Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — 23 February 2006 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 46)
2006-02-23
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
February 23, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 46
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the
Member Elect for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Felix
Collins.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I am also very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery
this afternoon, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Jim Bennett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have member statements as follows: the
Member for the District of St. John's North; the Member for the District of
Grand Bank; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the
District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the District of St.
John's West; the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; and, by
leave, the Member for the District of Labrador West.
The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a group of
ladies who are small in number but who have made a significant contribution to
their fellow citizens.
Back in 1961, this group of eight or ten nurses, all working in the operating
room at the old General Hospital, decided to form a bridge club and they would
get together once a week for a game. One of the reasons that this group is
special, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that one of the original members of the group
is our own Sergeant-at-Arms, Elizabeth Gallagher.
These ladies have continued to get together on a weekly basis over the years
but, unfortunately, during that time, three of their members have succumbed to
different forms of cancer: Jeanette Holden in 1990, Margot Wedgewood in 1992,
and Margie Nowe in 2000.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is the other reason why this bridge club is special. While
they grieved for their lost friends, they found a way to turn their sadness into
something very positive. They collected some of the recipes that they had
enjoyed at their weekly card games and published a cookbook in memory of their
friends who had died from cancer. They then put considerable effort into selling
the cookbooks - in fact, they had to go to a second printing - and their efforts
resulted in raising a total $6,703 for the Canadian Cancer Society.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this story speaks to us about such things as
strength of character, the bonds of friendship, and about turning adversity into
something positive. These qualities deserve to be recognized, so I ask all
members of the House to join me in paying tribute to these ladies for their
effort.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Brian
Hollywood, an Irish-born physician described as a legend on the Burin Peninsula.
Dr. Hollywood passed away on February 13 at the U.S. Memorial Health Centre in
St. Lawrence at the age of seventy-nine after being diagnosed with multiple site
cancer in January.
A native of Newry, Northern Ireland, Dr. Hollywood came to St. John's as a
physician in 1957 and worked at the old General Hospital and the Sanatorium. His
wife Eileen, of County Down, Ireland, followed him to Newfoundland. By 1960, Dr.
Hollywood and his wife were living in St. Lawrence and he was working at the
town's U.S. Memorial Hospital.
In the first year at the hospital in St. Lawrence, Dr. Hollywood and his
assistant delivered more than 300 babies. He was also the medical examiner
dealing with many men who had contracted silicosis, lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases as a result of working in the fluorspar mines in St.
Lawrence during the 1940s and 1950. Dr. Hollywood was the doctor who dealt
primarily with the sickness associated with the mine. He had a lot of dealings
with the families of miners and was an advocate for social justice for them.
Worldwide he was recognized as an authority on what was called "miner's
disease" because of his first-hand knowledge and extensive research.
Dr. Hollywood was named to the Order of Canada in 2000 in recognition of his
contribution to health care on the Burin Peninsula. After Dr. Hollywood retired
as chief medical officer of the St. Lawrence Hospital in 1987, he and his wife
continued to live in St. Lawrence.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to
the life of Dr. Brian Hollywood. He will be sadly missed by the people on the
Burin Peninsula, and especially by the people of St. Lawrence and surrounding
area.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have long been
recognized for their generosity and unwavering support of those in need. Today I
rise to acknowledge the people of New-Wes-Valley, who have recently given us yet
another example of the benevolent nature that helps define us as a people.
The residents of New-Wes-Valley, like all areas of our Province, have from
time to time had to contend with sickness and injury affecting the children of
the community. In New-Wes-Valley, Terry Gill is an example of one of those
children. At the age of seventeen, Terry has already endured and persevered
through three heart transplants. Recently, due to medical complications, Terry
had to be rushed to Toronto for specialized care. This unforseen situation
created an obvious emotional stress for the family, a stress that was only
intensified by the serious financial burden associated with their travel to
Toronto. The people of New-Wes-Valley have always banded together to provide
support and assistance for Terry, and this past weekend they came through once
again.
Thanks to the efforts of Judy Stagg, the Newtown Firemen and Firettes, the
New-Wes-Valley Recreation Community and Rogers Cable, a telethon raised in
excess of $18,000. This money has been placed in a trust account at the
Wesleyville Branch of Scotia Bank. These funds will be disbursed by trustees as
the need arises and the telethon will now become an annual event.
Presently a number of children in the area find themselves, like Terry,
battling with serious illness. Thanks to the generous spirit of the community,
the families of these children, and the families of children in the future, will
have an additional means of support to assist them during trying times.
I want to commend all those involved in the organization and the operation of
the telethon. Most of all, thanks to the hundreds of people who made financial
contributions to the cause. Times may change, Mr. Speaker, but I am happy to
report that the spirit of generosity that helps define us as a people continues
to thrive in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to congratulate all the participates of the sixth
annual Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race, which took place on February 11,
in St. Lewis, Labrador.
The Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race is an exciting winter event that
started six years ago to pay tribute to a past method of transportation on
Labrador's rocky coast. Mr. Strugnell had dogs himself and enjoyed travelling
by dog team. His son started the race shortly after Mr. Strugnell passed away in
1999. He did this to honour his dad's contribution to the sport.
Mr. Speaker, five teams participated in this year's race and each team had
six dogs pulling a sled carrying racers. The teams had to make their way through
a twenty kilometre trail around an island just outside the community of St.
Lewis. This year the event had entries from all the nearby communities of
Southern Labrador. First place went to Brendan Smith of Mary's Harbour with a
time of one hour and twenty-three minutes. Aubrey Russell of Mary's Harbour
placed second and Bill Russell of Port Hope Simpson came in third.
Later in the evening a concert was held at St. Lewis Academy where people
attended from throughout the region and members of the St. Lewis fitness group
performed skits and there were musical interludes by performers and musicians
from all the surrounding communities. It was a true celebration of culture and
talent.
I would like to ask all members in the House to congratulate the participants
in the sixth annual Ronald Strugnell Memorial Dog Team Race and also to commend
the Town of St. Lewis for keeping this traditional Labrador sport alive.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Monday I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremonies of the
school Olympics at Cowan Heights Elementary. I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate Mr. Fitzpatrick, the physical education teacher, and
the other teachers and staff, as well as the students on this impressive event.
A true Olympic atmosphere prevailed at the ceremony which included lighting of
the Olympic Flame, raising the flag, as well as some great entertainment
provided by the school choir and the Jump-Its, which are the accomplished school
rope jumpers.
The ceremony included as well, and perhaps of most importance, the reading of
the Olympic Creed and the Junior Olympic Pledge taken by all students, which
emphasized that it is not whether you win or lose but the fact that you
participated and gave it your best that really counts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to all
at Cowan Heights Elementary for this most wonderful and timely event.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today to acknowledge all the
athletes who will be taking
part in the Special Olympic Winter Games this
weekend in Carbonear. Chairperson, Wanda Butt, says this is the Special Olympics
athlete's key event of the year. The hometown Tri-Con Special Olympic Club
will be hosting this event for the first time. They will be visited by clubs
from St. John's, Bell Island, Mount Pearl, Fortune, Bonavista, Gander and
Exploits.
The competing Tri-Con's are: Tyler Oliver, Melanie Peach, Crystal Young,
Sandra Smith, Mary Ellen Murphy, Justin Murphy, Todd Lynch, Eleanor Hobbs,
Marsha Button, Chesley Clarke, Rodney Collins, Amanda Butt, Gordon Cooper, Shawn
Cooper, Shawn Dawson and Derek Gillard; supported by coaches Carmel Oliver,
Elizabeth Evely, Mary Butt and Rick Oliver.
I am sure that all of the hard work and training will pay off for all the
athletes as they compete, make friends, and most importantly, have fun.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating our Special Olympians and their coaches as they excel in their
respective sports this weekend.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Brad Gushue Curling Rink on
their remarkable achievements to date and wish them every success -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: - in tomorrow's Gold Medal game.
I would also like to commend government for declaring schools closed
tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: I think that is a good move that will be welcomed by
students for a variety of reasons, I am sure.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I speak for every Newfoundlander and
Labradorian when I say how proud we are, not only of their curling skills, but
the manner in which they have conducted themselves and placed our Province at
the forefront -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: - of the International Community. They are indeed the
greatest ambassadors we could possibly hope to have represent our Province and
our people.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me extra pleasure to read this statement today, given
the fact that both Mark Nichols and Mike Adam are from Labrador West and are
long time members of the Carol Curling Club.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: Tomorrow, at the Carol Curling Club, people will gather
in front of a big screen TV to watch the game and to cheer on the Gushue rink.
We hear all the time, Mr. Speaker, about sports and how important it is, not
only to excel but to be a team member. I think Mike Adam is a shining example to
all young players and athletes of what it means to put your own self interests
behind and put your team's interest in the forefront.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members, and indeed the entire
Province, to join me in wishing the Gushue Rink the best of luck in tomorrow's
game. It does not really matter what the score is, they are already Gold Medal
winners in our eyes.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to remind hon. members of this House about an exciting upcoming
event, namely the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games in the Humber
Valley Region officially kicking off this Saturday, February 25, and which will
run until March 4.
As my colleagues are aware, the Games began in 1974 as a series of regional
competitions held in different locations in the Province. Held every second year
since, alternating winter and summer, the Games have now become the largest
multi-sport event staged for youth in the Province, bringing together young
athletes from eleven to eighteen years of age from all regions.
This year there will be a competition in thirteen sports involving over 150
teams. Over 1,500 athletes, coaches and managers are participating in the games,
including teams from St. Pierre and Miquelon who will be competing for the
fourth time.
The Humber Valley region has developed a excellent reputation for hosting
provincial, national and international sporting events and I am sure the 2006
Winter Games will be no exception. The host towns of Steady Brook, Pasadena and
Deer Lake, and over 1,000 volunteers, have worked hard to ensure that this will
be an outstanding event. I know MHAs, Tom Marshall and Kathy Goudie, are looking
forward to welcoming everyone to the Humber Valley districts.
The Games will also give the region an opportunity to showcase the incredible
winter sporting facilities in the area including Marble Mountain in Steady Brook
and the cross-country Ski and Nature Park in Pasadena.
As the minister responsible for sport and recreation, it will be my pleasure
to attend the Games and watch our athletes compete and celebrate their
successes. But the Games are more than about winning, they are about sport
development and the spirit of fair play. I know that numerous friendships will
be formed and our young people will leave with lasting memories.
Participation in the Games promotes the many benefits associated with
choosing a healthy and active lifestyle. During a time when physical activity
rates are down and obesity rates are up in this Province, these young athletes
are important role models for us all.
Many of our up-and-comers will go on to represent the Province at the
national and international levels. Some may one day be our next Olympians. In
fact, three present Olympians, namely Jamie Korab, Mike Adam and Mark Nichols,
competed in the 1998 Winter Games in Labrador City.
No doubt, the athletes participating in this year's winter games will feel
inspired tomorrow as they watch Team Gushue go for Gold at the Olympics in
Italy. What a great and proud moment in the sporting history of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The members of Team Gushue, Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab, Mike
Adam, Russ Howard, and coach Toby McDonald, have proven that our athletes can
compete against the best in the world and, in actual fact, can be the best in
the world.
I invite all members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing the best
to Team Gushue in Italy tomorrow and also to all, perhaps, future Olympians in
the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We, too, on this side of the House, want to congratulate the Winter Games and
certainly the volunteers who have put so much time into making these games a
reality. No doubt it is going to be a time when athletes get together, Mr.
Speaker, but most important of all for the young people of our Province who will
go out there and no doubt feel inspired to compete.
Mr. Speaker, we, too, want to congratulate the Brad Gushue Rink, and we are
also very proud in Labrador of two people who are on the team. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, I think one commentator, in speaking of Mark Nichols, said
that this young man could knock out four with one given blow, so we are quite
proud.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want to extend good wishes to all
the athletes in the Winter Games, and I am sure that our member, Eddie Joyce,
will be in attendance. We wish all the athletes the very best. Once again, to
the volunteers, congratulations on a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to wish all the athletes, coaches, and the
many volunteers a successful Winter Games on the West Coast of the Province, and
we are sure that they will be.
This is more than a gaming event, Mr. Speaker; it brings people together from
all regions of the Province and introduces people not only to people from other
regions but sometimes different cultures as well. Long after the games are over,
Mr. Speaker, many people may not remember who won gold, silver or bronze, but
all of them will remember the experience that they had at these games. I think
that is very remarkable and worthwhile, to keep these games going and to be as
successful as they have been in the past.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to remind people of
the Province as well that from March 12 to March 18 the Labrador Winter Games
will be taking place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and that is a huge event for the
Labrador portion of the Province as well.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, back in 1987, when FPI was set up, the minister
then, who is also the current Minister of Fisheries, said the purpose was to
create an economically viable, efficient, highly competitive and modernized
company that would strengthen the Newfoundland fishing industry and its
contribution to the economy at large. The minister went on to say that ensuring
maximum employment stability was also a priority.
I ask the minister today: Why has this government allowed the company to
stray from its reason for existence, and what is the government's plan to get
this company back on track and doing the job it was created to do?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for her question.
The goals and objectives that were set out in the FPI Act in the 1980s are
still valid and being pursued today by this government, as they were pursued in
the past by previous Administrations.
What are we doing today? Today, Mr. Speaker, we have facilitated a
face-to-face get-together between the officials of the company and the union
representing the employees of the company on the Burin Peninsula. They are face
to face as we speak, as far as I know. I know they were a little while ago, when
we left to come back to the Legislature. The details will be released, I assume,
at some point by the representatives of the company and the employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, people on the Burin Peninsula are living in fear
while hoping for the best. While FPI continues to make a profit - maybe not
enough for its out-of-the-Province shareholders - the employees of FPI have no
idea what the future holds.
I ask the minister: In his consultations and discussions with the company,
does he know if the fish plant in Fortune will reopen, and what FPI's plans
are for the fish plants in Marystown and Burin?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said just a few minutes ago, the representatives of
the union and the company are discussing matters related to the whole of the
company's operations, but in particular representatives of the Burin
Peninsula, all communities on the Burin Peninsula - Fortune, Marystown, Burin -
they are all in the room. I do not know what details have been supplied to them
yet, but I think, out of courtesy and fairness, it would be inappropriate for me
to list them right now. I am sure they will come out, and they will come out,
hopefully, in a timely manner so that the people on the Burin Peninsula in
particular, and the people in other comminutes - Bonavista, Port au Choix, and
other communities where FPI operate - can have some comfort that they do have a
future with this company, and this company will continue to remain a vital part
of the economic engine of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the minister's answer that he
does, in fact, know what FPI's plans are for its company in the Province.
Given the fact that there is an FPI Act, and we came to the House earlier in
the year, or last fall, in fact, and, based on the fact that circumstances are
very different today with respect to the fishery industry and FPI than they were
years ago, I am asking the minister now: Will he assure the people of the
Province that these amendments will not be proclaimed and that the House will be
given every opportunity to repeal those amendments?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason at all to proclaim the amendments that were
made to the FPI Act in this Legislature last spring. They were predicated on an
income trust. I understand that the company has told anybody who wants to hear,
including the people they are meeting with today, that the income trust is no
longer an option for them, so therefore there will be no need to proclaim the
amendments that were made in this House. Of course, since the amendments will
not be proclaimed, they will not be part of the act, they will not be part of
the law, they will be as dead as last year's snow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The government rejected an earlier call for an inquiry into the operations
and management of FPI, and I think we know that what has gone down with FPI has
not been palatable to very many people in the Province. The government has since
done an internal audit into FPI, but has yet to release the information to the
public even though the minister is on record as saying that audit is completed.
I ask the minister: Given what is happening with FPI, and what will likely
happen throughout the Province with respect to FPI, will the government now
agree to conduct a public inquiry into the operations and management of FPI, as
was requested by the Opposition last fall?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, in fact, have an outside audit firm do an audit of
two things for us on FPI, in terms of us doing our due diligence wherever the
company might be coming from as they finish up the internal review. One was
their groundfish operations, and that review has been completed and it is in the
hands of the government. We will use that review as we move down the road in
discussions with FPI, but certainly there are parts of that review that are
confidential in nature, that relate to their marketing in particular, and we
will share it with the people concerned but it would not be appropriate for us
to make that widely available. As a matter of fact, the union have agreed to do
the same thing: that they will be selective, if that is the right word, I
suppose, in terms of not doing anything to cause any further damage or harm to
the company.
In terms of a public inquiry, unless there is something more persuasive to
put before me or put before the House, we have not seen anything that would
justify a public inquiry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Premier and Bill Barry announced the plan to
reopen the fish plant in the Town of Harbour Breton. At the press conference the
Premier stated that Loyola Hearn, the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
was supportive of the proposal. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hearn said he hadn't
even seen a plan.
I ask the Premier: Why has the federal minister not been presented with a
plan? Does one even exist or was this just another attempt to place blame on
someone else for the failure of this government to deal with problems in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for the question.
No, Mr. Speaker, this is not an attempt by the Premier or anybody else in
this government to place blame on anybody. The attempt, Mr. Speaker, was to hold
out some hope and some optimism for a town in this Province that was having
great difficulty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier did, in fact, speak to the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans. A plan does, in fact, exist. The plan has been distributed to
people. People in Harbour Breton have seen the plan, members of the FFAW have
seen the plan, the government has seen the plan, so there is a plan for Harbour
Breton and we are going to do everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to make that
plan work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: I find that rather funny, Mr. Speaker. He just listed off a
whole host of people who have seen the plan, but the most important person, I
guess, when you are looking for quotas, the Federal Minister of Fisheries, he
never mentioned his name. I guess he doesn't have the plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that the negotiations with Bill Barry have
been moving forward secretly for the past fourteen months. At the same time the
IAS committee in Harbour Breton was conducting parallel negotiations with as
many as five companies to move into that community and reopen the plant. The
companies and the committee were blind sided with the government's
announcement of Mr. Barry.
I ask the Premier: Why did you not mention the other proposals, or why did
you not at least have the decency to examine these proposals, of the people who
were expressing an interest in opening the plant in Harbour Breton?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the IAS committee was informed over a year ago, within weeks of
the initial discussions being held with Mr. Barry. The Premier, in a meeting in
the Premier's boardroom, advised the IAS committee - and if I not mistaken the
MHA for the area was in the room at the time - that he was speaking with a
processor who had experience and operations in pelagics who was interested in
operating the plant in Harbour Breton. While the plan was contingent on getting
some quotas of herring, he was very interested in it. A member of the IAS
committee spoke up and said: If you are talking about an operator who does
pelagics who is interested in herring, then you have to be talking about Bill
Barry. It was not confirmed or denied, but the IAS committee was told at that
meeting that we were in negotiations with a processor.
Second to that, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barry was in Harbour Breton in September,
had an informal meeting with the mayor of the community, who he informed that
the Premier had asked him to look at the plant in Harbour Breton. That meeting
was subsequently reported to the IAS committee, as well as to the town council.
So everybody knew what we were doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Premier and the current ministers of
fisheries, both federally and provincially, recommended to the federal
government that a moratorium be placed on the commercial caplin fishery in this
Province. In 2004, the Premier was negotiating with Bill Barry to request 50,000
tons of quota of caplin for Harbour Breton, even though the entire quota for the
Province for 2004 was only 33,000 tons.
I ask the Premier: Why did you sign your name to the recommendation to the
federal government for no caplin fishery if you were not planning to follow
through on your own advice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of knowledge sometimes in the
wrong hands is a dangerous thing.
Part of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say, yes, is
correct. There was an all-party report commissioned and done by this House that
recommended that there be a caplin moratorium on stock in 2J+3KL and 4Rs, 3Pn.
That was the recommendation, and within days of that report being recommended
people in other political parties who were part of that recommendation,
particularly at the federal level, repudiated it and walked away from it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the unanimity that came out of this House was not
accepted by other people in other forums, particularly at the federal level. So
that is what happened to that, Mr. Speaker.
At the present time, all the Barry plan said was offshore caplin. There are
other offshore caplin stocks not related to the ones we are talking about. Some
of the science on 4Rs, 3Pn I understand is very positive, but if it is not, than
science is what is going to dictate the answer to us supporting anything.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: I have no idea, Minister, what the federal response has to do
with the Premier's recommendation. So from that, I guess, you could follow
that if the federal Minister of Fisheries says there is no quota for Harbour
Breton the Premier is going to agree with him on that too, I guess, is he, and
change his mind.
Mr. Speaker, fourteen months ago FPI announced the closure of Harbour Breton
plant and the transfer of its traditional quotas to other areas. We have now
been led to believe that some of the fish that used to be processed in Harbour
Breton has ended up in China for processing.
I ask the Premier, rather than support quotas for the Barry Group of
Companies, why doesn't he support a community quota for Harbour Breton so that
the fish stays with that town and would not be transferred if an independent
businessman decided he wanted to do that in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as I said
in response to the first question, has been selective in the information and the
facts that he wants to share with the public on this particular issue.
We are doing just that, Mr. Speaker, in other species like 3NO Redfish, for
example. We did a similar situation out in Arnold's Cove. We will continue -
we will always be there, Mr. Speaker, to try to improve the lot of the people of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Now if the Opposition Leader doesn't like that, if his
party doesn't like it, then I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, we are standing with the
people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: What I say to the minister is that I do not support the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador buying a quota for an individual who might
take that quota and transfer it out of the Province as he has done before. That
is what I do not appreciate.
Mr. Speaker, in June the Premier said that he was prepared to purchase quota
for the Town of Harbour Breton, similar to that which was done in Arnold's
Cove. I ask the Premier or the government: Are they entertaining an option of
buying a quota for Bill Barry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spits out Bill
Barry's name with such vengeance that it is almost like his name is a dirty
word in this Province. Mr. Speaker, Bill Barry and his company provide hundreds
and hundreds of jobs to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, thousands of
jobs -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: - and if we could get them, Mr. Speaker, to do something
similar to that in terms of a fish processing facility, perhaps in terms of
aquaculture, perhaps in terms of mink farming on the Connaigre Peninsula in
Harbour Breton, and provide jobs for people in Harbour Breton, we will support
it every way we can, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Recently government made an exception to the criteria for the placement of
kidney dialysis equipment in the Province and unfortunately, the exception
applied to only one hospital.
I ask the minister: Why did you not do the same for the residents of the
Burin Peninsula and of the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador who have
been asking for this equipment for some time now? I ask him if he will commit to
put the equipment in both the Burin and St. Anthony hospitals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member raises what is clearly a very important public health issue
in this Province. It is an issue that is debated on an annual basis. I can say
to the hon. member that we have had some pre-budgetary discussions. I know that
particular issue was raised during pre-budgetary consultation meetings with my
colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. I can say to
the hon. member as well, that it is an issue that is very much a part of the
mix, if I could put it that way, Mr. Speaker, in terms of deliberations and
preparations for a new budget, which will be announced in this Chamber in the
next number of weeks.
In conclusion on that point, Mr. Speaker, the issue is not being neglected or
forgotten. It is very much a very important and serious public health policy
issue. The discussions amongst this particular caucus and this particular
Cabinet will continue leading up to the announcement in several weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair on a
supplementary.
MS JONES: Last spring, Mr. Speaker, the MHA for Stephenville stood in the
House of Assembly here and she blurted out one day that the recommendations in
the Hay Group Report, as it pertained to the Stephenville hospital, would not be
implemented. Yet, the very services that were recommended to close in the Hay
Group Report have now, in essence, been closed in the Stephenville hospital
because the physicians are not there to provide the service. Mr. Speaker,
despite her commitment to the patients and to the people of that area, right now
the service is gone and they are being referred to Corner Brook for both
obstetrics and gynecology services.
I would like to ask the minister - in the absence of the member who failed to
meet her commitment - when are the services going to be restored to the
Stephenville hospital and what is being done to ensure that the patients are
able to access those services as soon as possible where they live in
Stephenville?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the issues of recruitment and retention are
not new. Every single health board, every single health authority in this
Province, on a continual basis, will have as one of its main priority issues,
the issue of the recruitment and retention of general practitioners,
particularly specialists, obviously, throughout our hospitals and health care
clinics throughout the Province.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is not unique to Newfoundland
and Labrador. There are jurisdictions throughout the entire country, and there
are boards and health care authorities throughout the entire country who have
identified as their particular priority issue, the issue of recruitment and
retention of physicians.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Western Health, and indeed
every health care authority in this Province, will continue to do what it must
do on this very important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am not overly concerned about what is being done
in other parts of the country, but I am concerned about what is happening on the
West Coast of this Province right now. I will tell the minister what is being
done in this country, province by province: Alzheimer's patients have their
drugs covered under a drug program.
Tuesday, the government announced nearly $2 billion towards the Teachers'
Pension Plan; yet, we know there are patients out there today in our Province
suffering from Alzheimer's, suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, who do not have
the ability to pay for the medications that they need.
I ask the minister, finally: Will you commit to pay for the drugs for those
patients so that they can have some quality of life?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the hon. member knows the process, as she is a former minister, a
former parliamentary secretary, in fact, in the department that I now represent.
She knows the process. She knows the time of year; we are towards the end of
February. She knows that March will be the month when the Budget is going to be
delivered in this hon. House by my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, every year - and this government is not alone; I am sure when
members opposite formed the government - every year, based on medical
documentation and the best medical evidence that is available, decisions will be
made with respect to the appropriate coverage for drugs for consumers in the
Province.
Last year, we had some very good news for patients suffering with arthritis.
We had some very good news, Mr. Speaker, for patients suffering from different
forms of cancer. This year, an analysis will be competed, and this year
decisions will be made on a variety of drugs to be included in the formulary for
the benefit of the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the $2 billion
Atlantic Accord money received by the Province.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the people of the Province were astonished to
learn that the government proposed to spend $1.93 billion on outstanding
teachers' liability when people in this Province are suffering the highest
poverty rate in the country, the highest level of use of food banks, 80 per cent
of whom are welfare recipients, one-third of whom are children. We have more
than one-third of the people of the Province with no access to any prescription
drug plan, and this government seems to be willing to spend almost all that
money on one issue. Where is the balance here? Where is the fairness to the
people of this Province who have needs - crying for attention from the
government - that are not being addressed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Over the last two months, I have met with the heads of every single major
union in this Province regarding unfunded liability in all their pension plans.
I have had meetings back since November with all unions. We have had
negotiations with teachers. We know what is needed to correct the plan. There is
a $4.4 billion deficit. If we could correct that to a tune, the majority of that
to put it on a level footing, even $2 billion - and we have not indicated $2
billion is going in. He does not understand that the Budget framework has
already spent - $541 million has been built into the framework. We have eight
years' money up front, that three years is spent, but the $2 billion that he
mentioned, based on the rate of return that we are getting, would free up $150
million a year, more money to use for roads, for health care, for drugs, and for
everything in our Province. That is what we are doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: All the major public sector unions know the discussions
went on. They know what we are looking at doing. We are trying to solidify the
future economic viability of our Province and, while doing so, put more money
into (inaudible) of our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the minister uses the Auditor
General when it suits him, but the Auditor General says, if they use the $2
billion that we had for unfunded liability, we would actually have a savings of
interest of $90 million a year. I do not know where he is getting the other $160
million. We know, Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term problem that was created and
requires some long-term solutions. The money that is being saved, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to know: When can the hungry children of
this Province, the people who are financially crippled by drug costs, who have
no access to a plan, the people who are in need of housing, when are they going
to get some relief from this government who are obviously interested in pleasing
the bankers and obviously interested in pleasing the accountants? What about the
people of this Province who are in great need, Mr. Speaker? When will they get
some relief?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The difference between what is being obtained in our pension plans at an
average rate since 1981 of 10.72 per cent, and the cost we are getting sitting
in a bank of over 3 per cent, the difference is 7.5 per cent. Multiply that by
$2 billion; it is $150 million more dollars into our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Had we put it in, in July, we would have had $240 million
between July and right now, more, by putting it in at this point. That is money
we have. I say to the member, that is money to deal with people who need drugs.
That is to deal with people who need infrastructure, who need hospitals and
schools and roads and all other public services in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last summer, during a by-election in the
District of Exploits, the Premier stepped forward and intervened in the closure
of a school in Bishop's Falls. There are now two similar situations taking
place in Corner Brook and Eastport.
I ask the Premier: How can you justify interfering in one school board
decision for political reasons while ignoring similar issues and concerns being
presented by parents and students in these other communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the hon. member's question, I certainly
would point out that the school boards of this Province look after the running
of the operations of a school and we leave it up to the school boards to make
those decisions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, they did not leave it up to
the school board in Exploits. That answer is almost as dead as last year's
snow, like the former Deputy Premier just said.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Minister of Education told the
Eastern School District to shred the multi-year plan that was presented by a
consultant. At that time, the minister promised extensive consultation before
any decisions would be made. Last month, these consultations took place and I
can certainly tell the minister they were far from extensive. The board is now
expected to have a draft plan in place by March 1.
I ask the minister: Will there be any real consultations before this plan is
implemented?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the school board arranged for
consultations to take place with regard to the restructuring plan for the
Eastern Board, which I assume the member is referring to. Those consultations
have taken place. It has gone back now for deliberations around the school board
table. They will deliberate. I look forward to them releasing where they are
going, and we will have to wait for that process to unfold. It is as simple as
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: There are no guarantees, Mr. Speaker, no guarantees.
Mr. Speaker, parents in the Eastern School District are saying the decisions
to close and reorganize schools are being rushed without the proper level of
input from parents and students. Most decisions are expected to be implemented
by September, leaving very little time for students, parents and teachers to
prepare for the major changes that are about to take place.
I ask the minister: Why is government rushing this process, especially when
the minister herself said the recommendations should be shredded?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, the school boards have undertaken a
process to do due deliberation with regard to the restructuring plan. They are
in the midst of that right now. We await their decision, and we will go from
there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, teacher stress has certainly been a big issue in
recent months, especially after witnessing the heavy-handed approach in the
suspension of two teachers for raising concerns about conditions in the
classroom. At the time, instead of making a stand against this action, the
minister washed her hands and said it was a decision of the board.
I ask the minister: To ensure that this never happens again, will government
consider bringing forth some form of whistle-blower legislation that will
protect employees, such as teachers, from being intimidated into silence?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the board has put a process
into place with the NLTA. They are working together with protocols and ways that
they can certainly address any difficulties in communication between schools
boards and the NLTA, the teachers. We certainly applaud those efforts and await,
again, the results of those consultations and the process.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I previously asked
the minister to update us on the Stephenville flood, and today I want to follow
up with additional questions.
Mr. Speaker, the affected residents of Stephenville have been in limbo for
months, staying in rented accommodations or with family and friends. There is a
real concern about the length of time and lack of information regarding the
proposed plan for those affected by the flood. I ask the minister if he can be
definitive as to when those affected will be able to move into permanent
residence?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of action going on behind the scenes with
respect to this file. Only a few weeks ago, I was in Stephenville. Myself, and
the member for the area, and the Minister of Education, met with the town, the
mayor, the engineers, and we said at that point in time we would hopefully have
some definitive answers for the victims of the flood in the not-too-distant
future, hopefully by the end of February. I am planning to make a trip to
Stephenville next week to meet with those individuals, to hopefully give the
people in the area some comfort to know what is going to happen in the
not-too-distant future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think everyone is aware of the primary purpose of being here today. Just in
a few moments, as we get through the Order Paper, I will give notice to
introduce Bill 73,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Assembly today to present a
petition on behalf of residents in my district. Mr. Speaker, I want to read the
prayer of this petition. It says:
WHEREAS the provincial government's Budget for 2006-07 is to be announced
within the next month; and
WHEREAS the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health Authority at Curtis Memorial
Hospital in St. Anthony currently performs surgical procedures for the residents
of Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador; and
WHEREAS Curtis Memorial does not have a kidney dialysis unit, nor trained
staff to operate any such equipment; and
WHEREAS this dialysis unit with trained staff provides patients with a
dialysis service within reasonable travel distance at reasonable costs; and
WHEREAS complications occur post-surgery requiring dialysis;
WHEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the petitioners request that the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador provide funds to the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health
Authority for the purchase of a kidney dialysis unit to be located at Curtis
Memorial in St. Anthony and funding be provided to train and retrain
professionals in the operation of this equipment.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to read the prayer of this petition because this is a
petition that was circulated by a seventy-four-year-old gentleman in my district
by the name of Pat Cabot in West St. Modeste. He felt so strongly about this
issue, that not only did he start a petition and a letter, but he went out and
got 850 signatures in that area to endorse and support what he was doing. At the
age of seventy-four, Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that, because that is a
remarkable initiative to have been taken on by this gentleman.
Now, Mr. Speaker, St. Anthony is not unlike Goose Bay or any other hospital
in this Province. There are surgical procedures being performed there on a daily
basis, and at any particular time something could go wrong, and we saw an
incident like that. Someone who was close to me, an individual from my district,
a very young man with a young family, in the past few weeks was in a situation
where surgery went wrong and there was no dialysis equipment in that hospital.
If it was there, Mr. Speaker, maybe he would be alive today; we do not know
that. Maybe he would be, but it was not there and that was not an option.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with residents in my own
district, in places like St. Lunaire-Griquet, who have family members right now
who are on both renal and homo-dialysis units in their own homes, and, Mr.
Speaker, they need to be ensured that those services are going to be provided by
the St. Anthony Hospital when they need it at times like this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they also tell me that in that particular region there are
about probably twelve people who require the service right now. While they are
not all living there, a lot of them had to move to other parts of the Province
to be able to get the service. In my opinion, I do not think the numbers should
constitute whether the equipment goes there or not, and I believe that
government feels the same way. That was evident in their actions only a week ago
when they made the decision to put the equipment in Goose Bay. I can only
impress upon the minister, like Mr. Cabot has impressed upon me with his
petition and his efforts, that this is such an essential, important piece of
equipment to the residents of that area and I can only ask that he look at
putting a kidney dialysis unit -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe I gave the appropriate notice for Bill 73, so I think by leave, by
prior consensus between the Opposition House Leader, myself and the Leader of
the NDP, I do now move first reading of Bill 73.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Throughout the afternoon sitting there will be a number of leaves required
for this bill to proceed. The Chair will operate on the assumption that leave
has been agreed to by the members, unless some member should stand and say
otherwise.
It is moved and seconded that the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act to
Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 73)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
MR. E. BYRNE: Human Resources and Labour.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair apologizes. He has listed the wrong
title to the minister.
MR. SULLIVAN: It used to be.
MR. SPEAKER: It used to be. It is the hon. the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment, and Labrador Affairs. The Chair apologizes.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the minister shall have leave
to introduce Bill 73?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act," carried. (Bill 73)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act. (Bill 73)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read
a second time? Now?
MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, Bill 73 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move second reading of Bill 73,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 73,
An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 73)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand today on this occasion. First
of all, to say right off the top, to thank all members on both sides of the
House for coming to the House of Assembly today for this very special bill, Bill
73,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
Mr. Speaker, of course when debates go in this House, and being here for
twelve years now, I do not guess there is another issue that is talked about
more than the fishery. It started 500 years ago and as I look at the amendments
to the act, I think - if I remember the numbers correctly - since the early
1970s, early 1970-1971, there has been some seven, or maybe eight, amendments to
this particular act. So, the debate goes on in Newfoundland and Labrador. I
guess for the next 500 years we will see more debates on the fishery because it
is the reason we are here. It is our mainstay. It is the reason we came here in
the first place and the reason for a lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to introduce this very important piece of
legislation and to deal with the collective bargaining from the Cashin report.
Of course, we know, we all understand that there are many challenges in the
fishery, that this is just one part of the Cashin report that we all feel, and
certainly Mr. Cashin did, that it was critical and essential that we move on
strengthening the Collective Bargaining Act.
Mr. Speaker, we also know, combined with all of the challenges that are in
the fishery, that it is going to take a lot of co-operation and leadership by
everybody involved to move beyond some of the challenges that we face, and they
are huge challenges, aside from this particular bill here today, on the markets,
the Canadian dollar, and we will go on with a list of challenges that face us in
the fishing industry today.
Mr. Speaker, the timing for this particular amendment, and while we are
sitting here today in the House, an early session of the House, with the
co-operation of all people in here - and I think that bodes well for what we are
asking of the industry as a whole - is that the people in this Legislature, the
elected officials, have a chance to come here today knowing - the reason for the
timing is as simple as this, Mr. Speaker, is because of natural conditions of a
season of fishery. That is what it is all about. The fact of the matter is, that
we have a seasonal fishery that we want to get started on time. As you go
through Mr. Cashin's report it is repeated over and over again. Of course, it
has been repeated many times in this particular Legislature by many of us who
understand that every spring we find crises after crises with the startup of the
fishery and it has been a problem, and not just a problem here locally. We all
understand it is a double market that we deal with and that the timely opening
of a fishery is critical and essential if this industry in this Province is
going to improve and move forward. Mr. Speaker, moving forward and timing is
very important.
As a government, we have made a commitment to act in a timely manner. We did
that. The Premier did it. The Minister of Fisheries did it back in early
discussions last year, Mr. Speaker, that it was important and critical that we
move forward in a timely manner so that the fishery could start on time.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the challenges go on and on; the Canadian
dollar, the declining resource, including weak markets and so on. Those are the
challenges that we will have to take on one by one, but we all agree that this
particular strengthening of the collective bargaining act for fisheries, Mr.
Speaker, is critical to move on to those other steps. I am pleased that today -
again, I thank all members in this House for coming here today to deal with this
specific amendment to the act.
Mr. Cashin - Mr. Speaker, I take one quote. You can take a lot of quotes from
Mr. Cashin's report, but there is one I guess that sticks out, especially when
it comes to collective bargaining. I will quote: "...a system that does not
force timely settlements to enable early starts to the season is a recipe for
disaster for the rural economy" - of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we have had that debate over and over for many years, for many
different reasons, where the fishery could not open on time, including last year
and years before that. Mr. Speaker, some people describe it as the good, the bad
and the ugly. There are always different aspects of the fishery. We have seen
some very hotly contested, controversial issues facing the fishery in the past,
and I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that down the road there will be more again,
but our idea today is on co-operation and leadership and to move forward.
Mr. Cashin noted that the existing legislation is completely inadequate to
ensure a timely start to the most critical fisheries of this Province. Above all
else is the one situation that must be fixed, he wrote, and fixed quickly. It is
as simple as this: A more orderly system of bargaining, he advised, is the
answer for both parties.
Mr. Speaker, I am just going to draw some attention - of course, there are
twenty-seven amendments overall, but there are some amendments with the
collective bargaining that were discussed, and consultations with the
industries, all stakeholders, for quite some time. Beginning back last January
with the Labour Relations Board, and of course before that, there had been
discussions ongoing about the collective bargaining and strengthening it from
both sides. Those discussions have been there for a long time. For the most
part, a lot of these amendments deal with exactly that, strengthening or
bringing up-to-date the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I think
those discussions have been ongoing, and a lot of these that have been asked for
have been certainly suggested by both parties and now a lot of them want to move
forward with it.
Mr. Speaker, the one that stands out and the one that is newest and is
getting the most attention is the Panel. What I will do is try to deal with the
specific amendments, just to touch on them. My colleagues will have a lot more
debate going on here today and I look forward to that, and probably some
technical points and, I understand, some amendments also. We will deal with all
of those as they come to the House here today, Mr. Speaker. The panel I will
leave until last, Mr. Speaker, but basically there are six other specific ones
that we will try to just touch on, and I am sure we have some more discussion
here today.
One is, of course the grievance arbitration process will be improved.
Number two, the right to strike or lock out has been replaced with binding
arbitration. Fines and penalties have been increased to deal with organized work
stoppages. Mr. Speaker, these are brought into line now with the Labour
Relations Act, the same type of penalties.
Fish processor organizations can be accredited by the Labour Relations Board
on the basis of a single species. That is very important, Mr. Speaker. I am just
touching on some of the main amendments here now. The collective agreements
reached with processors who process a majority percentage of fish species will
once again be binding on all processors who process that fish species.
Mr. Speaker, number five is, a process organization will be allowed to
recover negotiation costs from all processors who process that species of fish
and who are governed by the resulting collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, these are all that will strengthen the collective agreement and,
of course, bring it up to date with the Labour Relations Act of the day.
The Panel, as I said earlier, is the most significant part of this amendment.
It is new, it is something Mr. Cashin had recommended, Mr. Speaker. I will just
go briefly down some of the points of the Fish Price-Setting Panel. The Panel
will provide the basis for a timely start for the fishery each year. However,
the panel will not take away from the ability of the parties to negotiate their
own collective agreements. I think that is very important, Mr. Speaker. The key
to the panel's mandate is to act as an arbitration panel and to set fish
prices as well as conditions of sale. This is only when - and I repeat again,
this is only when - the parties involved in negotiations are unwilling or unable
to agree; this panel will make final and binding decisions. Now, Mr. Speaker,
that is something that I guess, in the whole essence of this whole debate, is
about a decision that is final and binding, that, in fact, leads us to a
start-up of the season on time. This will guarantee that the binding collective
agreements will be in place no later than three days before the normal scheduled
opening date of the fishery.
Mr. Speaker, the panel members will be appointed as soon as possible. This
body will be composed of three persons appointed by government. We will be
seeking input from the FFAW and ASP on the panel appointments. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, a letter has been already spent. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, a letter has already gone to the parties involved to ask just that.
Mr. Speaker, also, government will provide operating funding for the panel.
The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture will also provide staffing support
in the year of market intelligence on an as-needed basis.
Mr. Speaker, as the debate continues on this, and I guess this is, as I said,
the most important part and the newest of the amendments, this is very important
that we move forward. As we look at the debate that is ongoing and away from the
specifics of the legislation, continuously through the report - I think this has
been repeated a number of times; I guess we can still repeat it - as I said
earlier today, us here in the Legislature today to try to co-operate and move
forward showing leadership in this industry. That has been a problem and it has
been noted many times throughout the report that if this industry can start on
time, that is a beginning. The challenges that we face, as I mentioned earlier,
are challenges we have to take on, but I believe that the feedback we have been
getting from all stakeholders is that at least we have something now to start to
work with.
The importance of this to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I mean, how much
could you say? We know very well, especially from Members of this House of
Assembly and all members, how important the fishery is to rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we can have a start-up date and we know
that the fishery will start on time, with a price set, I think, will bode good
news for a lot of parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I really would like, at this time, too, to thank the many
officials, because of the timing of all of this, from the release of the report
in December to the work that has been done by - and I know members on all sides
of the House know the work done by the officials in the labour agency and also
from the minister's Department of Fishery and Aquaculture. The work that those
officials have done to bring this together to try to have it ready for us in
this Legislature is not an easy task, by any means. There is a lot of time gone
into it, a lot of considerations, and, of course, the Department of Justice and
so on.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to introduce it so we can get some debate going here
today, certainly some questions, I understand some amendments and so on, so I am
looking forward to my colleagues, what they have to say here today, and I am
looking forward to the debate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to speak to Bill 73,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, a very important piece of legislation, not one that
we have not discussed here in this House of Assembly before.
I remember sitting across the floor, in the position of Minister of
Fisheries, back some four years ago, and the then critic - my critic was the
member who represents The Straits & White Bay North. Every single day in the
House of Assembly he used to jump up and say we did not have a plan but he had
one. Shortly after that he became the minister and he implemented his plan, the
first of three, actually, Mr. Speaker, because today we are going to go through
the third plan of this government, the government that has not been in power yet
three years.
The first plan that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North came up
with shortly after being put into the Ministry of Fisheries back in 2003 was the
auction system. Again, he did this one arbitrarily and unilaterally without ever
going out and discussing it with anyone in the industry, and brought in a piece
of legislation that kept us here, I think, very late into the night on a number
of occasions back in either the fall of 2003 or the winter of 2004. In fact, I
think we pretty well had an all-night sitting where he was trying to push
through a piece of legislation for an auction system, only to find out that no
one in the industry - processors nor fishermen, or fish harvesters - wanted it.
He did that against the wishes of pretty well everyone concerned, and pushed it
through late at night, only to find out shortly thereafter that his plan did not
work and he had to scrap that one.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, what happened almost a year ago to the day when the
minister, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, came forward with
his second plan, because his first one did not work. Even though when he sat in
Opposition he said he had a plan - I think he had a few, actually - he never
thought them through very well, but the one last year was probably the worst
plan that we ever saw a government put forward on the backs of the fishing
industry in this Province.
As my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment,
said, the fishing industry, to me at least, is the most important industry in
our Province, not just from a financial perspective but also from the number of
people that it employs and the effect that it has had not only on our economy
but on our culture in the past 500 years that we have been here.
We all remember the drastic mistake that the previous Minister of Fisheries
made last year. Without any consultation with anybody, he brought in what was
probably the most disastrous plan I have ever seen or heard of; that is the raw
materials sharing plan.
To make matters worse, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries had been out
months before that saying that any new changes to the Department of Fisheries,
or any new changes in the fishing industry, would only take place with extensive
consultation between the government and the fish harvesters in the Province, and
the government and the fish processors. Well, I think that they did some
consultation with the fish processors but he forgot, or deliberately omitted,
speaking with the fish harvesters. What he did was try to implement a program
that would have seen complete control of the fishing industry lie in the hands
of the processors, who are commonly known in the Province as the wealthy fish
merchants.
Mr. Speaker, we saw the fallout of that. We had a strike for practically two
months. We saw a late start to the fishing industry and we also saw that, at the
end of the day, the Premier somewhat capitulating in saying that we will do this
for this season. We will appoint Mr. Richard Cashin, a former President of the
FFAW, to come in and do an examination of the RMS and make recommendations to
government and that they would live by the recommendations in the Cashin report.
We will talk about that later, whether or not all the recommendations in the
Cashin report have been adhered to, because some of my colleagues beg to differ,
and we will be presenting amendments later in the afternoon.
As I said earlier, he brought in a disastrous plan that had some devastating
impacts and affects on most of the fish harvesters and the plant workers in the
Province last year. I know in my district it was absolutely catastrophic last
year because the fishery did not start until early June. When the fishermen and
fisherwomen in my district took to the water, what they found almost immediately
was the presence of softshell crab and as a result, few, if any of them, managed
to catch their entire quotas last year. In fact, many fishermen and fisherwomen
in my district did not get any of their crab and, as a result of that, have been
forced to leave the Province; while others who have remained find themselves in
dire financial shape through the winter and up until now.
So, Mr. Speaker, because of these failed plans we are here again today
discussing another plan for the operation of the fishery. I call it the Cashin
plan because it was based on recommendations put forward by Richard Cashin, I
think in the fall of this past year, and that is the essence of the report that
we are here discussing today and the changes that are needed to the legislation
in order for this plan to work.
I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the current Minister of Fisheries - I
understand that he is a bit more open to conversations with the fish harvesters
in the Province than was his predecessor, the Member for The Straits & White
Bay North. I certainly hope, for all of our sakes, especially for those who are
involved in the fishing industry, that this plan works and that we have an early
start to the fishing season and that we have some semblance of sanity in that
industry so that those who are affected by it and work in it have a very
profitable year, even though from the scientific advice that we are seeing on
the state of the crab stocks and the Canadian dollar, that might not even be the
case if everything else goes well, but I really do hope that this plan works.
We have not had a lot of opportunity to look at this piece of legislation. We
were told, I think on the weekend, that is was coming to the floor of the House
on Wednesday. We got the legislation late Monday afternoon. We did not get a
briefing on it until yesterday afternoon. I have not had the opportunity to
discuss the legislation and the plan with a lot of fishermen or fisherwomen in
the Province. I have had a discussion with some. I have had a number of
discussions with the President of the FFAW, Mr. Earl McCurdy, and he assures me
that what the guts of this plan is, he can certainly accept. He is saying to me
that the recommendation would be to approve the plan.
I have talked to some processors who have problems with it, some of the
smaller processors, because they do not agree with the fact that as little as
three or four of them can be the bargaining agent for all processors in the
Province simply by the formula that the minister is using to calculate who
becomes the bargaining agent - and that being that if any group of processors
who process fifty plus 1 percent of the crab, for example, last year will be the
bargaining agent for the processors. The smaller processors feel that they are
being left out of this process and that they do not carry as much weight as some
of the larger processors, and at the end of the day, they feel that they may be
ill-treated. I will bring forward an amendment later when we go into committee
to deal with that.
I have talked to some of the processors. As I said, some of them have
problems, others do not. I have talked to the President of the FFAW. He says
that his organization fully supports this bill. So we will have to wait and see
if it does indeed work.
Mr. Speaker, another one of the problems that both the fishermen that I spoke
to and some of the processors have is the fact that this committee is going to
be appointed by government. Now the fishermen have a problem with this because
they have a lack of trust in the individuals who are appointing the panel, and
that being the government opposite, because the fish harvesters in the Province
saw what happened to them last year. They were promised consultations with the
government before any raw material sharing program came in and that promise was
never kept and it was forced upon them from the top down. As a result, some of
them experienced very severe hardships last year. As a result of that, when they
hear that the government is appointing this committee, then I can see why they
sort of have reason to worry because this panel will make the decisions of when
the fishery will open. At the end of the day, they could make the decision when
it will open, how much they are going to get paid for their product or their
fish and the conditions of sale of their products. So, coming from a government
that tried to force RMS upon them, they have some skepticism over the fact that
this panel will be independent.
I have talked to processors who feel the same way. They do not believe, for
example, that the government should have the right to appoint a panel to make
these very major decisions affecting an industry, what they consider to be a
private industry in terms of - in capitalism where you know the price usually
rules the day and things like that. They are saying they do not think that the
government should be interfering in the fishing industry to the extent that they
are not in other industries, to the point where they can even tell you how much
they are going to pay for your product, how much basically you are going to get
and when and where they can fish.
So, there are a number of problems that both sides, the harvesters and the
processors, have expressed to me. We will talk about those later, but, for the
most part, what I will be doing is presenting an amendment later in the
afternoon when we go into second reading, pertaining to who should be the
official bargaining agent for processors.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and give somebody else an opportunity
to speak to this bill.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words in second reading here
regarding this Bill 73. As the Leader said, the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo, there are some particular items that I will be addressing later, but also
I would like to bring it to the attention of the minister at this time, rather
than find ourselves in a situation where we might get into committee stage and
raise these issues which might cause some technical difficulties or slow things
down. I will, in the course of my general comments, just make brief reference to
these issues as well and probably give some background as to why we feel it is a
source of concern.
We received this legislation a couple of days ago. We have had an opportunity
- we were briefed by the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and representatives of the
Department of Labour to explain what the piece of legislation was about and the
technical details of it. We appreciate the fact that we did indeed, ultimately,
get the briefing. Some minor difficulties getting around to it but, anyway, it
did take place.
There has been some feedback from people. I have had some calls from members
of the FFAW, in fact, persons who are in prominent positions within the FFAW,
who have some concerns, and I have also had calls from processors who have some
concerns with this piece of legislation.
Now, I think it is fair to say that, generally speaking, and on a balance,
the FFAW, who is going to be one of the parties that is going to be subject to
this legislation, are in agreement with the meat and substance of this piece of
legislation. I think it is fair to say, on balance, from the processors, at
least from the members of the ASP group, that they are in favour of this piece
of legislation. I do not think anybody would deny that government has an
obligation, in view of what has happened in the past, to try to bring some
stability to the fishing industry. It is a billion dollar-plus industry to this
Province. Multitudes of people are employed in it, and we have to get some kind
of stability.
Nobody is opposed, I do not believe, to what the government is trying to
accomplish by bringing in this piece of legislation. I do not believe it is the
position of an Opposition just to criticize and oppose for the sake of
opposition. I think any Opposition that you bring forward should have a rational
basis why you oppose it, but I do believe we, as an Opposition, regardless of
the fact that the two principal parties - namely the FFAW and the ASP group -
may be in favour of the legislation, that does not detract from, I believe, our
obligation, as an Opposition, to point out what some people feel are
deficiencies with this piece of legislation, and to make suggestions that would,
I would submit, improve it.
That is the tenor of where this member is coming from. It is not the purpose
to oppose the general purpose of what the government is trying to accomplish
here, but to make a couple of suggestions that it is not the panacea for
everything, and I do not believe anybody thought it would be. I suggest and
think and submit that we are going to back here, probably, in this very House,
within twelve months to tinker some more with this, and that is a process. That
is what happens when you bring in a law. You do not always think of every
circumstance when you draft it, in the first instance, and through experience
you find out that we have to come back here to fix it again. So, I think nobody
is under the assumption that this is going to be the be-all and end-all, the
final, absolute solution to resolving the ills in the fishing industry, but it
is a step that somebody has to take, and obviously it is incumbent upon
government to take it, but there are some concerns.
What this bill does, as I understand it, under the principle intentions and
purposes of it, is to somehow require that the parties get together at the
table. If we have a bargaining group, the FFAW, representing the harvesters and
the fishers, and they have certain demands that they want for their industry and
for their workers and their membership but they have nobody to talk to because a
processor group on the other side will not come to the table, we end up in a
stalemate. We end up in situations where we possibly do not have a fishery.
Somehow, you have to bring the parties to the table, and I think that the
general intent here is to find the mechanism whereby you can bring the parties
to the table.
What this bill does, as I understand it, and the minister can correct me if I
am wrong, is that the FFAW have always been the certified bargaining agent for
the fishers. That is not an issue. The problem is, how do we define who the
other party is going to be? You cannot have a collective bargaining agreement.
The very words themselves imply that somebody sat down and bargained on behalf
of two groups. We have one; who is going to be the other? Obviously, the other
is the processor group.
The government, in this bill here, is saying that the processors will be
represented. Whoever comes to that table to speak for the processors in any
given year will be that majority of processors who produce 50 per cent plus 1 of
that particular species based upon the previous year's production. That is my
understanding of what is happening here.
Somebody would look at it and say that is a pretty good common sense
principle and democratic principle if 50 per cent plus 1 of the processors of
crab in this Province agree, we want to be the bargaining agent, and they come
to the Labour Relations Board and say: Certify us to speak for all the
processors.
That seems to be pretty fair. I do not have a problem with that - that piece
of it - but I do not think it goes far enough. We are going to propose an
amendment to that because, if we are looking for the ultimate fairness to
everybody on the other side, I think there should be an amendment so that piece
that the government has proposed is there, yes, the majority of processors
should definitely be there to be the certified bargaining agent, but we cannot
forget about the numbers of processors involved in that species. For example, if
we have thirty-eight crab processors in this Province, 50 plus 1 per cent of the
production might come from three of those thirty-eight processors. For example,
in our Province, as I understand it, some of the big players are the Quinlans,
the Barry Group, FPI and the Daley Brothers. For example, it is my
understanding, based upon last year's figures, that those four, if they got
together, would be the certified bargaining agent for crab. That is my
understanding, based upon the rough numbers I am aware of. Now, that is not to
say that they shouldn't be the certified bargaining group, but I am saying,
what about the other thirty-four processors? What about the little guy down in
Burnt Islands who has a facility? What about the little guy who is somewhere up
on the Northern Peninsula who has a facility? Where do their views get heard?
That little guy, for example, who has maybe got fifty or seventy-five employees
- he does have the 1,000, he doesn't have the 500, he only has fifty or
seventy-five people - he can't afford to join a group like ASP. My
understanding is that processor's group, their budget, for example, is
somewhere around $800,000 or $900,000 a year. You can't expect these small
processors to be necessarily a part of the organization at that cost, but yet
they still have interests and they still represent people and their interests
need to be represented. Thirty-four processors may be left out under that
formula.
What we are going to propose, to be ultimately fair, is, yes, use your 50 per
cent plus 1 production rule, but why not say to that as well, that the certified
bargaining agent must also represent 50 per cent plus 1 of those persons who are
authorized processors in the Province. Now, you have the ultimate democracy.
Those who are the big pushers and the producers in the Province, they are
automatically in there under that rule, but it also requires those big guys to
consult with and deal with, fairly, other groups no matter how small they are.
They must, from amongst the thirty-eight, come up with at least 50 per cent plus
1 of all the authorized processors and then they go to the board and say:
Certify us. I think that is an ultimately fair proposal. Those who produce the
majority are represented and those who are the majority of processors in the
Province are represented under that scenario.
If you don't use that principle - and this is the concern I hear back from
little processors, we will call them - the concern is: What if the big three or
the big four go to government and negotiate a collective agreement under terms
and conditions, under the Labour Relations Board? It goes to the panel if they
can't agree amongst themselves and they end up with a collective agreement
between the FFAW and the big three or the big four. What if that agreement
squeezes out the little guys? Now, one can say, well, fine, they are all in the
industry, they can compete now and so on, so it is no big deal. If you are
trying to find the ultimate fairness principle here and if we are going to
tinker again with this industry we are tinkering with, why not try to make it
the best that it can be by having that kind of formula so that the bargaining
agent or the processors represent 50 per cent plus 1 of the producers and 50
plus 1 per cent of all processors? That way is the ultimate democratic principle
of representation, and you live with the results that are negotiated. I think
that is a very fair proposal that we are going to be putting forward there.
Another concern we have, and I am sure the minister is going to have answers
to some of these questions, one would be under the
section that deals with the
creation of the panel, for example; it talks about the duties of the panel, and
what is going to be the new
section 19. It talks about the panel; assuming the
parties cannot agree amongst themselves, there is going to be a panel that is
going to be able to deal with certain things and have the authority to do
certain things. Under that
section 19.2, one of the duties, it says, is that
they can set the price. Obviously that is a big issue in the fishing industry
from year to year. How do we get a price that both parties, the buyers and the
processors, the processors and the union, are going to live with?
The whole piece that it says here is they can set the price and conditions of
sale. That raises the question, and maybe there is an answer already evident;
maybe it is already in the existing Fishing Industry Collection Bargaining Act.
Maybe there is some memorandum between the parties that has already been used,
or traditionally used, but my question is: What do we mean by conditions of
sale? Because I do not know if it is anything defined in this - nothing in this
piece of legislation that defines condition of sale - and, to my knowledge, I do
not know if it is the current act, I do not think, what are conditions of sale.
The reason I raise the question is, it is one thing for the panel to say you
two cannot agree so we are going to say that the price is this amount. That is
one issue, but that quote, "conditions of sale", what does that give
this panel the authority to do? Will things be done under that conditions of
sale authority that again improperly, negatively, unintentionally, causes
problems in the industry again?
Is there any way of defining what we mean by conditions of sale? If I knew
how to define it, for example, I would be proposing an amendment, that we change
the definition
section and it shall mean such and such. I, personally, am not
knowledgeable enough about the fishing industry to know what we would include
under conditions of sale. Is it, for example, a condition of sale that anybody
who lands a product in this Province cannot truck it any more than fifty miles
as part of the condition of sale? You have to pay so much a pound for it, you
have to get it graded at the dockside, and you cannot truck it any more than
fifty miles, is that a condition of sale?
If that is deemed to be a condition of sale, is that a way whereby the panel
might, for example - we are back again to - even though it says they cannot deal
with raw material sharing and they cannot deal with the production quotas and
such, that is an authority that they have under that section, to put in a
condition of sale that might, through the back door, get what it says here they
should not do? All I am saying is, I think we need to be definitive here. We do
not need these parties because, I tell you, if there is any industry where
people have been very, very creative in how to make things work for their
benefit - and hats off to them, if it is to your benefit do it - we need to have
people understand what the rules are here. That is what we are trying to get at.
I am saying, I think it is going to be a problem. If we do not define what
conditions of sale are, we are going to have a further problem. If there is
anything that the minister or the government can do, I would suggest, to make
that more definitive so there is no playing around by the parties as to what
that means, it should be defined and it should be put in legislation. So, there
is some uncertainty there.
There is another issue that we will be putting forward, for example, dealing
with the Labrador issue. Mr. Cashin, as I understand it - and this bill has
generally been referred to as the Cashin bill, I understand. There was a
reference in Mr. Cashin's report, a recommendation that Labrador should not be
included in the changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. That
is not in here. My colleague from Labrador will deal with that issue when she
gets into the details. So we do have an example here where that particular
recommendation by Mr. Cashin is not in here, and we are gong to be asking: Why
isn't it in here? and, in fact, suggesting that it ought to be in here. If we
are taking what Mr. Cashin said to be proper and correct, it should, indeed, be
there.
Another question I have - and these are questions that I was not aware of at
the time - perhaps if the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Fisheries can
give an answer to questions like: If the price is set by the panel, can a
processor pay more than the price that is set?
I do not see, from this piece of legislation, any direction as to - once the
panel sets the price, we know that the parties to that collective agreement are
bound by that price. In other words, I would take that to mean you cannot pay
any less than. So, whether you sell to King's fisheries or Barry's
fisheries, or anybody, if the price is $2 a pound, everybody has to pay at least
$2 a pound. Does that mean that the processors cannot pay more? For example, the
whole traditional capitalist system in which we live, they have been competing
for years at the head of the wharf as to who pays the most. I know what the
minimum is, but, look, here is a bit more. In fact, I think it is well
understood in the industry that it is not unusual for bonuses to be paid, even
under the final offer selection process that we used for a number of years. I
could easily pay you, as a processor, $1 a pound, but at the end of the year,
when we settle up, there was nothing wrong with me paying you extra. Sometimes
it was done in terms of dollars, and sometimes it was done in terms of material
things. Will that be allowed to continue, I ask the minister, under this bill?
We know we have to pay the minimum price set by the panel, but can you pay more?
That question was put to me by a processor, a smaller processor in this
Province, and they have that concern that we do not want, by trying to fix the
problem here, to cause a problem and take away the competitive instincts that
still should exist. Even though somebody has to get the minimum, and there
should be a minimum, the same as a minimum wage, that does not mean that you
should not be able to compete and see what you can get for your product. I do
not know if that is here; and, if it is not here, should it be definitively
stated that, that price does nothing to detract from your normal competitive
issues?
Another question that was put to me by a processor is: Can a processor refuse
to buy under this new system, once it is adopted? A very legitimate question.
The panel sets the price, for example, of $1 dollar a pound. For whatever
reason, a fisherman in a certain area comes into - there is a plant in the area,
two plants in the area, there could be two buyers there, and that person goes to
one of them, the fisherman goes to that person and says: Here are my 1,000
pounds; you have to pay me $1 a pound. That processor, for whatever reason,
says: I cannot take your product. I do not want your product. It could be a case
that he does not have the money to buy it at that time. It could be a case where
his equipment is down. It could be a case where he had his plant shut down for
the season.
The rule, as I understand it here, is that, once the price is set, it is
binding on all processors and you have to pay the price. What if a processor
says, for a legitimate reason, I do not want your product? What happens? Is
there anything in here to address that type of situation, or is it mandatory
that a processor must buy, cannot refuse to buy?
That is a very legitimate concern, because there could be a multitude of
reasons why a processor cannot buy or does not want to buy. I would like the
minister to give some kind of indication, if he can, and direction, because
these are very legitimate questions being asked by the people who, I would
assume, as of tomorrow, when this thing goes through, are going to be bound by
this, so it is incumbent that somebody give some answers. They may exist and, if
they do, we would certainly like to have them, and these people in the industry
need to have them.
So, I guess, in conclusion, at this point I am not opposed to the bill in
general, but I think there are some deficiencies here that need to be addressed
or we are going to find ourselves back here, probably not next year, but
probably sooner. No problem in doing that either, but if they are pointed out in
advance, and I think they are logical, rational suggestions, I do not see any
reason why it could not be done now. So, if it can be done, let's do it right
in the first instance.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank the members who have
spoken from the Official Opposition at this point in time and for the
contribution they have made and the questions they have raised. I do not suppose
I will be able to answer all of them to the point that will please everybody,
but I want to give a little bit of the rationale for the legislation as it is in
front of us today. I will try to deal with a couple of the major issues that
were raised to this point in time. I am sure there will be others raised by
other speakers and I will deal with them later in the afternoon because I
understand that perhaps I will have an opportunity to close the debate on second
reading on behalf of the minister, so that if there are other issues that get
raised beyond this point, I will get a chance to respond to them.
It was mentioned: What are we going to do about the competition on the head
of the wharf? Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I cannot believe that the wisdom of
Solomon could even go to address that situation. I mean, all we can do as a
Legislature, as a government, as legislators here, in my view, is provide a
framework. That is what the Cashin report asks of us, to provide a framework.
Make the playing field as level as possible. Will it be a perfect playing field,
Mr. Speaker, a perfect soccer pitch? I doubt it, but we are trying to make it as
fair and as level as we can.
We have taken the recommendations of Mr. Cashin and we have sat down with the
major players, not all the players. Some of the players in this industry, Mr.
Speaker, are not represented by anybody. Now, I have tried to make it as
abundantly clear as I can, and I think this legislation, by the way, will be
another process in that pad. I cannot force individuals, processors, into an
association. I cannot do it. I would not want to do it, anymore than I can force
individual harvesters into a union. Basically, there is some choice here as to
what you want to do, how you want to act in your industry, but I can say this.
We provided an opportunity for the association that represents the large
percentage of processors in this Province to provide us with their view of the
Cashin report and what government should do. We have tried to incorporate, in
this legislation, that view as much as possible. It is not totally processor
driven. It is not totally union driven. We have tried to make a hybrid here. We
have tried to create a creature here that incorporates the best suggestions of
all sides.
I have met with independent processors who are not part of any association in
the course of the few months that I have been in this department. I have
encouraged them to find an association that they are comfortable in. If it is
the Association of Seafood Producers, that is fine. That is their business. If
they feel that is not on and they want to form something else, well, that is the
fine, too. That is their business. Personally, I would like to see them all in
one association. I have made that clear to them, but, at the end of the day, it
is not my call. What I have done though, and what the government has tried to do
on this legislation, is to provide them, whether they were in or out, with an
opportunity to tell us their view.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have met with a number of small processors in
the last several weeks and I haven't had those issues, that the Opposition is
raising, brought to my attention. I met with a small processor right after the
news conference yesterday - and the member will probably know who it was because
he was at the conference - and it wasn't this issue of being crowded out or
ganged up on by larger processors that was his issue. It was an issue that
flowed out of the raw material sharing program of last year in terms of how you
are going to do the industry averages and go forward from there.
The last piece of legislation that dealt with FOS said 50 per cent plus 1 of
all processors in the Province, irrelevant of what species they were involved
in, everybody, from Mr. Cashin to the union, to the processor's association,
wanted a 50 per cent plus 1 accreditation based on species; based on the species
process, whether it is crab or whether it is shrimp or cod. They are probably,
likely to be the main ones anyway.
I have been told, Mr. Speaker, that some of the smaller processors are
perhaps the most cost-competitive people in the whole industry, that they do not
mind being bound by this because their cost structures are not an FPI cost
structure. Their cost structure is not a Quinlan cost structure, that they have
cost structures that make them very competitive with some of the larger players
in the industry. So, they have not raised it as a red flag, at least to us. They
may have - I am not saying they did not to members of the Opposition, but they
have not raised it in any way as a red flag to us as something that could be
detrimental to them, that could cause harm to them, could cause them to be
noncompetitive. That has not been something, through the consultation process or
in the public where we invited individuals and people and so on to make their
views known to us through our Web location and letters and things like that.
That has not surfaced, Mr. Speaker. So, my understanding is simply this. The
vast majority of the industry want a species by species accreditation and when
the processors representing 50 per cent plus 1 or more in a particular species
go to the panel, a price is set, either negotiated or either that set by the
panel. When that happens, everybody in the industry is bound by it. That is what
the industry, as I understand it, want.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the other thing we have to adhere to - and I have had
people who are outside the industry association tell me this, that they are
satisfied with this, personally tell me that they expect to pay their share of
whatever it cost to get the price settled. They are not along for a free ride
and have the biggies pay and the other less smaller ones not pay. They have said
to me up-front: We may not be part of the association but we want to find a way
that we can pay our share of what it cost to get a price settled. I have had
that said to me by a number of smaller independent processors in the Province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the clause, as we have it structured now in
the legislation, represents the best possible approach that satisfies the most
people in the industry. Does it satisfy everybody? No, I would not say it does,
Mr. Speaker. Does it satisfy everybody on both sides of the industry? I would
not expect it does, Mr. Speaker. But I think it is the approach and the
framework that satisfies the most people in the industry in total, harvesters
and processors. It is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that we are proposing that
the legislation pass.
A couple of other matters were raised. I refer to the head of the wharf, Mr.
Speaker. I do not think I can say much more on that. I do not think the
government has any business on the head of the wharf. I believe it was former
Prime Minister Trudeau who made a similar comment about the government and the
state in the bedrooms of the nation. We cannot legislate and control that kind
of thing. We just simply cannot do it.
How do I get on the head of the wharf, or an official from my department, or
from the labour relations agency, on the head of the wharf, and the price is,
say, $1 a pound, and Minister Byrne comes in and says: I will give you $1.05.
What do I say? You are not allowed on the wharf, Minister Byrne. You are a
licensed processor, you are a buyer; you have a right to be there. You, or an
association, or a group accredited on your behalf, signed an agreement. If you
want to shag around with that agreement, if you want to make that agreement
unlivable, and that forces me to match you or go ahead of you, well, I am sorry
ladies and gentleman, you are doing it to yourself.
This industry has to learn, in my opinion, to make it as best they can - with
a framework - on their own. I cannot be on the head of the wharf and I have no
intentions of going there. Minister Shelley cannot be on the head of the wharf
and he should not be expected to be there. Our aim has to be to provide a
framework that is relatively equal for both sides, that can be accommodated and
that will get a fishery started on April 1.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Can we guarantee that the fishery will stay started once it
starts? No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot guarantee it. I said before, I said yesterday
and I say again, we cannot force an individual harvester to harvest. We cannot
do it. What we can force is an organized circumvention of the act that, in every
other way, amounts to a strike. We can do that.
Can I force a processor in this Province to process fish? No, I cannot, but
the Legislature can provide a framework that will make sure that a significant
number of processors, in concert, acting together, do not stop processing. That
is what this framework, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, is all about.
Perfect, no, it is not perfection. Final offer arbitration, in itself, worked
pretty good in the beginning, when it was introduced a few years ago. A lot of
conditions have changed since then. We may have to, on a periodic basis, as we
experience working with this framework, from time to time, bring in other
amendments.
I am not scared of that, and I know the Opposition House Leader said the same
thing. We may have to do it. We will do what we can now, do what we believe is
saleable and doable now, and if we have to do some fine tuning, of course, from
time to time, we will have to do it.
Now, the point that was made with regard to 19.2, and the duties of the
panel, the duty of the panel is to set price and conditions of sale. The
Opposition House Leader mentioned the conditions of sale part.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what was in the old set-up that this is now
replacing. It said that under the FOS set-up the final offer arbitration, the
arbitrator could set price and, quote, other related matters - other related
matters - and that is the way both parties wanted to leave it. There is always
room for some wiggly, if you have to do some wiggly wigglies. You have to have
room. What they have said to us now, both sides, union and processors, is: Don't
make it so rigid that we cannot do certain things ourselves that can create an
environment to get to an agreement at the end of the day.
So, things have changed. Rather than use the language of price and, quote,
other related matters, we are now using the language of price and conditions of
sale, and conditions of sale is meant to be reflective of the other related
matters that were in the original legislation that the processors and the
companies worked under for a number of years.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say this: We cannot
continue to have a situation in our Province where the most important industry
to the largest number of people can be highjacked, for whatever reason - good,
bad or indifferent, but can be highjacked - for weeks on end, maybe months on
end. We cannot have that situation continue, Mr. Speaker. We asked Richard
Cashin, who is, I think, well respected in the industry, who certainly knows the
industry very, very well, to bring together a group to advise us on the best way
to manage that situation, and he did. Reg Anstey was part of the panel, the
Executive Director of the Association of Seafood Producers, Mr. Butler, was part
of the panel, and they consulted widely with various people in the Province and
they have given us a framework. We are here today to put that framework in
place; and, as a result of putting that framework in place, there will be a
fishery come April 1. Will there be a fishery by May 1 or June 1? I do not know,
but this framework is here. It is here to do a job. I believe, Cashin believes,
the industry believes, the processors believe, the union believes, that this can
work. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to give it to them, to
provide that framework and let them get on with the job of making it work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER ( Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at second reading on this most
important legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we hope, in our party, will bring some
stability to the fishing industry. What we have had in the lead-up to this
legislation, and what caused the necessity of this legislation, was absolute
chaos, Mr. Speaker; chaos that was allowed to run rampant in the industry for
the past number of years and chaos that was, in fact, encouraged, or at least in
some respects created by the actions of this government last year. I do not
blame them for all of the things that happened in the fishing industry. It is
hard to blame any one person for all of the ills that our fishing industry has
been exposed to over the years, but certainly the kind of buccaneering
capitalism that we have seen in some aspects of our fishing industry has not
been to the benefit, certainly, of the majority of people who earn their living
from the fishery.
It has allowed people to do side deals. It has forced people to do side
deals, given the processors' control over people's lives and future in ways
that we had not seen since the days of the fishing admirals, Mr. Speaker, and
the control that people had over the fishery that was supposed to be stopped
when we had a fishermen's union, as it was called then, that was controlled
and owned and operated by the harvesters, by the fish plant workers, and by
those who earned their livelihood from the industry to engage in collective
bargaining. The first Collective Bargaining Act in this country, Mr. Speaker,
for fishermen, now known as fishers, was passed in this Province in 1971,
probably the only one certainly in the country.
AN HON. MEMBER: In the world.
MR. HARRIS: The minister says in the world; I will take his word for it.
Fishers, fish harvesters, are given the right to bargain collectively in the
same manner as other workers. Some people say they are not really workers, they
are like farmers; they are independent producers. Well, they may be independent
in some respects, Mr. Speaker, and the fierce independence of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians is well known, but when it comes to their dealings with the
fish plant operators and owners, the big companies - some of them not so big,
but some of them some of the largest corporations in the world - their power, as
a collective, is diminished. The fishermen's union, the fisheries' union,
the Fish Food and Allied Workers has been the means whereby they have been able
to have some control over their futures, but that has been hijacked over time,
Mr. Speaker. The minister used the word hijacked. It has been hijacked by
certain practices that have crept in by certain organizing, and disorganizing
when it suited them on the fish processors' side, making deals and agreements
and then ignoring them, finding ways around them, looking for opportunities to
bypass their obligations so that they can make more money for themselves at the
expense of the fishery workers. So, we have seen that result.
The 1990s, Mr. Speaker, resulted in an extremely bad situation for everyone,
because as the fish processors were cannibalizing themselves and fighting each
other and fighting with the union over prices, the market was getting fish
product too late, the quality too low to demand a good price, ruining the
reputation of the fishery and the products in the marketplace and doing a big
disservice to all the people who engage in the industry in the Province. So,
what have we tried to do? When I say we, collectively as a Province, as a
Legislature. Governments from time to time have tried to impose some order on
it, at the same time allowing the kind of robust collective bargaining that an
industry like this demands. Because you do have, Mr. Speaker, lots of different
circumstances in which we do not know what the factors are. They have to be
determined by the players. The players know what the costs are, what the real
costs are of conducting fish harvesting. The plant operators know the real costs
of processing the fish and how much money they are making, and they have been
doing pretty good. The fish processors have been doing pretty good. If they were
not, Mr. Speaker, they would not be expanding and buying up half of the fish
processing industry in Prince Edward Island. They would not be expanding into
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick if they were not doing handsomely on their operations
in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we know they are doing well. Objectively, we
know they are doing well. Of course, when we see that happen, we wonder whether
there is the kind of robust collective bargaining that is necessary to ensure
that fish harvesters get a fair share for the labour that they put into the
operations, for the capital that they tie up, for the money and credit that they
have to get their hands on in order to be players in the industry.
So, we hope that the chaos of last year when this government erroneously,
wrongheadedly tried to impose a solution on the crab fishery that was
devastating to the notions of fair play held by the crab harvesters, devastating
to the notions of fairness in an industry in this Province that relies, to some
extent, on having an orderly process for doing things. This was a system imposed
by government that created a lot of winners and a lot of losers in an arbitrary
fashion. Mr. Speaker, it was resisted, and quite rightfully, by the fish
harvesters. They were determined to tell this government that they could not
insert themselves in this industry in the way that they did and they had to
listen and truly consult with people before they imposed any new system. Well, I
guess I have to give some credit to the government for actually listening. They
actually did listen, the government, collectively.
The previous Minister of Fisheries was given a new job, and a new Minister of
Fisheries and government consulted with Richard Cashin, who had the respect of
the industry, and I suppose importantly, in this context, the respect of the
fish harvesters, based on his history as their leader and as the one principally
responsible for changing the nature of the fishing industry in this Province -
along with his co-leader from the beginning, Father Des McGrath - in leading the
fishery workers of this Province to a situation where they did have some control
over their future. So, he had that respect, but I would also say he had the
respect of the fishing industry generally because he was known to them as
someone who was knowledgeable in the industry, knew how it worked, because we
are not talking about something that anybody can walk into and say: We are going
to fix this now because I read these accounting sheets and I think here is a
solution. If you do not know and understand the industry and how it works, and
the players and how they work and how they interact with each other, you can't
come up with solutions that make sense.
We now have a situation that - based on the report of Richard Cashin - the
government is able to bring forth a piece of legislation that we think has at
least an