
have mentioned in this House several times in the last couple of weeks, that
right now today, Mr Speaker, we have more physicians in Newfoundland and
Labrador today than we have had in our history. Last year, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, we achieved a higher number of nurses in this
Province than any other time in our history. So, on some very key areas we have
had some tremendous success and it is directly a result, I say, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that I am sure the minister is
aware of, is that the wait times, according to those benchmarks, actually starts
when a person makes an appointment to see a specialist. What our doctors are
referring to is actually the wait times to actually see the primary health care
provider, which in a lot of cases is a family physician. Mr. Speaker, the
doctors of this Province are telling you that the current efforts are not good
enough and more has to be done. The doctors of this Province have told you that
the key to reducing wait times is not just about having the right number, it is
to ensure that we have the right number of doctors, providing the right services
at the right places.
I ask the minister: Will you now listen to these doctors? They are telling
you that the people of this Province deserve to get the medical attention that
they need with no hassle. When are you going to listen to those professionals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: As I was saying a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the results that
we have achieved in those recruitment efforts for physicians, nurses and other
individuals, other health disciplines, are a direct result of this government's
commitment to quality improvement, a direct result of the significant
investments that we have made in health care in the last three years, and it is
a reflection of the commitment that we continue to make, to continue to grow the
health system in this Province, to continue to enhance the quality that we
provide, and to continue with some of the significant initiatives that we have
undertaken to attract more quality health professionals in this Province,
whether it be physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists,
speech language pathologists, and the list goes on, in areas where we have had
some great success.
We have, in fact, Mr. Speaker, been taking advice from the physicians, we
have been taking advice from the nurses' organizations. In fact, many of the
initiatives that we have undertaken -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Many of the initiatives that we have undertaken, and had some success with,
are as a result of our collaboration with physician groups, nurses' groups,
allied health professionals. It is a result of actually listening, I say, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that it
is action that the physicians are looking for.
On another note, Mr. Speaker, one issue that has come to the forefront in the
last couple of days with the passage of Bill 9, the so-called safer communities
and neighbourhoods legislation, is a lack of proper supports for families who
are impacted by some sort of problems in society. Turnings is one group that is
working to deal with some of these most serious situations. The minister
recently denied an application of $30,000 for this group for funding.
I ask you now, Mr. Minister: Will you reconsider this application so that
they can continue to do the good work that they are doing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would recognize, from
having participated in the Estimates discussion this year around this year's
Budget, we have, in the Department of Health and Community Services, for a
number of years now, supported key community organizations in the tremendous
amount of work that they do.
One of the unfortunate things is that we have so many, such a large number of
community based organizations out there who are doing some tremendous work. They
are making a tremendous impact on the communities and the constituents that they
serve, and they work in partnership, frequently, with many of our health
authorities in the provision of services to the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
This year, I believe, our grants to community agencies was something like
$1.2 million, I think it was, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point I want to conclude on is that this government successively, since
we formed government, have, on an annual basis, continued to supply -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on a quick note to that, the money that the
minister was referring to in the Estimates, I am aware of that, was $50,000 for
two years, from a pharmaceutical company. What I was referring to was $30,000
program funding which was program funding that you guys had done last year.
I ask the minister once again: Will he consider that $30,000 in funding, not
the $50,000 that was supplied by the pharmaceutical company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the $30,000. I was
referring to the $1.2 million, I believe it was, that we put into community
agencies that work with us. They work with our health authorities, they work
with the Department of Health and Community Services, in providing much needed
community based supports and we will, this year, next year, as we have in the
past three years, continue to commit to work with community based organizations
in the delivery of programs and services, and we will support their efforts, I
say, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to support their efforts financially. This
year it was $1.2 billion.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible.... We had something, I think it was
somewhere in the range of about $3 million worth of requests, and on an annual
basis we have, unfortunately, to make choices.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have made choices, I say, Mr. Speaker, and this year we have now made
choices to support to the tune of $1.2 million community organizations who
provide great programs at the community level, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Justice, and concern the safe
communities legislation, Bill 9, that we passed in the House yesterday.
One of the major concerns expressed with this legislation has been the lack
of meaningful consultation. Seven women's groups in the Province, we are
aware, Mr. Speaker, were not contacted. Today, the Turnings group are now saying
they were not consulted either and are expressing concerns that the SCAN
legislation will not contribute to violence prevention. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
they are predicting that it will give birth to a new breed of criminals and that
many families and relationship problems will probably increase as a result of
some of these initiatives.
Minister, I have to ask: Why were so many groups not consulted, given the
significant concerns that are now being expressed by this group and by the women's
groups?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it was an oversight that the seven Women's Centres had not
been consulted earlier. They were consulted. The consultations were meaningful
because they led to six amendments that were proposed and accepted in this House
on the legislation yesterday.
What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, based on the concerns that were raised by
the women's groups, and keeping in mind that we did do consultations with the
Status Advisory Council, violence prevention groups, and a number of other
groups were consulted within November and December, but keeping in mind the
concerns that were raised by the Women's Centres last week and the week
before, when they were consulted, we had contacted the Women's Policy Offices
in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Women's Centres in Manitoba and Saskatchewan
as well, and they see absolutely no concerns with the legislation in Manitoba
and Saskatchewan.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand the fears that were raised but
there were several amendments that were brought in and accepted to address those
fears, and I will give confirmation and certainly give my commitment that in the
development of the protocols and the regulations for this particular legislation
we will do very broad consultation, including with Turnings, with
municipalities, with all groups in the Province that should have input into this
legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in debate the minister did give a
commitment that he would endeavour to have consultations with the women's
groups before the proclamation of this bill.
I would like to ask him when we can see those consultations started, and if
he is open to further amendments to the legislation based on the input and the
feedback that he gets from those individuals.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I will say that I believe wholeheartedly that
this is good legislation, and that the fears - I will not say that they are
unfounded because these are very valid groups and very valid concerns that they
are bringing forward, but I do not believe that the fears that are being raised
will translate into what is being said will happen in the Province.
Based again on the legislation that we have, which was founded on legislation
in Manitoba, we have made several improvements prior to bringing it to the House
and made six amendments to that particular legislation - but, absolutely, based
on the consultations that we have, Mr. Speaker, prior to the protocols being
developed, prior to the regulations being developed, if we feel that, based on
those consultations, further amendments are needed to the legislation, by all
means, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - I will ensure that the consultations that take place
will be absolutely meaningful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a final question.
The minister indicated he had consulted with other provinces, especially
Manitoba, with regard to this legislation. We have been informed that Northwest
Territories also entertained legislation similar to this but, after
consultation, decided not to implement this particular piece of legislation.
I ask the minister: Have you consulted with Northwest Territories, and have
you received any feedback on why they may have scrapped the legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is at the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers of Justice last year, there
was a report based on the success of this legislation in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. Based on that, it was recommended that all provinces and
territories adopt the same legislation. It is good legislation.
I am not aware of the concerns that Northwest Territories had, Mr. Speaker,
but I am aware of the very high degree of success in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of 1,300 phone calls, complaints to the Safer
Communities and Neighbourhoods inspectors in Manitoba that they have had great
success with, and it only resulted in six closure orders out of all of those
calls. We are aware of the great success, Mr. Speaker, but we are definitely
prepared to do further consultations.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Justice.
Last week, when the government announced the appointment of a Supreme Court
Judge for Labrador West, the minister stated that this appointment was part of a
plan to restore full access to judicial services in Labrador West.
My question for the minister is: Apart from the Supreme Court Judge, what
does the minister mean by full access to judicial services, and when will these
other services be put in place in Labrador West?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member for her question.
The court centre in Wabush will be reopening as a part of this announcement,
Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, under the Northern Strategic Plan and under
several announcements made through the Department of Justice, we have expanded
justice services and legal aid services throughout the Province. We have
enhanced services under this year's Budget.
More directly to the question, the court centre in Wabush will be reopening
as a result of the appointment of a new judge for Wabush.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the lack of legal aid services in Labrador West
has created a serious backlog of cases where clients have to wait for a legal
aid lawyer from Stephenville to take their case. This means that residents of an
entire region of this Province cannot get timely legal assistance or adequate
face-to-face meetings with lawyers unless they can pay for it.
My question for the minister is, and based upon what you just said: Will the
restoration of judicial services and the opening of the court centre include
immediately the creation of a legal aid office with a lawyer and a paralegal and
a Crown attorney assigned to Labrador West?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have received an inquiry from an individual in Labrador West about legal
aid availability. I know that, Mr. Speaker, based on the appointment of the new
judge and the opening of the court centre, we may need to, in fact, look at
enhancing legal services and legal aid services further in that region. That is
something that we are prepared to look at. It is not something that I can commit
to on the floor of the House today, obviously, because we would have to look at
that and the implications and the costs around it, but it is certainly something
that government is prepared to look at. We want to deliver adequate justice
services to all regions of the Province, including Labrador West, which is
precisely why we made the announcement of the new judge and the opening of the
court centre in Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure who it is the minister has heard from, but I am aware that
Noreen Careen, the Coordinator of the Women's Centre in Labrador West, has
been speaking to this issue for a long time. So, it is not that it is just an
individual who is concerned. She is concerned because it has been a major impact
on the women's community because of not having the access to legal aid
services.
Mr. Speaker, the MHA for Labrador West has stated in 53 North , on June
10, that the court waiting area needs to be revamped because right now
plaintiffs and accused must wait and confer with the lawyers in the same badly
separated area.
Again, my question for the minister is: Will the opening of the court centre
mean that the court waiting area will be redesigned to allow for separation of
plaintiffs from accused?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look at this.
What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is we have just announced a new judge
for Labrador West. We have announced the opening of the court centre for
Labrador West. This is good news for the region.
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look at whatever inquiries are
brought forward from any individual in any region of the Province or, for that
matter, any member of the Opposition. This is great news for the Labrador West
region. It is something that they have been asking for since 1991, when the
former Administration discontinued the judge in Labrador West and closed the
court centre in Labrador West.
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly looking at improving judicial services for all
regions of the Province and the good news is, we have just reinstated the judge
in Labrador West and reopened the court centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, tenders were called by the federal government
for contaminate soil remediation at the St. John's Airport. The company that
was the lowest bidder did not have the necessary permits from the provincial
government for operation of equipment to carry out this contract. Officials
within the provincial Department of Environment and Conservation were overruled
by the minister and directed to issue the necessary permits.
Can the minister tell this House why he overruled the officials in his own
department and fast tracked the paperwork for this very sensitive approval?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is going to be very simple.
In order for any contaminated site to be cleaned up it is going to have to meet
the environmental standards of this Province. In this case, the standards as set
out will be met.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the question. Officials in
his department made it very clear that the lowest bidder was not in a position
to do this and they were considering going to the second lowest bidder. At the
eleventh hour, the minister overruled them and permitted the permit to go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the process for approving someone
to do this kind of work often takes months because of the public safety issue
involved. Can the minister tell us, what were the concerns which people in the
department had in relation to the approval of the permits for this operator, and
can he tell us what monitoring occurred to ensure that proper procedures were
followed after the soil was removed from the contaminated site?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that any contaminated
soil that has been removed, any procedures that are followed, will meet
stringent environmental standards within this Province. In this case, likewise,
no different than any other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the first question.
Did he overrule the officials of his department?
Mr. Speaker, contaminated soils may contain toxic chemicals from gas and
diesel fuel and the procedures for the transportation and disposal are very
detailed.
I ask the minister: Can he provide this House and the public of this Province
with assurances that these proper procedures were followed, and will he make
public all records, which the department has, on how this soil was disposed of?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the treatment of any
contaminated sites, any contaminated soils, will meet the standards that are set
out. We have no problem at all in releasing information related to that, Mr.
Speaker. Nothing more than that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador have lobbied
extensively on behalf of towns to the government to get control of Crown lands
held in their boundaries by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing so they can use
and develop this land as a source of income in economic development.
I ask the minister: Will the government act on this request from the
municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe, I will say to the hon. member opposite, he should have asked the
question to the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
This is an issue that has been ongoing for many years within the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that the municipalities have been requesting that
Crown lands within the municipality's boundaries would be turned over to the
municipality so that they could basically disperse, sell off, and make a profit
from that, Mr. Speaker.
It is something that we have had some discussions on within the department
but there are no final decisions made on anything of that nature, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 32)
MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Premier made
reference to a document that he read from. In line with Beauchesne, page 151,
495, when a minister refers to a document, I would assume that he is prepared
to table that document.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, no problem. The Premier indicated in Question
Period that he is prepared to make the document available. I believe we have it
now and it is ready to be tabled.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice who is giving, I do believe, a
Notice of Motion.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Provincial Court Act. (Bill 34)
Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the
following resolution:
Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a Tribunal under
section
28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and
benefits of judges and the chief judge; and
WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice
on May 26, 2006 except for its recommendations respecting an indemnity for
Provincial Court judges; and
WHEREAS the recommendations of the Tribunal respecting an indemnity for
Provincial Court judges were submitted to the Minister of Justice on April 30,
2007; and
WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges
Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court
judges was tabled in this Honourable House on May 10, 2007 under
section 28.2 of
the Act; and
WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under
section 28.2 of the act to
approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and
WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept the recommendations
of the Tribunal as contained in the report of April 30, 2007;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House accept the
recommendations of the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court
Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial
Court judges.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act Respecting The Effective Administration Of The House Of
Assembly, The Standards Of Conduct Of Elected Members, And Their Ethical And
Accountable Behaviour. (Bill 33)
Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, pursuant to Standing Order 11,
move that the House not adjourn on Thursday, June 14, at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00
p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of
the people who use the park in Frenchman's Cove on the Burin Peninsula. They
are not only dismayed but they think it is atrocious that a contract to make
reservations at a provincial park has been let to a company in Quebec. What they
find particularly galling is that, when they call to make the reservation, they
have to pay $10.60 to reserve a site. What is happening, of course, is that this
is in addition to any cost to stay at a particular campsite. In addition to the
$10.60, they have to pay for the price of staying on the site.
Mr. Speaker, what is really upsetting about this as well is that if they want
to stay more than one week, which is not uncommon for people who use Frenchman's
Cove Park, they have to call and make the reservation again. They cannot make a
reservation for more than one week.
What we are talking about here is that a lot of people who use Frenchman's
Cove Park, in fact, go down there and put their tent or their camper or their RV
on a site and they would like to leave it there. What is happening now is that
they have to call and make a reservation that costs them $10.60, in addition to
the phone call, in some cases, for some of them. Then, if they want to make
another reservation, it costs them another $10.60.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: If they are there for four weeks, each time they call it costs
them $10.60. They cannot understand why it is they cannot just continue on in
the way they have done for years and years utilizing the park in Frenchman's
Cove.
It is a park that is - in fact, that have a committee in place, it is called
Friends of the Park, and they have done a lot to ensure that there are
improvements made to that park over the years. They have ensured, by touching
bases with various government officials, that the needs of the residents who use
that park are met. Now, for this to happen, it just throws the whole process out
of kilter for them, because they are used to just going down to the park,
waiting in line if need be, going in and making their reservation, picking the
campsite. In a lot of cases it is a site that they have had every year since
they have been going. Now, all of a sudden, they have to pick up the phone, call
Quebec, where the call centre is taking the reservations, and that costs them
$10.60. If, for some reason, they have booked for two or three different times,
that they have called and booked for one week and then they call back and book
for another week, and call back and book for another week, it costs them $10.60
each time. If, for some reason, they cannot keep the reservation that they made,
they have to call and cancel. That costs them another $9 plus tax.
So, if you look at the cost just to make a reservation, and hopefully there
will not be any cancellation that they will have to do for whatever reason, if
they are going to be there for any length of time, and if it is for eight weeks
over the summer, you are talking $100 just to make reservations, and that does
not include the cost of staying there.
In some cases, Mr. Speaker, you know, people have been availing of our parks
because that has become a vacation that they can afford. For the people on the
Burin Peninsula right now, with the economy the way it is, being able to take a
vacation anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador, or even to travel outside
of this Province, has become too costly for them. They look forward to being
able to go to Frenchman's Cove Park and would only, of course, expect to pay
the cost of a site. That is not the case any more, and I cannot understand how a
government would enter into this kind of a process knowing full well -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Time to clue up, Mr. Speaker, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS FOOTE: They are finding it really hard to understand how a government
would enter into this type of a process knowing the additional cost that will be
incurred by the people of the Province, and in this case by anyone who chooses
to stay at Frenchman's Cove Park on the Burin Peninsula.
They are asking the minster to reconsider. They are asking the government to
think this through and hopefully, I do not know if it is too late for this year,
but they would like to think that this type of process would not be in place any
time in the future. They also feel there is every opportunity here for the
minister to go back and say, we have made a mistake here. In fact, we have so
many students who could avail of this type of employment, we have made a
mistake.
You know, Mr. Speaker, be able to admit that and, in doing so, lessen the
cost for people who want to stay at the park but at the same time provide much
needed employment for our students.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also appreciate an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the
people of Southwestern Newfoundland with regards to the use of the parks, and,
in particular, the fees being imposed by this government simply because our
residents wish to use a provincial park, our parks, our environment. We brought
this to the attention of the Minister of Environment and he does not seem to be
listening at all. I believe this is the fourth time I have brought this petition
here and there is not even a response justifying what is happening here.
The residents of this Province are paying $10.60 just to pick up the phone to
book a site in a provincial park. This is atrocious. Not only that, the person
who answers the phone is in Quebec. That is another issue altogether, whether we
should even be having people outside of this Province with call systems, that we
have to place calls to, to book a place in our park. They do not know whether
they are in Gannet's Cove or Cheeseman Park. They have no idea where the park
is even located, and here we are with the privilege and the honour of paying
$10.60 to book a site for the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous. You talk on
the one hand about all the good things you might do in the Budget for the people
of this Province and you turn around and gouge them on the other hand. It is
just unacceptable.
A person who tries to make a weekend for himself and his family and go to a
provincial park, has to call a Quebec firm, pay $10.60 to book a site. To make
matters worse, if for any reason, including an emergency, that person must call
back to that call centre in Quebec to say: I am sorry, I have had a family
emergency. I cannot keep the booking that I had at J.T. Cheeseman Park on the
weekend. They will say: Thank you very much, we are going to charge you another
$6.40 now to cancel. Oh, by the way, I would like to do it next weekend with my
family. Thank you very much, it is going to cost you another $10.60.
This is absolutely ridiculous that this Province and this government, who
touts themselves to be for everybody who lives here, regardless of where you are
from and anything else. Yet, we are going to gouge these people $10.60, Mr.
Speaker. The people are outraged. They are absolutely outraged. I have told
them, I can only do so much. I can only bring their concerns here to the floor
of this House and implore the minister to do what is right. Governments can
always do what is right, but if this government - if they do not want to do it,
they just simply do not listen.
That is the message that is being delivered loud and clear, is that this
Minister of Environment and this government just do not want to listen to you
and you can take your $10.60 and be you know what. If you want to go to the
park, you pay it and keep your mouth shut. We have heard that too much from this
government, that it is none of your business. That is just not acceptable and
people will remember that type of behaviour and treatment they are getting, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents in my district and
this is with regard to the cellphone coverage on the road
section between L'Anse-au-Loup
going north to Cartwright. It is an extended piece of highway. Most of it is
actually gravel highway and travelling through some interior remote regions of
Labrador. It is very important to the people in this area, that they have some
access to communications. The preferred access would be through cellphone
coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the reason they are petitioning the House of Assembly with
regard to this is that they feel government has a responsibility to partner with
private companies or other companies to be able to put this kind of technology
in remote and rural areas of the Province. What is happening is that the
telecommunications companies are saying that it is not feasible for them to
provide for cellular phone coverages in areas of the Province like this. The
business cases that have been made have not been substantial enough in terms of
revenue accruing back to the communications companies to make it feasible for
them to go forward with an investment like this. What they are asking is for the
provincial government to develop a program or a strategy whereby they would
partner and invest in telecommunications like cellphone coverages in rural areas
of the Province in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the petition speaks to the fact that government provided $15
million to Persona Communications to assist in future technology developments to
enable that company to become more profitable. They feel that government should
be looking at the needs of rural communities in the Province as well and
investing to be able to meet what their particular needs are in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell anyone here the kind of feeling it is when
you are caught out on a
section of road in the middle of the winter in a storm
and you have no access to the outside world. You cannot contact anyone by phone
or by radio. You are in a completely remote area. Basically, you are just parked
there until you can be rescued. That has happened many times on this
section of
road, as it has on other roads in Labrador as well.
If you look at the road between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West and
that area, it has become a major issue up there. While government was not
prepared to address the issue in terms of cellphone coverage, they did provide
for satellite phones; which worked, I think initially, for the first couple of
years, but then the government fell down on the job. They did not keep those
units up-to-date. They did not keep the batteries charged. They did not keep
them serviced. As a result of it, people were picking up a satellite phone,
having some security in knowing they had it abroad their vehicle for the seven
or eight hour drive, but, in many cases, when they got a flat tire or they ran
into a storm -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MS JONES: Just a couple of minutes to clue up there, Mr. Speaker.
MR. RIDEOUT: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested and leave is granted.
MS JONES: Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader.
Anyway, when they needed that and they broke down or something happened, the
satellite phones were not operable. As a result of it, it was just as well as
they had nothing. So, I do not see that as being a solution at this time, in
terms of providing that service in the district. If it was there it would be
great, but it would have to be guaranteed to be serviced on a regular basis.
What would be of more benefit to us is having the access for cellphone coverage.
That is what this petition is asking for. I hope that government will design a
program to enable them to partner with private companies to provide for that
service in rural communities in the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, today I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents of
Ramea regarding their groundfish processing licence for their plant. I would
like to say, right from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I want to thank Reg
MacDonald for the amount of work, time and energy that he has put into the Ramea
Co-Op to try to find a way to have that plant in operation. Reg has just
returned, or recently returned from Toronto where he had a double-lung
transplant. Even before he had the major surgery there last year - under very
difficult and trying times and health conditions - he persevered, along with
other members of his committee, including people like Leslie Cutler, who saw the
major advantage of having the town's fish plant that had been reestablished,
refurbished, renovated and hopefully, that they would have found some way to
operate and to employ some people from that island community.
It is people like Reg MacDonald and others who really try - under very trying
circumstances - to keep their communities alive under very adverse conditions.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it is because of work like Reg and others, that they can
find a way to enable their communities to grow and survive. It is very
important, Mr. Speaker, for the island communities, and I think I have said here
before that small rural communities in the remote rural parts of the Province,
and especially island communities like Ramea, should receive some particular
recognition.
Just as we find from the federal situation, we are talking about equalization
and provinces like Ontario and Quebec who have all the power and provinces like
ours have very little, it is also very important from a provincial point of view
that we recognize the plight of these small rural communities and we do
something so that they can have an opportunity to sustain themselves and to
improve the quality of life for the people who live there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have a second petition here, as well, to present on behalf of residents in
my district. This one is concerning the rate of electricity that is being paid
out to commercial operators who are part of the diesel operated system and also
the integrated system in the Labrador Straits area.
Mr. Speaker, basically what this petition is saying is that government - in
light of the new revenues that are coming out of Labrador and new profits that
are going to the provincial government, they feel that the reduction in power
rates should be applicable not just to the domestic customers but also to
commercial users as well.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, they outlined that the fish processing companies,
those owned by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, by Torngat
Fisheries, Coastal Labrador Fisheries and the Quinlan Group of Companies, should
not be paying electricity rates over and above what any other industry users of
their size would be paying throughout Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this particular petition. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, this is something that I believe that government should be moving
forward to implement, and I have certainly made those views known on several
occasions to the government and to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that is
the need to have rate reductions for customers in my particular district and in
the northern region of Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking for is not unreasonable. Basically,
right now in the Labrador Straits area a lot of the commercial operators are
paying anywhere from eleven to thirteen cents a kilowatt hour for power. So, if
you own a garage, if you own a hotel, if you own a restaurant, if you own a fish
plant, you are paying that amount for electricity on a regular basis. If you are
in the area operating from Lodge Bay going north to Nain you are in a different
bracket all together where you are paying up to eighteen or nineteen cents a
kilowatt hour. So, if you have any business in that area, whether it is, again,
a garage, a hotel, a restaurant, a B&B, a fish plant, a farming operation, a
mink farm, it does not matter, you are still paying that higher industrial rate
for your power,
whereas in other regions of Labrador, like in the Labrador West
region and the Goose Bay region, those same industrial users of power would be
paying less than five cents a kilowatt hour, and in some cases down as low as
two-and-a-half cents a kilowatt hour.
So, in essence, our commercial operators are paying three times to five times
more for the amounts of electricity that they are using. This is providing for
not a competitive edge in business, I can tell you. In fact, what it does is, it
makes it even harder for these businesses to be able to operate at a profit in
those smaller rural regions. As you know, their customer base is not as large to
draw upon, but yet their overhead and their operating expenses are much higher
based upon the rates that have been set by the government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as I know I only have a few minutes
left, I just want to say that the minister is well aware of this, and so is the
Premier, and so is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I have had a number of
discussions around this with them, as well as raising it in the House of
Assembly. I can only ask that they would give it some more due consideration and
that they would look at bringing in a rate mechanism for commercial operators
and for fish plant processing companies in that region of Labrador and on the
North Coast that will allow them to be more competitive in their operations, be
more profitable in the businesses that they have, and in essence provide a
better service to the people in that area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before we move into government business, I would like to call Motion 1, that
this House not adjourn today, June 12, at 5:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this
House not adjourn today, Tuesday, June 12, at 5:30 of the clock.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Also, I would like to call Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this
House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock this evening, Tuesday, June 12.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this
House not adjourn today, Tuesday, June 12, at 10:00 p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Well, we should have a recount, then. If the Opposition won,
I demand a recount.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider certain bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills, and that I do now leave the
Chair.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to call Order 1, Committee of the Whole on Bill 1,
An Act Respecting
FPI Limited.
CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 1,
An Act Respecting
FPI Limited.
A bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited." (Bill 1)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am speaking again to Bill 1. I had an opportunity yesterday to speak for
twenty minutes on this but, you know, this bill is of such a serious issue and
is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, that I guess, given the opportunity, we could speak
for hours, certainly in terms of the impact of what is happening in our
Province.
When we are looking at this act in particular, repealing the FPI Act, that is
a travesty from my perspective. I do not know how others feel about it, but I
know that when I look at the kind of assurances that are offered to the people
of the Province and to the government by having this piece of legislation, I
fail to understand why any government would want to get rid of a piece of
legislation that gives them the authority to act in the best interest of
Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly those involved with the fishery; whether
it is those who work in our fish plants, or whether it is those who actually
fish, our harvesters, or those who work in our secondary processing plants, or
those who work in management with respect to FPI itself.
Why government would choose to do this again, I say, is beyond me. It raises
a lot of questions, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we know that what is happening is
not something that here in the Opposition we agree with when it comes to
dismantling a company like FPI. It is not FPI, in particular, that I am
concerned with here, because maybe FPI's time is gone as a company, but why
not look to another company, if that is what we need to do, to absorb all of FPI?
Instead of dismantling a company and having the plants being bought by one
group, the marketing arm by another group, why not try to go down the path of
ensuring that all of FPI's assets are, in fact, bought by the one company and
still have
an act? Make it a condition of the sale when you are dealing with
whatever company is interested in buying the assets of FPI, that they, too, will
be governed by a piece of legislation.
The fishery is so important to our Province and to our people. It is so
important, in fact, that to have a piece of legislation that governs it makes
all the sense in the world. Again, I fail to understand the rationale behind
taking a piece of legislation which gives the government the authority to tell
the company what they can and cannot do, and has been the case with FPI. So
should the case be with whatever other company comes behind them to purchase the
assets.
There is a moral responsibility that comes with being responsible for the
fishery in our Province. Where is the social conscience? We do not know at this
point whether or not any of the companies involved will do what they have said
they will do. Of course, I have a personal interest in OCI, in the fact that I
am well aware of the principles of that company. I know that one individual in
particular, Mr. Ches Penney, has done an admirable job with the plant that we
have in St. Lawrence, which is in my district.
So, I am not questioning whether or not the commitment is there to do what
they are saying they are going to do, but when I look at the plan itself, there
are so many ifs there. There are so many conditions that they could easily opt
out if the business case is not there. That is what is so concerning here in
terms of people being able to find employment and that being permanent
employment. What people are looking for in the fishery is access to jobs which
will ensure that they can provide for their families. We all know what is
happening with the groundfish stocks. We have seen the latest research, and this
is an issue for concern, obviously, for anyone involved in the groundfish
fishery.
When you look at palagics and you look at other species of fish and you look
at marketing, the marketing arm of the FPI, you have to question why we would do
something today - why we would agree to do something that would not seem to be
in the best interest of the Province, and certainly in the best interest of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we find the fish plants. That is
where we find the fishermen and women. That is where we find the secondary
processing plant.
Now, the marketing arm, of course, is in Danvers, Massachusetts. That has
been a very valuable asset for FPI, and so it will be a very valuable asset for
whatever other company buys it. In this case, I am told it is High Liner. I am
also of the understanding that it is High Liner that is going to buy the
secondary processing plant in Burin, but it is a company from Nova Scotia.
When I look at the fishery and look at how important it is to our Province, I
would like to think there are companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that would
be anxious, eager, to purchase that marketing arm. I would think there would be
companies in Newfoundland, when you look at the secondary processing plant in
Burin, that would be anxious and eager to purchase that particular asset of FPI.
It raises questions about why it is that today we are going down the path of
dismantling a company that really means so much to the future of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and so much in terms of employment opportunities for people in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are seeing so much today in terms of out-migration from our rural
communities, I would hate to think that this move by the government today would,
if things do not pan out in the way that they are envisioning, based on the case
being made by OCI and by High Liner, I would hate to think that this move would
only contribute to further out-migration down the road. That is not what we need
to happen in this Province.
We need to have companies who are going to be responsible, who are going to
take this on and recognize they have a moral obligation to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians as well as, of course, making a profit as a business.
I am not questioning that will not be the case, certainly with OCI. Again, I
have a great deal of respect for that company and for the principals involved. I
guess I question why, when they looked at all of the assets, they did not see
how it was possible, or why they did not want, to purchase the entire company,
all of the assets of FPI.
I am also concerned about what is going to happen to 330 people who are, in
fact, working in management in FPI. Right now, what they are being told is that
you should be able to pick up a job with someone else. There should be enough
jobs in this area that, with your particular skills, you should be able to pick
up a job with someone else.
Now, some of these individuals have given a lot of time, a lot of years, to
FPI. Now they are kind of being set adrift because there is no room for them
with either of the new companies that are coming on the scene in terms of
purchasing the assets of FPI.
There are so many questions around this whole deal, and I do think it is a
travesty. I think it is a travesty that the company is being dismantled. As I
said at the outset, I would have much preferred to have seen a company, whatever
company, but a company, preferably a Newfoundland company, actually purchase the
assets of FPI, and I would like to have seen a piece of legislation continue.
Instead of standing here today and repealing the FPI Act, I would like to think
that in the mix, in with whatever we are doing here, that we would, in fact, be
strengthening the FPI Act, as this government did on several occasions since
they have been here as the government. They chose to strengthen the FPI Act on a
number of occasions, but why? Why, when what we are doing now is dismantling the
company which the legislation covered, dismantling the company and repealing the
act?
Those are questions that not only do I have but a lot of people throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador have. I am getting e-mails, I am getting phone calls,
and not just from my constituents but throughout this Province, of people asking
questions that I do not have answers to and cannot seem to get the answers to,
even in the House of Assembly.
I know that in my own district - you know, jobs, I guess, that is a big deal,
and I appreciate that, and the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday that we are
willing to give away the jobs, we were not fighting for the jobs.
Well, I can tell you, as the MHA for the District of Grand Bank, I am
fighting for the jobs. I am fighting for the jobs in Marystown, I am fighting
for the jobs in Burin, because a lot of my constituents work in those plants,
but jobs are really important everywhere in this Province, and particularly so
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where they are scarce right now.
So, the question I have again, and what we need to know is: Why are we not
making sure that what we have here is an entity in itself, that will look at
where FPI was, why it was successful, why it was able to accomplish what it did
in terms of being able to ensure there was employment in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador?
Yes, there were problems. No one will deny there were problems with FPI. I am
not holding FPI up as somehow a saviour. We all know there were problems. We all
know that people were not able to get the number of weeks they would liked to
have gotten in the fishery, but there has to be a way, because if OCI are coming
in now and saying: We can do more. We can process more quota. We will have more
quota to process, and more people will be employed. - it begs the question: How
can OCI do it if FPI could not do it? Maybe they can. I am not saying they
cannot. Maybe they can, and more power to them.
Then you have the secondary processing plant in Burin, and I have to tell you
that my fears are real when it comes to that facility in particular; because,
looking at the penalties that, even though they are there in writing, if, in
fact, High Liner determines that the business case is not there for them, that
they can walk away from this, then that is a serious issue, because what company
cannot make the business case if they want to? What company cannot make the
business case, if they want to, that they just cannot continue because it is not
in the company's best interest?
Any company can do that. You know that, I know that. So, my fear is that the
penalties that we are seeing and the time frame of five years that we are seeing
do not give the people of this Province the guarantee that they need to ensure
that FPI, in some manner, whether it is through OCI or High Liner, continues on
in this Province to provide the type of employment that our people need and
deserve.
So, repealing a piece of legislation is part of the issue here because we
need this piece of legislation. We need the FPI Act and, if it is not the FPI
Act, whatever act it is, to give the government the power, the authority it
needs, to ensure that OCI cannot walk away after five years, that High Liner
cannot walk away after one year, two years, three years, four years, or five
years.
Those are concerns, and if we do not have a piece of legislation holding the
fire to the feet of the people who are purchasing these assets, there are no
guarantees. There are no concrete guarantees. That is what I am concerned about
today, no matter where the plant is in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do not want people ending up like the people in Harbour Breton, with the
situation they are finding themselves in. Unfortunately, they are left in a dire
predicament in Harbour Breton, and here we are today now looking at plants that
are still assets of FPI at this point but may not very well be whenever the
Board of Directors of FPI chooses to meet, which I understand is not until
August, and who knows if they will even make the decision then.
No other plant, no other individuals, should have to find themselves in the
situation that we are finding ourselves in Harbour Breton today. It is not fair,
it should never have happened, and my fear is a real one. I will say again, the
government should never, never, be agreeing to repeal a piece of legislation
that will, in fact, make it possible for that to happen in some other part of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is a serious issue. It is a travesty, what is happening here, dismantling
a company that has been a flagship for this Province, a company that is
recognized internationally, a company that will no longer exist, but a company
that can exist in some other form if possible, if some other interested buyers
would see fit. Right now, products coming out of Newfoundland, secondary
processing products coming out of Newfoundland will carry the High Liner label.
You will not be able to distinguish if it is made in Newfoundland and Labrador.
High Liner is known throughout the world as a Nova Scotia brand. So we are
losing that part of our identity. We are losing any reference to any kind of
product that is processed in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is now going to be
High Liner. I am afraid that we are losing any kind of reputation we have with
respect to the fishery as being the place from which to buy products from
because of the quality of the products here. We have a great reputation in
Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the products that are processed here,
but we are going to lose that identity with respect to what is happening here
today with the sale of these assets.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time for speaking has
expired.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate an opportunity here in committee to have a few words on FPI. I
had hoped to do so actually last evening when we were dealing with it in
committee stage. Of course, in committee stage you have a much broader range of
how you can deal with a certain piece of legislation. You are not so stuck on
the relevance issues and so on. I had this conversation with the Government
House Leader last evening. I think we were here until about 11:20 p.m. It was
getting kind of late in the night, in any case. So, I think we decided to clue
up second reading and get on with it, but I would like to have an opportunity. I
guess relevance is a tough call, in this case anyway.
We have a very small bill here today that we are dealing with. There are
three clauses. Number one says we are going to call this the Fishery Products
International Limited Act Repeal Act. It looks like a typo there. Fishery
Products International Limited Act Repeal Act. That sounds very verbose in and
of itself. Secondly, the Fishery Products International Limited Act is repealed.
Thirdly, this act shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council.
So, it is a pretty specific type of bill that we have here. We have heard the
conversations and the debates, speeches by the members on this side and opposite
as well in the last couple of days about this issue. A lot of good points have
been made here. I would like to allude as well that there is an issue - there
are a lot of problems in our fishery and this may not be strictly irrelevant,
but we have all kinds of issues besides the dismantling of FPI on the go.
A very good friend of mine actually, in Isle aux Morts, Elizabeth Harvey, who
I am sure is well known to anyone who has listened to the Open Line shows in the
Province. She has been tackling another serious problem in the Province of late,
and that concerns when fishermen sold out their licences years ago. Her husband
was one of those individuals affected. Some turned their licences in, sold it.
Then, of course, it came time to do your income tax. Some of them put it on
their income taxes and some said income, some said capital gains. Anyway, there
was a big shemozzle. Many of them, at least 150-plus, acted upon the advice and
guidance at that time of the fisheries officials, DFO officials, and filed the
money as capital gains.
There was a big shemozzle about tax consequences of that to those fishermen,
of course, and it led to serious and many appeals in the federal appeals courts
with Revenue Canada. I am sure everybody has heard of their lawyer who has being
out as well dealing with the case, Eli Baker. What happened in that case was tax
fairness, that the tax department of Canada actually settled with 150-plus, and
did not and still have not settled with the rest of the people. That is a case,
of course, that Ms Harvey has been a strong and staunch advocate of for many,
many years and she has written to the Government House Leader, in his capacity
as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as well. I spoke with him as well again
on this last evening, and he assures me that he is well aware of who Ms Harvey
is and he has spoken with her. In fact, he has written letters to the federal
Minister of Fisheries in support of Ms Harvey, and I appreciate the fact that he
did that.
AN HON. MEMBER: And national revenue.
MR. PARSONS: And national revenue, as well.
It is good to see that, as a Province, we are onside with these people. We
have over 800 fisherpersons in this Province who find themselves getting treated
differently. The tax department nationally said: Yes, 150 of you, it is okay. We
will settle with you. To the other 800-plus they are saying: Sorry, we cannot do
the same for you.
All Mr. Baker and Ms Harvey are looking for, and all these 800-plus fishermen
are looking for, is tax fairness and tax equality. You cannot treat people
differently. So, I would like to say as a highlight to one of the other types of
problems we have in this industry today, besides FPI, that is another one that
is a lingering sore. It is a wound in the side of these 800-plus fishermen here,
and it needs to be fixed because it is absolutely unfair.
So, on behalf of Ms Harvey and those fishermen, and Mr. Baker, I would
certainly put forward their cause as well again to the minister, if it is
necessary, to keep plugging away with Revenue Canada and plugging away with Mr.
Hearn, the Minister of Fisheries nationally, and our regional representative, to
do the right thing and get on with this and give the same treatment to these
800-plus fishermen, as well, who have been treated unfairly as a result of
having sold their enterprises after the demise of our fishery here in this
Province.
Now, of course, we have other problems as well. We have the retirement
programs that we are trying to get going for people who want to leave the
industry, whether it is the people who work in the boats or people who work in
the plants. We do not have any resolution on that between our Province and the
federal government. That is another one that is outstanding, and of course, we
have Fishery Products International, which we come to today.
I might have to speak a couple of times today because I find there are things
missing, particularly when it comes to the Premier. I have been in this House
now with the Premier of this Province since, I believe, it is the fall sitting
of 2001. He was elected in the summer, June or July of 2001 in Humber West. In
2002 we started out - and we have all kinds of legislation that goes through
this House. We have had something like thirty-odd pieces in this sitting and
every sitting, depending on how busy we get and how productive we are, we can
have ten, twenty, sometimes I have seen forty, fifty pieces of legislation.
There are only certain pieces that are what we all would consider monumental
significant pieces of legislation, and one of them is this FPI Act. We had a
couple in the past.
We had the Voisey's Bay debate. In fact, in 2002 we decided, as a group of
MHAs, government and Opposition, to have a specially designed debate. We came
into this House in 2002. We said this is of severe, extreme importance to the
people of this Province. It is the right thing to do. We are talking about
resources. Some people were saying you are giving them away. That is where all
these phrases came from, of course, when people talked about Mack trucks and
more off-ramps than the 401. It was none other than the Premier who got up and
spoke that, over here, right next to where I am here now, with his podium, on
the morning of June 20, 2002 and gave us his thoughts on the Voisey's Bay deal
and the Mack trucks and the 401s. He did it and he ought to have done it, which
he did, because it was of importance. As the Leader of the Opposition, of
course, I believe it was his responsibility to say what he thought about that
deal and he did it. I disagree with a lot of things he said. History, so far,
has proven me right and proven him wrong about how he felt about Voisey's Bay.
As we move on, in time, and down the road he will be proven even more wrong on
the history and the matter of the Voisey's Bay deal. Absolutely.
MR. BYRNE: Who?
MR. PARSONS: The Premier I am referring to here, I say to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, will be proven absolutely wrong at the end fo the day about
his comments on Voisey's Bay.
Then we had another significant, monumental occasion in this House in the
last few years when we had a debate, and that was in 2005. We came here June 9
and June 10, the House had been closed in May month, and we came here and said:
we need to make some changes to the FPI Act because FPI wants to do an Income
Trust deal. They are telling us that they need this Income Trust in order to
grow the company. We all sat here. We all had our opportunities again, and again
the Premier came to his feet after, I believe it was the second day again. He
listened to everybody the first day, and on the second day, June 24, 2005, he
stands up and he gives his pronouncements on what we were doing in this House
regarding FPI.
A couple of comments he made, I will refer to some of them in his speech. One
here, I am referring to page 34 of the transcript, and this is from him. I am
certainly not taking anything out of context, but this is one of the paragraphs
he used on page 34. He talked about, "As well, as the Minister of Finance
indicated when he was on his feet, there is a seven-year marketing commitment
which has been given from FPI, because they are very good marketers. That is
what this Income Trust is all about, the asset they are selling. Let us not lose
sight of this. The Members of the House of Assembly should not. The marketing
arm..."- this is a very important phrase, folks, and all of you MHAs over
there who like to listen to your leader and follow him, you should take note of
what he said on this deal back in June 2005, not two years ago. Yes, it was two
years ago, almost exactly. "The marketing arm is the one that has value
here. The domestic Newfoundland and Labrador arm of FPI does not have the value.
They are trying to sell off the crown jewel which is the marketing arm. If they
are going to do that and they were going to place it into an Income Trust, then
we have asked the company to get a commitment, a seven-year commitment, so that
Newfoundland and Labrador products can be marketed through the seven year
period."
Those were his comments on what he thought of the marketing arm at that time.
Then, of course, a little further over on page 35, second paragraph from the
bottom, he says, "Now, to get down to the crux of it." - I am quoting
again - "From day one I have had some difficulty with this because I see us
all in the situation where we are damned if we do and we are damned if we do
not. If we decide to vote yes and let the company go ahead and the company does
some of the things that it can legally do by manoeuvring around the various
clauses and the various corporate structures - because they have a very complex
structure set up. If they decide that they are not going to act in good faith
and they move around some of these structures then it is quite possible that the
horse will get well out of the barn and we will never, ever get that horse
back."
I think that is a very telling statement by our Premier back in 2005. He is
talking, of course, at that time about whether or not amending the act so as to
allow the income trust might be opening up problems. That is what all of these
comments were made in the context of, and whether we should do it or not,
because you will remember that the board, at the time, of FPI were coming to us
and saying that they needed to do this in order to unleash the value of the
company, to grow the value of the company.
Then a little further over, on page thirty-six, second paragraph from the
bottom, the Premier says, "What I tried to do here today was lay it all
out, as best I could, to let you know what the options are, what the concession
are, what the advantages are. If this is defeated today, my job will get a lot
tougher Monday morning, but I am not prepared to stand here, myself personally
in this House today and vote - and it might be a little bit of a legal
background - for a document that I am not comfortable is tight enough to give us
the assurance that this may not be a giveaway. Now if, in fact, everything pans
out, everything is done in good faith, all the commitments are honoured - this
is a huge win for Newfoundland and Labrador if there was a yes vote and if the
Income Trust is successful. However, having seen the legal opinions, having
worked through the legal opinions, I am not satisfied that it is tight enough.
So I will be voting no."
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.
MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Chair?
CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Just to finish off on that, I want to put that into context because here is
the Premier of this Province, who had these comments in 2005, talking about the
same company, FPI, in the context of allowing them and giving them the right to
do the income trust.
Now, we gave notice of this FPI bill, I do remember, the first day that this
session started. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done an admirable
job in making his comments as to what he thought about it, and it is his
responsibility - he is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and he should
- but I wonder where the Premier is on this issue?
I think this is one of these bills of such monumental importance and
significance to the people of this Province, and we are talking about the
flagship of our fishing industry, and I have not seen the Premier of this
Province, in second reading or so far in Committee, utter one word about what he
feels about the FPI Act, and that is to take nothing from the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture because I listened to him. I disagree with a lot of
what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said. I disagree with how they
are going about dismantling this. I disagree with that, but I cannot believe
that the Premier of this Province, who - some members in Opposition over here
have always said he did not like fish and did not want anything to do with it,
the fishing industry.
He can come to his feet when it comes to Voisey's Bay, in Opposition, and
talk about loopholes, ramp ways and 401's. He can come to his feet in 2005 and
talk about why he was not going to vote for the income trust, because he did not
trust the legal opinions. The horse might get out of the barn. He did not feel
comfortable about it.
We have an identical situation here in that sense. We are being asked by this
government to vote to repeal the FPI Act and they say thank you very much. All I
have seen, other than what the Minister of Fisheries has told me, is a pretty
blue tinted and yellow briefing note that they passed out.
Folks, as the Premier said, maybe it is my legal background, but that does
not do much to qualm the fears in my gut about what is going to happen with FPI.
I have the same type of qualms in there now as the Premier had back in 2005 on
the income trust.
I am not affected directly in my district by FPI and by this act, but that
does not remove and absolve me of responsibility to speak how I feel as a member
of this House, and that is why I feel obligated to do it.
I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I would expect this
Premier, if he was concerned about the income trust and the loopholes, and
Voisey's Bay, I would expect when it comes time to vote on this he is going to
be in the House and vote no for the same reasons, because it has been said here
by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: We do not know the deal. We know
the parameters of the deal, but we have not seen the legal binding agreements.
I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture again, if that is the
case, why are we here now being asked to give this government the authority to
repeal the Fishery Products International Act, take it, put it up in your
cupboard and decide when and if we, as a government, decide that we are
satisfied with the legal binding agreements, will take it out of the cupboard,
run down to the Lieutenant-Governor and say: Proclaim it.
That is not fair. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is also a lawyer.
He knows in his heart and soul that is not fair. That is not a fair process to
ask any reasonable thinking person. You have negotiated what you feel are going
to be the parameters of the deal. I am sure, in your heart and soul, you
negotiated them in good faith, and to the best of your ability, and with
whatever advice you could get, but that does not make the process fair, to say:
Trust us. We are going to go off now, we are going to dot the I's, cross the T's,
and make sure that everything they told us in their various letters, and what
they told us across a board table, and what their lawyers might have told us, we
are going to take all of that now and put it into a deal, a serious deal. We are
going to put it into a deal, but meanwhile we are not coming back and showing
you the final deal. We are not going to do that. Now that is a little bit
different.
I will use the Voisey's Bay thing as a comparison again, folks, what
somebody calls openness and transparency and the level of detail. This is a
document that was used and given to every Member of the House of the Assembly
called the Statement of Principles on Voisey's Bay. Pretty detailed, folks,
for anybody who read it at the time. That was their little news briefing clip
that we would have gotten, comparing to what the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture was handing out. That is about comparable. That is what the former
government gave on Voisey's Bay, a sort of handout and that is what the
government gave now on a handout.
The government of the day on Voisey's Bay gave another little document, a
little bit more detailed, called the Statement of Principles. In fact, the
Statement of Principles there became, virtually word-for-word, the legal
agreements. There is no comparison between the level of detail that was given on
the Voisey's Bay deal to this House for consideration than what we are being
asked to vote on today, none. No comparison in terms of the level of detail.
That is what we are saying over here. We are not saying that at the end of the
day you might not even agree with it. Folks, when you ask somebody to vote for
something, or vote against something even, and you are not telling me what the
final deal is, now that is a bit much. That is a little bit much.
I understand the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to have a few
words right now - excuse me, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi. So I will
take my leave right now, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly like an opportunity
to consider this again further in committee stage.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.
I am happy to have some time to speak further to this bill. I did get my
twenty minutes last night and there are some points I would like to reiterate,
some things I would like to make clear.
Last night, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture commented on the fact
that I said I did not know what I was going to be voting on when I was going to
be voting on Bill 1, and actually Bill 31 as well. He said I had this wonderful
briefing and I had all this information that was out in the media, et cetera. I
have in my hand the briefing notes. We have been waving them around a bit, the
notes that were used in a power point presentation during an hour long briefing
that I was given, along with the Official Opposition, and these notes give me
some background information. They tell me what FPI wants to do. They give me a
framework for the Memorandum of Understanding that is going on between the
government and FPI. It gives a general idea of an agreement, but we all know
that the real agreements are being negotiated both between FPI and Ocean Choice,
and FPI and High Liner. We know that no negotiations are finalized yet. The
minister, as a lawyer, and I, as a person with a lot of experience by this stage
of my life, we both know that what comes out in final agreements is in much,
much more detail than this framework document that was presented to us in a
power point presentation.
So, when I say that I do not know what it is that I am voting on, I mean I do
not know all those details that are going to be in the agreements between FPI
and OCI and FPI and High Liner, and I do not know what those details are. Any
framework can paint a lovely picture, but you know the old saying is that the
devil is in the details, and we just have too much experience of that to ignore
it. The devil is in the details.
I can say safely that when this vote is presented to me, I am being asked to
vote on a framework document which, in itself, had some loopholes. Some
questions were asked about it and we did not get answers to those questions. I
am being asked also to vote on something that I do not know. So when I say I do
not know what I am voting on, I mean I do not know the details of the negotiated
agreements that are still being worked on and yet I am being asked to vote on
them.
I know that the minister said that this bill will not come into force
immediately. It will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. So, I have to assume that I have to trust the minister when
he says: If there is no agreement between FPI and OCI, and FPI and High Liner,
the bill will not be enacted, that it will not happen. He did say that last
night, that if those agreements fell apart then this act will not come into
force, but the clause does not say the act will not come into force unless those
agreements are signed. That is not what it says. I have to trust that the
minister means it when he says: If FPI does not come into agreement with those
two companies, this act will not come into force. I will be very happy if I hear
the minister saying that again and saying it on record, because I do agree with
the comment that I heard last night. It makes one very uneasy to say yes to this
act, to repeal the legislation for a company that is still in existence. That
really makes me nervous. The whole spirit of this legislation is to legislate
for that company. I do not feel any easier about that. Before, what I heard the
minister say, and after what he said, I still feel uneasy and I still feel I
will not be able to vote for this bill.
The minister, last night, also made comment on the fact that I was sort of
standing alone in my position. That I was not representing the union, I was not
representing workers, I was representing nobody. I was just representing myself.
I would like to make a point about that. I think the workers are in a very, very
difficult position. We have workers, as in Marystown for example, who have been
months and months and months - what, a year-and-a-half, eighteen months or so? -
without working. We have workers who need to get back to a plant. We have
workers - I am not saying, they are saying give us anything. They are saying,
what we are being offered, at least for five years, is going to mean - we hope
that we have work, just like the people in Harbour Breton who were desperate for
their plant to open.
I will always remember hearing a worker who said when the plant opened, even
though when it first opened some of them were only getting a couple of hours a
day, some were getting an hour a day, and I heard one of the plant workers on
the news one morning, on CBC, make the comment: Even if the plant were
officially open and I got up and went to the door but I could not work that day,
I would still feel better because the plant was open. Now, that is absolute
desperation. That is desperation. When I hear people saying that they are ready
to accept what is happening it is because they are desperate, and I understand
that desperation. I also believe that as an individual politician in an elected
position, even though my own district is not in the fishery - we have two
communities that used to be fishing communities in my district. I am leader of
the party in this Province and I think I have an obligation to bring concerns
into this House that I don't think the individual worker has the freedom to
do, that they are in a situation where they just don't have any other options
but to say: Okay, we finally have something, we are going to have work.
Voting for this Act to be repealed just goes against everything that I
believe in. As I said last night and I want to repeat, the repeal of this Act to
me means a repeal of some very, very important principles that Act was based on,
important principles that were in place when that company was formed in 1983 and
when it was privatized in 1987 with the current Minister of Fisheries being the
Minister of Fisheries then. With the discussions that happened in 2002, with the
discussions that happened in 2005, there still were some basic principles that
were at the base of the formation of FPI and the legislation that was put in
place, to manage, control, monitor, whatever words we want to use, the private
company that was formed. There were still basic principles. With the repeal of
this legislation, I don't see anywhere a formal statement of those principles,
those concerns that we have, the purposes of the Act.
The purpose, to recognize the fundamental importance of the role that the
fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador, that was a purpose stated
in the Act. It is still there, we haven't repealed it yet. To continue FPI as
a widely held company that can act as a flagship - we no longer have a flagship
and I don't think we can say that too much. Our flagship is gone. That is what
this government is allowing to happen, because we have to remember that whatever
is going to happen to FPI is only happening with the permission of the
government. The government has to give the permission under the Act being
repealed. Under that act, the government has to give the permission for what is
happening.
I have to continue to say, as I said last night, I think it is a really sad
moment. I really find it a very, very sad moment in this Province. I remember
how I felt back in 1983. I remember how I felt when FPI was formed. I hope we
all do. I had hope. At different moments along the life of that company I had
hope, and now I feel very sad.
We have to take responsibility for what is happening. I will talk more about
that, maybe, in Committee, when we talk to Bill 31, taking the responsibility
for what we are doing, because down the road we are going to have to be
accountable.
This House passed a bill on sustainable development during this session, and
one of the whole features of sustainable development is development that makes
sure that there is a future, that there is a resource, and a resource to be
developed by those who will come after us.
My concern is - and this is a concern, and I will not know until down the
road whether I was right or wrong - that we may be affecting, for young
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the resource in this Province, in the fishery,
by the changing of hands that is going on here right now with FPI, with FPI
being bought by OCI and High Liner. It is, as I said, a sad moment, Mr.
Chairperson.
I will leave my comments at that for the moment. I think I have used my time,
actually, and I will speak later at another time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to have a word or two on the bill. Maybe I
will wait until she speaks and then I can probably answer it all together.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to have a couple of words with regard to Bill 1, that we are
presently debating in the House of Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, I did not have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of
this bill, but I have certainly had an opportunity to be able to follow the
transactions that are taking place as it relates to Fishery Products
International.
I have to say that, like my colleague who spoke earlier, just before