Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 20 April 2011 (46th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLVI No. 19)
2011-04-20
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
20, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 19
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Today the Speaker would like to welcome some special guests who are seated on
both sides of the south gallery. The Speaker would like to welcome eight
residents of the Caribou Memorial Veterans Pavilion. The veterans are Mr.
Vincent Butler, Ms Claudine Samson, Mr. Ed Lahey, Mr. George Russell, Mr. Cyril
Hiscock, Mr. Charles Luter, Ms Rita March, and Mr. Les Butt.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Our special guests are accompanied by staff Tracey Howlett
and Paul Simmons.
Welcome as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to welcome the following members'
statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon.
the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the
Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of
Baie Verte-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for the District of Conception
Bay East & Bell Island.
The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize a
young resident of Mount Pearl and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation
Scholarship winner, Lindsay Collins.
Lindsay was named Mount Pearl Female Youth of the Year last year at the Focus
on Youth awards and just recently served as one of our youth ambassadors for the
twenty-ninth annual Frosty Festival.
Each year, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing awards scholarships to high
school graduates and adults pursuing a post-secondary education. The
scholarships are awarded in Avalon East, Central and Western Labrador regions to
tenants' children and adult tenants returning to school. Each scholarship is
valued at $1,000. Lindsay is pursuing a post-secondary education at Memorial
University and I am certain that this scholarship will assist significantly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Lindsay Collins on her accomplishments to date and wish her all the best as she
continues to pursue her post-secondary studies. I also would like to recognize
the work of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and congratulate them on
supporting our students.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the students and
organizers of the Labrador Straits Regional Heritage Fair, which I had the
pleasure of attending this past Saturday, April 16, at Sacred Heart School in
Conche on the Great Northern Peninsula.
The students from the Western School District, Northern Zone, made an
impressive effort in putting together their projects celebrating the history and
culture of our area and our Province. Awards and medals were passed out in a
variety of categories, with Aaron Hopkins of HG Fillier Academy taking home the
top award for outstanding overall project for his presentation on the Role of
the Woman in the Family.
In all, eight students from HG Fillier received awards and medals, Gregory
Kearney of Sacred Heart All Grade School received the Canada's History Award for
his project on the Newfoundland Seal Hunt, ten students from Truman Eddison were
recognized for their projects, and Damian Reid-Byrne of Mary Simms All Grade
received the Archival Materials Award for his project about Newfoundland music.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join with me in
extending congratulations to the students, teachers and organizers of this
outstanding event. It not only provided an opportunity for the students to
learn, it is also a way to showcase our very proud heritage, our history and our
culture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the volunteers and
staff of Baltimore School in Ferryland for the tremendous job they are doing in
providing a breakfast program at their school. On the morning of Thursday, March
24, I had the opportunity to attend and assist with the breakfast program.
I was very impressed with the healthy choices offered and the participation
of students. Baltimore School has a student population of 322 students, with the
majority being bussed from eleven surrounding communities: Brigus South, Cape
Broyle, Admiral's Cove, Calvert, Ferryland, Aquaforte, Fermeuse, Kingman's Cove,
Port Kirwan, Renews and Cappahayden.
We know through healthy living, including appropriate nutrition and education
in healthy foods, our youth will grow and learn in an environment that allows
each and every one of them to excel to their full potential. This program would
not be such a great success without the many volunteers who assist in preparing
a healthy breakfast for our youth and we certainly thank them for their
contribution.
I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Baltimore School
Breakfast Program on its success to date and wish them well in all future
endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt about it! Springdale and area is indeed the centre for
female ice hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I rise in this hon. House to offer congratulations to the under fifteen
female ice hockey team. Mr. Speaker, this team went undefeated at the five team
round robin Provincial Tournament hosted by Bay Roberts on March 25-26 weekend.
Down 4-2 after the first two periods, Springdale stormed back to tie it in
the third and send the game into overtime. At the sixth minute overtime mark
they prevailed over the Conception Bay Regionals with a 5-4 victory, thus
capturing the title as Provincial A Champions!
Coach Dave Edison, assisted by Owen Burt, manager Bob Rideout, and trainer
Lisa Edison are to be commended for their willingness to volunteer their time
and energy so that young players have the opportunity not only to play the game,
but to excel in the sport.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, all the players are to be applauded for their
outstanding skill, dedication, and effort that they displayed throughout the
whole season. Their razor-sharp passing and pin point shots are envied by Leaf
fans!
Members of the team are: Katie Mckay, Kristie MacDonald, Brittany Andrews,
Sarah Mercer, Natalie Burt, Robyn Rideout, Kailey Gillingham, Chelsea
Hobbs-Regular, Lashonda Roberts, Amy Welsh, Taylor MacKay, Morgan Whitt, and
Emily Edison.
Honourable colleagues, Provincial A Under 15 Female Champs, the Springdale
Bravettes!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East
& Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to acknowledge the Boys & Girls
Clubs of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would particularly like to acknowledge the
awarding of the bi-annual national symposium which will be held May 16-19, 2012.
This is the first time in the 112-year history of the Boys & Girls Clubs of
Canada that our Province will play host to such a significant training and
networking symposium.
The 2012 event will be held at the Convention Centre in St. John's and will
draw over 600 adults and 100 youth delegates, the largest in the organization's
history.
The Boys & Girls Clubs of Canada are the largest youth serving organization
in this country, serving over 250,000 young people in more than 300 sites on a
daily basis, six days a week.
The nine member clubs in our Province located in Wabana in my district, two
in St. John's at Mundy Pond and Buckmaster's Circle, Upper Island Cove, Gander,
Norris Arm, Botwood, Buchans, and St. Anthony contribute significantly to
developing the citizens of these communities and the Province. These member
clubs have existed in this Province for over sixty years offering programs
related to employment, education, community inclusion, self-esteem, leadership
development, environmental awareness, healthy living, and recreation.
With dedicated staff and numerous volunteers, Boys & Girls Clubs in this
Province are a cornerstone for addressing the needs of their communities' youth.
I should note that some of the world's renowned researchers, authors, and
professionals, particularly in the field of child and youth development, will
present at this event. Already, hotel rooms have been booked by delegates to
arrive weeks before and continue weeks after, thus enhancing our tourism
industry.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating the Boys & Girls Clubs of Newfoundland and Labrador on being
awarded such a beneficial event.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is
very proud to be hosting an Aerospace and Defence Executive Forum in our
Province today. More than fifty senior executives from the aerospace and defence
industry accepted our invitation to participate in this daylong forum,
demonstrating our commitment to the aerospace and defence industry both
domestically and internationally.
There is a growing network of innovative companies and organizations in our
Province that are active in a range of unique, advanced aerospace and
defence-related activities that extend to global markets. They are engaged in
research and development, and a variety of products, services and activities,
including manufacturing and assembly of aircraft components; maintenance, repair
and overhaul; navigation and communications systems; aircraft modification;
oceans-related defence technology; and flight training.
Mr. Speaker, the aerospace and defence industry in our Province is expanding,
employing more than 1,500 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, generating an
estimated $150 million in annual revenue. Our government believes in this
vibrant industry and its potential for growth.
I had the opportunity to officially launch the Executive Forum this morning
and the level of energy and enthusiasm in the room was truly invigorating.
Mr. Speaker, this is a valuable day for the aerospace and defence industry in
our Province. We are delighted to have retired General Rick Hillier as today's
keynote speaker and forum facilitator. The world's leading aerospace and defence
companies are at the table along with Newfoundland and Labrador companies, some
of which have already landed major national and international contracts.
Today's Executive Forum provides an opportunity for key industry players to
discuss ambitions and ideas for this industrial sector and to consider
opportunities that leverage the success of complementary industries. Discussions
will focus on how to achieve these cross-industry synergies, and how to build
robust partnerships that create economic benefits for businesses and the people
of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that Budget 2011 provides for the extension of
the Aerospace and Defence Development Fund, committing $9 million over the next
three years with $3 million being allocated annually. This fund continues to
facilitate the advancement of this industry by supporting opportunities that
build capacity, attract investment, and bring new expertise and business
activity to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also would
congratulate and wish well the participants in this particular forum that is
taking place here today. I am sure the participants have a lot to contribute to
these industries, but unfortunately this department is pretty long on rhetoric
and short on action. We note even from yesterday's Estimates, for example, of
the fund that is supposed to deal with matters like this, there was slightly
less than $8 million allotted last year, and only about a little over $2 million
was put out. So, it seems to indicate either you do not have the success that
you are hoping to have, and you are certainly not putting the money out the door
that was meant to encourage these types of initiatives.
This, by the way, is the same department that it cost more to pay for the
department itself than the money they have put out the door to encourage
investment from outside this Province. That is a fact. In fact, last year, and
in fact this year will show in the budgets when it takes place.
I see General Hillier here. He has, of course, made his name famous in many,
many ways; also now as a motivational speaker. I wish him well, and I hope his
motivational speaking has motivated and inspired this minister to do more for
that department than we have seen out of it since its existence.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am happy to
join in congratulating the work that is being done in the aerospace and defence
industry, and the participants today in the forum that is taking place. It is
great that we have 1,500 people employed in our Province in this industry and
that there are prospects for growth. It is important to have face-to-face
meetings of industry players in all industries and to discuss how to diversify
and expand any sector.
I would suggest to the government that they need to put the same or more
emphasis on the export potential of seafood and speciality agrifoods, sectors
which also employ thousands of people in our Province and are important to rural
communities. I would like to see investment in a marketing agency something I
certainly did not see in the Budget yesterday - and better means of transporting
fresh seafood and agrifoods to export markets.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure that I rise in this hon.
House today to announce that the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board intends to
move forward with its preferred approach to eliminate the stockpile of tires at
Placentia.
Mr. Speaker, the MMSB has reached agreements with two cement kilns in Quebec
- Holcim Canada Inc. and Lafarge Canada Inc. Both companies will utilize the
tires for a tire derived fuel. A tender for the transportation of the tires to
Quebec will be issued by the MMSB.
We are all well aware that the recycling of tires is a very complex issue
that has posed problems for many jurisdictions in Canada, not just Newfoundland
and Labrador. The MMSB has advised me that based on their analysis and the due
diligence, this option is the most economical, offers the least amount of risk
for the Province, and reduces the greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the
amount of coal burned by these facilities.
Mr. Speaker, tired derived fuel is a widely-accepted practice. In fact, it is
actually the single largest use for tires in North America and it is an approved
and certified practice in Quebec. The use of tires to generate energy is
environmentally sound when used in an appropriate application that ensures
complete combustion, have proper air pollution controls and conduct all required
testing, monitoring and regulatory requirements. The end markets secured by MMSB
have these controls and reporting mechanisms in place and have been approved as
a tire derived fuel user by the Quebec Government for the last fifteen years.
In addition to the two agreements reached today, to halt the growth of the
stockpile, the MMSB entered into an arrangement last year in 2010 to send tires
that are collected on an annual basis through the Used Tire Recycling program to
Quebec. This arrangement has already resulted in the diversion of approximately
375,000 tires. These actions, coupled with today's announcement, represents a
positive step forward for the tire recycling program for our Province.
Mr. Speaker, the MMSB will continue to pursue alternatives such as tire
derived aggregate as an option for the ongoing generation of tires that will
reduce our reliance on out-of-province parties. But until these options are more
economically viable, we believe exporting the tires to locations where there is
a demand is the best option to avoid future stockpiling.
Diverting tires from our landfills brings us closer to achieving our
Province's waste management goals and we are pleased to move forward with this
new solution we are announcing today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to than the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
To say, I can assure you we are very pleased to see this project come to a
close. I think it is four years now it has been on the books trying to get rid
of that stockpile of tires out in the Dunville area.
The only thing I have to say, Mr. Speaker, there is very little detail. I
guess as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. We will find out how long
this contract is for, how much it is going to cost the Province and so on, Mr.
Speaker.
The minister also mentioned pursuing other alternatives and I hope they do
come to some kind of an agreement like that, because hopefully those ventures
will be a money-making position for us.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that he has the deal with Quebec because we
know that there are many deals that we strike with Quebec the RNC contract,
the hospital for Lab West, the long-term care facility for Corner Brook and some
schools. It seems like this government, the only thing they cannot make a deal
with on Quebec is the energy deals.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, hopefully they will get over that after awhile,
but I have to say this is a good announcement.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to complete his remarks.
MR. BUTLER: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is a good deal and
the residents of Dunville are very pleased to know that now the concerns and
risks that they have had with the stockpile of tires in their area have been
taken care of.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Yes, I am happy to see the stockpile go but I am not really overly enthused
by the announcement that has been made by the speaker. We are told that a tender
for transportation will be issued, but what is the Quebec-based kiln paying the
government for the tires, or paying the board for the tires? Are we just giving
them a gift, Mr. Speaker?
Taxpayers here pay $3 a tire; hopefully
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: - this is not to subsidize a business in another province,
Mr. Speaker.
I really question how accepted the tire derived fuel actually is. Burning is
not recycling. There is a better use for tires. We all know what that use is.
The rubberized asphalt concrete is one of the best ways to recycle rubber and we
still have not been given full information in this House for the reason why this
government is not supporting the tires going into that, Mr. Speaker.
I really think it is rather ironic. I have to ask the question: Are we adding
to Canada's carbon footprint while touting a vision of 98 per cent clean air
here ourselves?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns that people have with this Budget is
that it is adding to our provincial debt.
I ask the Premier today: Given that you had windfall oil royalties to work
with, why did you not lower our debt?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, and all members on this side of the
House are aware, we have been spending significant money in infrastructure in
the last number of years in building hospitals, schools, and long-term care
facilities.
Mr. Speaker, the best way I can put it is: Mary Webb, a senior economist with
Scotiabank, said that while the net debt is forecasted to increase it is due to
infrastructure spending, which she says in the long run will support future
growth. Mr. Speaker, what it also does is support the future for our children,
grandchildren and the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, and the Premier knows that
what they are celebrating today will mean tougher days ahead for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we are going further in the hole this
year is because of the unfunded pension liabilities. These liabilities are
adding up to $600 million. That was a worry
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: - for the Auditor General in last year's report.
I ask the Premier today if she can advise the House on why the unfunded
liabilities are continuing to climb when the markets have stabilized and in some
cases gone up.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Finance.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, these unfunded liabilities, in a great part we have had
difficulties with the worldwide recession that caused pension funds to decrease
throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, let us look at what is happening in this
Province. We have in five of the last six years brought in a surplus, Mr.
Speaker, in budget. So the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: The Opposition criticizes us for spending yet every day we
hear them over there saying spend, spend, spend. Now, Mr. Speaker, an
interesting note that the Opposition should be aware of our new spending this
year is just 2.2 per cent. So we have managed, Mr. Speaker, to take our money,
to utilize it wisely for the people of this Province because what you are doing
in bringing in a budget, you are balancing the need of the people of the
Province with the needs for future generations by trying to avoid deficits and
decreasing debt. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government is bringing in surpluses we all
know that but they are adding to the debt of the Province. They are not
building a sustainable economy on a go-forward basis for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Now, Mr. Speaker, three or four years ago we would have bought
into the argument that the reason there is unfunded pension liabilities is
because of the market. We know today that is not the case. We know that markets
out there in pension funds are more stable than they have been, and we know in
cases they are growing.
I ask the Premier again today to explain to the House: Why in Newfoundland
and Labrador that trend has not been setting the same course?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hear a number of questions there in one.
In relation to the unfunded pension liabilities, as I have indicated, Mr.
Speaker, the markets are still recovering throughout the world. I do not have
the actual number; my colleague will be here, he can outline the actual numbers
in relation to our pension liabilities, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to talk about the debt for a second, because it is very important
for this government to outline the steps we have taken, the mess that we
inherited and what we have done. Mr. Speaker, we have reduced a $12 billion
debt, which almost left this Province bankrupt, to $8.1 million as of the end of
2010-2011.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, look around this Province. Look at the new
hospitals, the new schools, the new long-term care facilities, the roads; look
at what has taken place in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have invested our money
wisely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The government knows, Mr. Speaker, they came into power at a time when
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were winning the lottery on oil revenues and
deals that were done by other governments. Today, Mr. Speaker, they are not
investing that for the long-term best interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: The issue of unfunded liabilities in our pension plan is a
serious long-term problem, and unfortunately government only seems keen
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: to address the short term one, leaving other tough decisions
to future governments, future ministers, and future Premiers in this Province.
I ask the minister today: Why are you not facing this issue when you have
windfall profits in revenues? Why are you leaving these problems to future
Premiers and future governments to deal with?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At least in the short term, I do not think we have to worry about future
Premiers and future governments because it is all going to be on this side of
the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about what we inherited. We
inherited a mess, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask hon. members to refrain from shouting back and forth across the House.
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have invested wisely using the money. It is not enough for
the members opposite to say we inherited an oil windfall. Mr. Speaker, you have
to spend your money wisely.
What did this government do? What did Premier Danny Williams do when he
brought back that $2 billion of the Atlantic Accord? He put it into the unfunded
liabilities, Mr. Speaker. Who caused that, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal governments
that had been spending the money without regard as to where it was going to come
from. What we have done, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I thank the hon. member for his answer.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One thing the minister just said that was factual is governments will always
be on that side of the House, I say to you, Minister, because they always sit on
that side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing today is not prudent. It is not in
the fiscal best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and their
spending is not sustainable. The Auditor General has pointed out on several
occasions, Mr. Speaker, and people expect their government to invest today for
tomorrow.
I ask the minister today: Is the government in this Budget drawing down any
of the reserves that have been put aside for future generations in Newfoundland
and Labrador for leaner days that may come for our people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
What we have is a time of prosperity in this Province like we have never seen
before. It is not by accident, Mr. Speaker, that we are having that prosperity.
It is as a result of good fiscal management on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we inherited $12 billion debt which is now down
to $8 billion and look what we have done throughout this Province. As for the
spending in the Budget, tell the people in Harbour Breton that they should not
have dialysis and that they should drive to Grand Falls, Mr. Speaker. Tell the
people in Green Bay that they should not have a new health centre. Tell the
people that they should not have new schools, like the new schools in your
district, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: That is what we are doing as a government, is protecting the
interests of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is prosperity in this Province today because there were Liberal
governments that had vision and Liberal governments who did projects that are
bringing wealth into Newfoundland and Labrador today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is what we will tell the people, we will tell
the people, however, that we do not agree with $348 million of their hard-earned
tax dollars being invested into Nalcor Corporation. There is more money being
spent into Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, than is being spent on roads, bridges, ferries,
the new child care strategy and the rebate on home heating fuel combined.
I ask the government today: Why are you putting more priority on a project
that is going to double people's electricity bills in this Province instead of
putting it in to really enhancing and impacting their lives in a positive way?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for eight years we have been taking care of the mess they left
behind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: For eight years, Mr. Speaker, the mess that they have
denied and made excuses around. For eight years we have dealt with doctors, we
have dealt with nurses, we have dealt with schools, we have dealt with
hospitals, we have dealt with roads, and we continue to make those kinds of
investments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we talked about ordinary
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and yesterday we took care of them in this
Budget, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, for four years they cried out for an
energy plan. We produced it in 2007, Mr. Speaker, where we laid out our vision,
our plan, our hope for the future; none of which they have, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to remind the Premier that she took care of the doctors because
she was trying to save her own hide and that of her government, Mr. Speaker,
because the public out there had retaliated on the government for not looking
after their health needs and the doctors' issue in this Province.
The Premier knows for eight years as a government they have seen the Budget
in this Province double up because of good Liberal negotiated deals, Mr.
Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador; deals around Terra Nova, around Hibernia,
around White Rose, around Voisey's Bay. All bringing revenue into Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people expect fiscal prudence.
I ask the Premier today: Why is it that you see fit to invest more money into
Nalcor as a corporation than you do collectively into the infrastructure needs
such as bridges, roads, and ferries, and into programs like child care, and into
programs
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, we brought in a $7 billion budget, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Every nickel of it, Mr. Speaker, is invested in the
interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, she is over there and she is
ranting and roaring about fiscal responsibility, something that she showed no
talent for, her and her colleagues when they were on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are going from a non-renewable economy to a renewable
economy. We have negotiated new royalty rates that will take us into growing
revenues into the future. We have to manage our way through two critical years,
then we will back into surpluses again. We have mapped out quite clearly in our
vision, our plan, our hope for Newfoundland and Labrador, a renewable future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier also knows it is about choosing priorities.
I ask her, how she can see the priority of investing $348 million of
taxpayers' money, hard-earned money that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
getting up every morning to go to work to earn in this Province, how do you see
fit investing that into Nalcor Corporation, a corporation that just recently
spent $23 million of their money drilling empty holes in the ground on the
Northern Peninsula?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, she rants and roars about oil reserves that are declining. Mr.
Speaker, we continue to make investments in firming up our oil and gas reserves
in this Province because it is that funding, funding that we are earning through
Nalcor in our equity in three of our projects, that will drive our renewable
future.
Mr. Speaker, we are working towards Muskrat Falls, and beyond that will come
Gull, beyond that will come wind that will generate hundreds, and hundreds, and
hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for our children, grandchildren,
great-grandchildren for 100 years to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People in Newfoundland and Labrador see that this is one of the times in our
history as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we have substantial money to
really invest in people where it counts. There was a lot of excitement around
what was going to be the child care strategy from this government.
Mr. Speaker, people yesterday were anticipating that they would have a full
strategy launched that would deal with what some of the gaping needs have been
in child care across this Province. We know the problems that exist, mostly
because of a shortage of childhood educators, and the child care sector has been
crying out about this issue for years.
I ask the minister: Why did you not address the severe shortage of childhood
educators in this Province as part of your child care strategy?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last year in the Throne Speech we announced that we would be
introducing a ten-year strategy for child care and that will be ready in
2011-2012, but we are not going to sit back on our laurels and not do anything
until 2011-2012. That is why when the Premier became Premier and I become
minister, we met with people involved in the industry, we met with Lana Payne
and we talked about wanting to do something in the short term that will address
the issues. One of the things that Ms Payne said: If you can focus on infant
care, because less than 2 per cent of the spaces that are available are for
infants, then do that.
We saw an opportunity to create spaces there. Mr. Speaker, in the past we
have supplements for early childhood educators, but there is a lot more to come.
We want to do this and we want to do it right, but it is certainly a top
priority for this Premier and this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services
says the project's goal is to create extra daycare spaces and allow people to
run their own businesses. That is something we would all like to see, but no
where in this did I see the minister or the Premier talk about the quality of
programming needed to give our children the best start.
There is plenty of scientific research out there about the quality of early
childhood education and that education comes from having early childhood
educators working in our system.
I ask you: Why have you not listened to the industry and placed quality child
care for our children as one of the front pieces in your platform?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I would like to correct some misinformation that the member
opposite put out yesterday. She said that only 50 per cent of our early
childhood educators are qualified. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further from
the truth. Seventy-seven per cent of the early childhood educators that we have
in child care centres now are up to standards, and the other 23 per cent are
working for it, as provided for in the legislation.
Also what we announced yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was more funding to provide
on-line training. We have Train the Trainer. Family child care - I am not sure
if the member realizes this - is a regulated child care service just as child
care centres are, it is a very good form of child care. It is regulated, it has
the proper play-based learning programming, it has the Canada Food Guide, and it
has all of the occupational health and safety.
This was about more choice for parents yesterday, and it is ultimately up to
(inaudible) -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Regulated family care, we have no objection to, and the minister knows that.
What we are asking you is why you did not listen to the industry and why you did
not make quality and care a priority. What I said was that 50 per cent of the
people who work in the system do not have an Early Childhood Education Diploma.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that this government failed to address around
child care centres in this Province is parents who work full-time at minimum
wage jobs who cannot afford daycare for their children. I met such a family just
this past weekend. They often have to work opposite shifts just to rely on
family members so that their children can be cared for.
I ask you again, Minister: Why was affordable access to child care again not
one of the front pieces in your daycare platform?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government in 2009 increased the subsidy rates for parents
with children in child care centres. I am going to give you some facts and
figures. You might want to write them down so that you can follow it. Again,
what she said yesterday about having two parents who work at minimum wage,
year-round, with two children cannot afford child care.
Mr. Speaker, under the standard we have right now, and I ran the numbers by
Finance, on average, two people working minimum wage for a year would net about
$35,000 a year. Right now, we provide a subsidy that they would only have to pay
$150 a month per child for their child care and government will pick up the
rest.
On top of that, yesterday we announced a new child care tax credit, Mr.
Speaker. That will further reduce what they would have to pay in conjunction
with what is already there through the federal and provincial government, that
brings it down to $100 per month (inaudible) -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Budget produced a lot of election tidbits, but you
would need a mighty powerful fish radar to find anything for our historical
fisheries. The Premier just mentioned $7 billion, and in that Budget we provided
$150,000 for the demolition and site restoration of abandoned fisheries
infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, that simply will not cut it, I say to the Premier.
I ask the Premier: Why was our greatest renewable resource not given any
priority in this Budget, and where does this leave the sustainability of our
fishing industry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite need never think that we do
not support or see the significance of the fishery in this Province. We have
just completed a process of $800,000 that we committed to an MOU process. We
have asked the parties -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: The industry missed an opportunity here and we are hoping
that they will come back to us with a restructuring plan. I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker, when they come back with that, we will be there ready to work with them
and to find the path forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, our fishing industry has been badly neglected to say the least
by this government for the past seven years. I have to be honest, yesterday's
Budget in terms of the fishery input I can only describe it as being dismal and
totally disastrous.
Yes, we waited, we waited for nearly twenty months for the MOU process to
produce a report, and the minister took the report and he basically threw it
back like you would throw a sculpin back into the ocean.
Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech reassured rural communities they would not be
cut adrift -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: - and I ask the Premier: If you are not prepared to invest in
the fishery, how do you expect rural communities and rural regions of this
Province to survive, and where is this government's vision for the industry and
rural Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said that in the MOU there are pieces of
it that merit further discussions. There is no doubt about that: the marketing,
the Fisheries Loan Board. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Member for The
Straits & White Bay North and
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: - I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition if they
will stand up and support this document that sees an offer of 82 per cent
reduction in the Leader of the Opposition's area, and from The Straits a mere 70
per cent reduction, ask them to stand and support that move, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought we settled the issue last week of who asked the questions in the
House of Assembly, but we obviously have not. The minister still wants to ask
the questions, he does not want to give the answers.
What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those involved in the fishing
industry, which are represented by many of the forty-three government members I
would say, is: What is government's plan? Where is government's plan for the
fishing industry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask them a question. I can tell you
the more he speaks the further we get from wanting him over here, I can assure
you of that.
It seems they are out supporting the report. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in
this House that we have written both parties to ask them to come back to us with
viable options around restructuring. Mr. Speaker, that, to me, is administering
leadership. We have received some response, and I look forward to sitting down
with the industry to come forward and let's do some constructive changes that
makes this industry more viable and longer withstanding, and, Mr. Speaker, the
economic driver that it can be in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just recently government announced dialysis funding for several
areas of the Province. However, a situation with a developmentally delayed
dialysis patient, Mr. Genge, who is on the wait list for St. Anthony, must be
addressed immediately. This thirty-one-year-old developmentally delayed man,
along with his parents, had to move to St. John's in December to receive
dialysis. He requires constant care. The family is under extreme stress,
financial burden; yet, no one in the health board can give them any indication
of when they can return home.
I ask the minister today: Is he willing to immediately implement temporary
measures to make dialysis services available to this particular individual?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the most positive announcements that we made in the Budget, Mr.
Speaker, is in relation to dialysis. When you look at what dialysis does for
people in this Province, we can see why it is so positively received.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: The people from Burin will no longer have to drive to either
St. John's or Clarenville, the people from Harbour Breton, and further expansion
in Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, we have announced the expansion in St. Anthony.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: We have announced the monies to help with that expansion.
Once I announce the monies - and what we can do, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the
health authority to then make sure that this takes place.
I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, of when exactly it will take place. If it is the
individual I think they are talking about
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, if it is the individual I think the member is
talking about, I understood that the return to St. Anthony would take place and
that the young man would receive dialysis there. I can certainly check into it
further. We are going to do anything we can to help people who are in need in
this Province, especially, Mr. Speaker, people like the individual on the other
side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier on Monday about a child care program,
she led the parents of this Province to believe that they could expect something
spectacular in the Budget. Keep your powder dry, she said, Mr. Speaker. Well,
what we received yesterday was spectacularly disappointing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, government continues with a patchwork quilt
instead of a full child care program that is universally accessible and
affordable.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When is this government going to develop a
full child care program?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member ask the questions and
the answers given. I ask the hon. members on both sides of the House if they
would refrain from the conversations back and forth.
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the NDP thinks that 400 spaces is not
spectacular, then I suggest she go talk to the parents who will greatly need
these spaces coming up in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: These family child care programs, Mr. Speaker, can virtually
happen within a week or two. They are for rural areas in the Province, under
serviced areas in the Province, Mr. Speaker, where there is great need.
Prior to the Budget, a couple weeks past, she talked about she cannot
understand why we are focusing on infant care, Mr. Speaker. It clearly speaks to
the lack of understanding she has because, Mr. Speaker, less than 2 per cent of
infants with parents in the workforce have access. This is 400 spaces over two
years. Add that on to the 50 per cent that we have increased since we have been
in power, add that to the strategy that we are about to announce next year, add
that to our capacity initiative with another 500 spaces, we are going to have
over
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister loves to mouth off stuff, Mr. Speaker, and the Budget says
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: that this two-year project, they have a pilot project,
could lead to the potential of 415 new child care spaces. I have heard nothing
but questions since yesterday about those 415 spaces. I want concrete proof, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Will the minister stand in this House and tell us: What is
the proof that we can get these potentially 415 seats? That is the language in
the Budget, Mr. Speaker, could
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is Question Period and if the member has any questions by
all means ask, I am quite happy to answer them. I think I give very
straightforward answers. It is not mouthing off; 400 spaces is not something to
snuff about.
Mr. Speaker, what we did in the Budget was provide the money for 400 spaces.
Where there is demand, Mr. Speaker, and in partnership with ITRD, in partnership
with AECENL, in partnership with Family and Child Care Connections, we are
willing to support the people, provide them with the funds that they need to
start up these centres
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: - provide them with an additional $200 a month stimulus
grant, Mr. Speaker. That is where the potential comes in. We cannot force people
to open them but we are fully supportive with the dollars to back them up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
That is a plan for child care; we cannot force them, we have to hope. That is
a real plan for child care that is, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Families on a low income or students just exiting
post-secondary education with their degrees or their diplomas trying to start a
family will not be helped by the child care tax credit that government is
introducing. A tax credit will only help benefit parents who make higher
incomes. It is grossly inadequate.
I ask: What is this government going to do to make child care more affordable
for the people who really need it to be affordable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest
subsidized rate for child care in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: In fact, Mr. Speaker, for people who net $35,000 a year - and
that is a net figure, Mr. Speaker. If they have two children, they only have to
pay $150 a month. That is before our announcement yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
Because of yesterday and because of what was already in the federal
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JOHNSON: - and provincial budgets in the past, Mr. Speaker, that is
about $100 a month per child. That is $25 a week. That is less than $7 a day
that Quebec charges to their people for low-income earners, Mr. Speaker. Even
though they still have to pay $100 a month, they can now put that money towards
the tax credit that was announced yesterday to even reduce that further.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of
Labrador, with regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance said that the Budget was sizzling.
Well I can tell you right now, there are a lot of people in Labrador that are
sizzling. They are sizzling, Mr. Speaker, because they are driving over some of
the worst roads that they have ever seen in their entire lives. You just have to
log on to the Internet today and you can see all kinds of videos, Mr. Speaker,
of roads that are nothing only potholes from one end to the other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: I had this guy, Mr. Speaker, from
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has called for the presenting of petitions. He has recognized the
hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask hon. members to show respect for the
member as she presents her petition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I had a video clip sent to me a couple of days ago from a
resident in Lake Melville who had just left to drive down the Trans-Labrador
Highway to get the ferry out of Blanc-Sablon. He took the video from the front
windshield of his truck, and it was absolutely amazing to watch that it was
absolutely nothing only potholes, Mr. Speaker, from one end to the other of the
entire video clip. Now, that is the kind of roads that people in Labrador are
being left to drive over.
Hon. members over there laughing and smirking, Mr. Speaker, and shouting and
all the rest of it, and it is all fine and dandy for them, because I can tell
you, Mr. Speaker, the other members here from Labrador are probably not going to
drive over that road, including the Minister of Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, probably they do not care what situation that road
is in, but I can tell you right now today that there are a lot of people who
really do care. When they get to the end of the road, Mr. Speaker, the ferry
that they would normally take is not even available.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is a freighter on the system that
does not have the ice capability to make the crossing on the Strait of Belle
Isle. There are people that have to fly out, and right now there is a line up
for Easter break. People in Labrador want to be able to get out for Easter, just
like people everywhere else in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but this government is
not giving any consideration to what their needs are. They brought down a Budget
yesterday and not one dime in that Budget to address the situation of these
roads. Not one cent. Not one cent in this Budget
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: to address the ferry needs.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I say to the hon. member that her time for presenting the petition is just
about concluded and I have not heard the prayer of the petition. I ask the hon.
member to read the prayer of the petition before she concludes.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is about the twelfth petition that I have presented like this in the
House of Assembly. I will read the prayer again for the twelfth time.
WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the
Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and
allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and
WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway
are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the
traffic volumes that travel this route; and
WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and
paving of their essential transportation route;
WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to urge the government to
provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route 510 and
connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. That is what people are
asking. They are saying to the government: Pay attention to what our needs are
and invest in what our issues are that we are raising.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Order, please!
Every hon. member has three minutes to present a petition. It being 2:58, the
hon. member certainly has three minutes to present his petition and at the leave
of the House we will allow the hon. member to present his petition before we go
in to the Orders of the Day, which is the private member's resolution.
I call on the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North to present his
petition.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the hon. the Member for
The Straits & White Bay North seeing fit not to present the petition but move
into his private member's resolution, I call now on the hon. Member for the
District of The Straits & White Bay North to present his private member's
resolution.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand on Private Members' Day
and present this private member's motion. It is moved by myself, from The
Straits & White Bay North, and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair. I will read the motion into the minutes.
WHEREAS the fisheries historically has been the basis for the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador and can continue to contribute to growth and
employment under sensible and prudent management; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has failed in their MOU process. Once the
cornerstone of this government's fisheries policy, this process has been
abandoned by this government and the Minister of Fisheries; and
WHEREAS rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding whether or not
this government is prepared to receive and mange these changes; and
WHEREAS restructuring is already proceeding, including fish plant closures
and license transfers, affecting people's livelihoods and the economic viability
of rural communities; and
WHEREAS it is the responsibility of government to manage the social effects
of these serious economic changes and only immediate action will ensure the
long-term survival of our harvesting and processing sectors;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls on government to consider
establishing policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the
fisheries including:
The aggressive pursuit of a joint management regime with the federal
government including securing custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the
Grand Banks;
Cooperation with industry to develop and implement a comprehensive, long-term
marketing strategy aimed at promoting the Province's seafood industry with a
goal of increasing sales in world markets;
Promoting the utilization of a variety of marine species in food processing,
as well as new industrial uses of marine products in pharmaceuticals,
biomedicines, and other chemical products;
Forming partnerships with industry to implement an international procurement
program to secure primary seafood products for local seafood processing plants;
and
Committing to a program of adjustment for older workers and a comprehensive
voluntary cost-shared harvesting license consolidation program.
Mr. Speaker, the fishery is so important to the survival of rural
Newfoundland. We can talk about innovation, we can talk about diversification,
and we can talk about all kinds of things, but I honestly believe today, Mr.
Speaker, that if we do not have a fishery in rural Newfoundland, in the coastal
communities of Newfoundland, there really is no opportunity for some of them to
exist.
While we welcome other developments, while we welcome other ways and means of
earning livings, and of really moving our economy forward, Mr. Speaker, in the
coastal communities of this Province the hurt by the closings and the challenges
in the fishery today is seen like it has never been seen before.
Mr. Speaker, in this private member's motion, I have stated four or five
issues that we as an Opposition today call upon government to be more involved
in, to be proactive, and to really move the whole idea of rationalization and
restructuring our industry forward so that it benefits us all in the years and
decades to come.
Mr. Speaker, from a custodial management point of view, we would know that
back in 1997 Canada extended its jurisdiction over the 200-mile limit. However,
we do know that it did not stop overfishing nor did it really stop the decline
in our fish stocks. Long seen as the only way to truly protect and to really
make sure that our fish stocks would remain and so on, this extension of the
fishing zones, of the limit, of the jurisdiction certainly was seen as a way
forward, seen as something that was very necessary.
Mr. Speaker, NAFO has long been seen as basically being ineffective when it
comes to the control of our fishing zones and of our limits, of our 200-mile
limit and the fishing resource in terms of protecting it. They obviously have
shown along the way that they really are not doing that to the degree which we
need it to be done.
Successive provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, have
strongly advocated for custodial management. They have recognized that it is
necessary. We go back to 2003, the Royal Commission on Renewing and
Strengthening Our Place in Canada recommended that Canada should prepare itself
and the international community for the reality that strong, unilateral acts
including custodial management will be necessary should effort within NAFO fail.
Mr. Speaker, it has been there for some time. Federal Administrations after
federal Administrations, as well as provincial, have promised custodial
management of the Grand Banks but all really have failed to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper, in his election of 2005-2006, promised to this
Province custodial management. In January of 2006, he stated, "A Conservative
government would support extending custodial management of the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile limit," this was a promise of Mr. Harper to the then
Premier Williams "to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap
in the North Atlantic."
Mr. Speaker, not only did he fail to produce this but what is even more
drastic, I believe, is just recently from that time frame to this, 2009 I
believe it was, when his government, the federal government, endorsed NAFO
amendments that would, in fact, allow NAFO to have a say within our 200-mile
limit on fisheries management. In other words, really, it was a reverse
custodial arrangement compared to what we had been expecting.
Mr. Speaker, in the recent letter that our Premier tabled here in the House
just a week or so ago, Premier Dunderdale failed to even mention custodial
management as an election issue when she wrote the three parties and wrote the
Prime Minister of the country of the day, custodial management was not even
mentioned in that letter.
My question this afternoon for the government is: Has it gone off the
government's radar? Because, somehow or another, it seems to not be an important
issue any more as it was over the past three or four, four or five years and,
indeed, decades in our past.
In 2003, Mr. Speaker, in the Blue Book of that campaign there was a promise
to carry out a nationwide public information campaign, aimed at persuading
Ottawa to take custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks
and to undertake whatever regulatory and enforcement activities are necessary to
manage sustainable fisheries on the entire Continental Shelf.
That was a part of the platform of this government, Mr. Speaker, when they
came into power, when they campaigned in 2003, nearly eight years ago. Yet, we
see the failure by both levels of government to achieve custodial management
after all these years. Mr. Speaker, it is really nothing short of a grave
injustice to our Province, to the country, and certainly to the renewable
resource that we have there and we can enjoy. That is one of the things that I
put forward in this motion today is the necessity of custodial management.
Another piece, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to in this resolution is the part
of marketing, of having a marketing strategy. The Minister of Fisheries in his
reference to the MOU in Question Period a few moments ago talked about some of
the good things that is in that document. We believe, as an Opposition, that one
of those good things is reference to marketing strategies, is reference to ways
of being able to work together so that we can more effectively market our
seafood products in this Province for the benefit of all those who are involved.
Mr. Speaker, if we go back to 2006 and to the Fishing Industry Renewal, we
read in that document when it talks about collaborative marketing, it recognizes
that in that particular time. Now, almost five years ago it recognized that in
marketing seafood products worldwide that the Province's seafood producers are
faced with a number of challenges, and it outlined some of those. Mr. Speaker,
they are basically brought forward again in the MOU of this year that was
brought to this House of Assembly, or not brought to the House, but that was -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!
The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the hon. member who is
recognized to speak.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is difficult hearing yourself here today, but anyway I will continue and
try to ignore all of the background noise if you will. The MOU report, as I was
saying, when it comes to the marketing piece, this report basically suggests two
major recommendations in the area of sales and marketing, and they are basically
a seafood sales consortia and a seafood marketing council.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that these suggestions have merit. I would
certainly suggest that our government ought to be looking at ways of even moving
that piece forward, rather than just sitting back and waiting for a response
again from the industry, as the minister says, and from the processors and just
waiting to see what their next move would be. There are pieces, I believe, that
we can move forward, and marketing being one of these pieces.
The issue, when it comes to marketing in this Province, is the fact there are
102 fish plants today that are owned in this Province and they are owned by more
than eighty-five firms. I would suggest that when you are into manufacturing and
producing of any product in a province or a country, and certainly in a province
the size of Newfoundland, when you look at the fact that you have eighty-five
companies trying to get into a particular market, and they are doing it
essentially on their own, then there is no doubt that that is a recognizable
issue. I believe there ought to be a way, and I believe that the companies that
have made tremendous investments in producing in secondary processing and so on
of seafood products in our Province, that they would want to see a way of being
able to market in some collaborative fashion.
I would suggest that is one of the areas that I would see, and I would
suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that this is something that really can have
a lot of attention today. It does not need to wait for another report. It has
been recognized, as I said, five years ago. It was probably recognized before
then. It is recognized today. The issue really has not changed, so there are a
lot of things that we can do to move that forward. I would look forward to
seeing that. I would look forward to the minister speaking to that, possibly, as
he speaks to this private member's motion today.
One of the other areas that I would like to speak to before I finish my
opening remarks this afternoon is to the piece where we are calling upon
government to commit to a program of adjustment for older workers and a
comprehensive, voluntary, cost-shared harvesting licence consolidation program.
Mr. Speaker, an early retirement package would allow those who are currently
employed in the fishery in this industry, obviously, to retire earlier than they
would otherwise be able to, that they would otherwise be able to afford. It
would give them the opportunity, those who fall in a particular age category, to
be able to look at being able to leave the industry prematurely, not unlike many
industries do. Not unlike many companies would offer their employees when there
are times of restructuring, when there are times of downsizing, when there are
times of challenges in terms of bringing new entrants into the labour force and
so on. One of the things that you can do is do an early retirement package or
program.
Government, itself, has committed to a 70-30 cost, somewhere along the way, a
shared program back in 2007. Policy documents from the PCs committed to press
the federal government on this issue. Yet, despite requests to the federal
government, Ottawa has simply not stepped up to the plate.
Mr. Speaker, in a recent letter from the Premier just a couple of weeks
ago, as I referenced a moment ago this was one of the issues that she put
forward again and she basically said to Mr. Harper: Would the Conservative
government support development of an early retirement and licence buyback on a
seventy-thirty federal-provincial basis?
Mr. Speaker, this government needs to be challenging, more directly, the
federal government. It needs to have a louder voice. It needs to put a stronger
say out there about this whole issue; it has been there, we want a response. We
want to know are you in or are you out. In fact, back in 2009 this provincial
government, the previous Minister of Fisheries went on record as saying that the
government stated that they were actually eyeing a plant-by-plant early
retirement package, but as of today we have seen no sign of that. I am not sure
where that has gone. I am not sure if it was a bad idea in terms of how the
government feels. I am not sure if it was something that he talked about, so to
speak, on his own or whatever the case might be. Mr. Speaker, it is something
that we need.
Even with the lobster buyback proposal from the FFAW, Mr. Speaker, the feds
have committed their share. The FFAW has committed their share and we still have
not heard as of today, Mr. Speaker, whether this government is willing to commit
their share.
It is one thing to look at the federal government and say we are waiting on
them but in this case, in the case of one piece of this industry, we are not
waiting on the federal government, they have stepped forward. We are not waiting
on the union, they have come forward. They are now waiting on the provincial
government.
Mr. Speaker, it is a way to lessen some of the stress and burden around the
fishing industry as we are going to downsizing, as we are experiencing quota
cuts and so on. An early retirement package is something that we ought to be
seeing. It is something that I would have hoped to have seen in this Budget
yesterday. Again, I would encourage the government through this private member's
motion that we see it shortly.
Mr. Speaker, my time has expired.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: I look forward to responding a little later and certainly look
forward to listening to the members speak to this motion today.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly pleased to be able to stand here today and make a few comments
on the resolution that has just been put forward by the Member for The Straits &
White Bay North.
Having been born and grown up in a fishing community, and still living there
actually, I do think I know a little bit about the issues and the concerns in
the fishing communities in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to stand in this House or anywhere at all and be
critical of things that government might be doing from day to day. It is very
easy to stand there and say: You are not doing anything for the fishery in this
Province; you are not doing anything to help rural Newfoundland and Labrador
survive.
Mr. Speaker, the fishery itself is a very complex one. It is one where we
really have very little control as a government. As the hon. members opposite
know, our main responsibility in terms of the fishery in this Province is
related to the processing sector. We have very little responsibility for the
overall management of the fishery. That, Mr. Speaker, rests with the federal
government. The only thing we can do really is make our case known to the
federal government from time to time. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have been doing
that.
With reference to the resolution, Mr. Speaker, in going through it a little
bit earlier today, from what I see most of what they mention there we are
already doing as a government. It may not be to the satisfaction of the
Opposition, but most of the items raised in that resolution are items that we
have raised from time to time with the federal government in particular.
If you just take the first
WHEREAS, Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS the fishery
historically has been the basis for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador
which is true and can continue to contribute to growth and employment which
is also true, Mr. Speaker. Then they go on to say: under sensible and prudent
management.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was directly involved in the fishery back in 1995. I had
fifteen years there. From 1995 to 2002, it was that government that increased
the crab processing licences in this Province from seventeen to forty-three
almost triple the number of licences, Mr. Speaker. This came just on the heels
of a report that had been completed which emphasized the fact that we should
have fewer plants and more time for the people already involved in the industry.
Doing what they did at the time, Mr. Speaker, only downgraded what we already
had. The hours of work that workers could have worked was downgraded because the
sharing of the resource was taken from seventeen plants to forty-three. Mr.
Speaker, if you call that sensible and prudent management I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker, I would have to say too that our current minister has done a noble
job as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Looking back at last year's fisheries, Mr. Speaker, it was
through his effort, dedication and commitment that we had a fishery in this
Province in 2010.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, there is reference made to the MOU in the
resolution. I take exception to the fact that the hon. member who presented the
resolution is saying that we have abandoned the fishery. I mean that is not true
at all, that we have abandoned the MOU. The minister and he quoted here again
today has gone back to the main players in the industry the processors and
the harvesters, through the union and asked them to come back with more
constructive ideas as to what we should do for the betterment, the long-term
industry in fisheries-related infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, the MOU certainly was an opportunity for all of the industry,
all of the people in the Province really, to have input into what should be the
sustainable long-term industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, a lot of it was
not addressed as such and that is why the minister has gone back looking for the
information that was expected to be in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Mr. Speaker, in sections three and four in the resolution: "WHEREAS
rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding whether or not this
government is prepared to receive and manage these changes". Mr. Speaker, the
next one: "WHEREAS restructuring is already proceeding, including fish plant
closures and license transfers"; Mr. Speaker, the minister has made reference to
this a number of times before. That is already happening in the fishing industry
in this Province.
To give you some example of how that is occurring on its own right now, Mr.
Speaker, it is happening through market forces and changes in demographics. The
rationalization is taking place at a rate of 31 per cent reduction from 1998 to
2009 with a further decline of 6.6 per cent in 2010. It goes on to say further,
Mr. Speaker, that 500 or more harvesters were projected to leave the industry
annually in the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, with or without taxpayers' money, rationalization is already
occurring in the fishing industry in this Province. I think we would have to ask
the question to the Opposition - and the leader mentioned it there again today -
about paying down the deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is fine to pay more down on the
deficit, but what is she saying with respect to the fisheries?
The hon. member mentioned it in his initial remarks: they want to take
another half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to buy out the industry. Mr.
Speaker, who out there in the general public wants us to put millions of dollars
into some of the processors who are running this industry? Who out in the
general public would want to see their money used in that manner?
Mr. Speaker, it goes on further to say about rationalization, about the
processing sector. The rationalization would be financed by the public sector at
a cost of over $200 million. Again, I would say, would the general public in
this Province want to see money spent that way or would they prefer it to be
spent on health care, on education, on roads, on bridges, and some as well, Mr.
Speaker, in paying down the deficit? The Opposition has to make up their minds.
Where do they want to use the revenues that we have coming into the coffers of
this government?
Mr. Speaker, the number of processing workers, as well, in talking about
rationalization, has fallen by 43 per cent since 1998 to now approximately a
little over 10,000 people. It is becoming more and more difficult to attract
people to the fishing industry, especially in the processing side of it when you
have people working and earning only $10,000 and $12,000 per year. That is
becoming a major problem, Mr. Speaker. The number of primary plants - and the
member alluded to that as well - has declined to a low of 102 from 189 in 1993,
representing a decline of 46 per cent.
In another
WHEREAS in the member's resolution, Mr. Speaker, "WHEREAS it is
the responsibility of Government to manage the social effects of these serious
economic changes and only immediate action will ensure the long-term survival of
our harvesting and processing sectors". So, I have to ask the hon. member again,
even though he does not like us questioning some of the things that he puts
forward, what action is he talking about, and what plans does he have for the
future development of the fishery in this Province?
The member also made reference to the custodial management. Mr. Speaker, as a
resident of a fishing community, I always have been, and I still today fully
endorse custodial management of our fishery. That has to come, as anyone
affiliated with the fishery would know, from the federal government. Even before
this current government now, our former Premier, Premier Williams, certainly
made a number of attempts to have custodial management brought in by the federal
government, through meetings with the federal minister, through meetings with
the Prime Minister, and through correspondence. Our own current minister has
followed up on that request. Mr. Speaker, with respect to custodial management,
certainly it is something that is fully needed for the future development and
sustainability of the fishery in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, before I close I want to make reference to my own community and
the fish plant in Valleyfield. I would say today that if we had more owners of
the fish processing sector like we have with the Way family and Beothic Fish in
Valleyfield, we would not have the problems that we have today in this industry.
That is one of the major factors in why we have the problems that we do have,
Mr. Speaker. I would have to say, and pay tribute again, and I have done it here
before, to the late Mr. Boyd Way, the man who founded Beothic Fish Processors in
Valleyfield. I would have to say, with all due respect to some of the other
processors out there in the industry, there was no one who had the vision like
that man did in terms of the fishery in this Province. It is unfortunate that we
do not have any like him today.
Mr. Speaker, there was also reference made to technology in the fishing
industry. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention a couple of things with respect to
Beothic Fish again, and to see where they are coming from as an employer in the
fishing industry in this Province. With respect to new initiatives, last year,
in conjunction with our Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, this company
initiated a new secondary processing venture in terms of filleting mackerel and
vacuum packing the fillet for the Korean market. Mr. Speaker, that is ongoing.
They are meeting again in a couple of weeks to discuss how the project went last
year and hopefully, that it will continue this coming season. That is a product
where we have very little input in terms of secondary processing.
Mr. Speaker, before I close I would like to say, because most of these issues
are addressed that we are talking about in this resolution, I would like to
move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, that the resolution be amended by deleting the second to fifth
clauses inclusive and by substituting the following:
"AND
WHEREAS rationalization in the fishing industry is proceeding through
natural attrition and government is maintaining its efforts to encourage
industry to engage in meaningful industry restructuring;"
And by deleting the Resolution clause and substituting the following:
"THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls upon government to maintain
its existing policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the
fisheries".
With that, Mr. Speaker, my time has expired and I look forward to the
comments by the other speakers.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment as put forward by
the hon. the Minister of Government Services.
We will take a short recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister
of Government Services and we find the amendment to be in order.
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I guess I will say right from the outset that I will not be voting in favour
of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, when I look over the private member's resolution put forward by
my colleague for The Straits & White Bay North, the only thing that is left in
this resolution is the first
WHEREAS, the other four are deleted. In the
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED, it goes on to say: maintain existing policies. I have
to ask: What policies? The existing policies that are there, if they are there,
I can assure you there is not much funding in the Budget for this year that we
heard yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go on for a few minutes and I want to speak to this
private member's motion because my district is very heavily involved with the
fishery. A fairly prosperous fishery I have to say, but I have seen many changes
over the last fifteen or twenty years. There used to be five or six fish plants
there, now we are down to two. It has been a mainstay not only for that area but
for the Province for some 500-plus years, not only for the communities that the
fishery is involved in but also for the larger centres because the supplies and
what have you come from those areas.
Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of the issues that are in relation to why people
look down at the fishery in more modern times is the attitude of different
individuals. Only recently I heard an individual on Open Line who said for 500
years all the fishermen done in this Province was go out and get a few stamps in
the summer, go home and lie down and do nothing until the moose time opened up
and they go and get a bit of meat for the winter.
Mr. Speaker, I also heard the former Premier during meetings on the Bonavista
Peninsula back in 2003, in reference to the fishery he said: We have to get away
from the ways of the past. Mr. Speaker, only today when you had to bring order
to this hon. House, I heard some hon. member across the way, when you mentioned
that you could not hear my colleague up presenting his motion, say: It is not
much odds if we could hear it or not. I think that is a very poor attitude,
regardless of what is brought forward in this hon. House.
Mr. Speaker, in the Budget for 2011, like I said, there was very little, if
any, money in regard to the fishery. We know there is money there for
aquaculture, and we are very pleased with that because we know that is another
component of the fishery.
How often do we hear about the MOU here in the House, Mr. Speaker? Many times
when questions are asked, the MOU document is held up to us, when you get to
your feet, you tell us do you agree with this. Well, I have to say, Mr. Speaker,
we did not ask for it. We never asked for that document.
I have to say this as well: The minister himself stated in this Province
prior to the document being released, quite a few days before that happened,
that he had read it. He had read what was prepared and he was fine tuning it.
Well, if he had it and he was reading it to fine-tune it, why did he accept it
in the beginning and why was it released in the condition that it is?
There is no doubt about it, some things in that document we do not agree
with; however, there are some things we do agree with. I know the minister says
he wrote them back and is waiting for a response, but you have to sit down with
the stakeholders to see what can be done for the betterment of the fishery in
this Province.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I think the fishery is one of the biggest
political hot potatoes that we have to deal, regardless of who is in government.
We can have all of the summits, we can have all the MOUs and studies, and
whether we put them on the shelf or we deal with them, they are very rarely
dealt with because it becomes such a political issue in this Province, where so
many communities depend on the fishery and where so many lives depend on that
way of living.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, all too often it falls on deaf ears. The very
first private member's motion I brought forward in this House I do not know if
it was late 2001 or early 2002 was on custodial management of the Nose and
Tail of the Grand Banks. Our Speaker of the House today at that time, when it
was all over, he was in Opposition and we were in government, said: Look, you
are just wasting your breath. Nothing will be done about it.
I have to say now the shoe is on the other foot. That government that was in
Opposition at the time is in government today. Eight years have gone by, and I
do not know if anything has been done to deal with custodial management. I know
the former Premier said he was dealing with Ottawa. He was going to tour the
country on a speaking engagement about the fishery. He was even going to open an
office in Europe at one point in time. Then we had the summit, and here we are
today still debating the very same issues.
To some degree I sympathize with the minister, it is not an easy situation. I
happened to be speaking with him one day on a private issue and I said to him:
My friend, you are going to need three or four MOUs before this is straightened
out. I believe that, because it is something that cannot be handled and dealt
with in a very secure way that everybody is going to be happy.
When it comes to any department in this government, I guess the fishery is
one of the most difficult ones to deal with. I know that back a few years ago I
remember they had a riot here - seriously - when eighty or 100 constabulary
officers came out in riot gear. I was there right involved in it, and it was
over an issue about quality control. There are many issues that come forward and
if we have various reports done or MOUs, whatever, and if we ask for it and we
do not try to deal with it I can understand where the minister is coming from
saying do you want to bring this in. If we are asking for it, I guess we are
going to have to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, because we all know the consequences
if we do not.
Mr. Speaker, in the motion my colleague put forward, he was talking about
utilization of various marine species for food processing and so on. I know it
is very difficult to deal with. In the crab plant that is in my district in Port
de Grave, back about eleven or twelve years ago I guess, I went to visit there
one day and there was an issue about a licence being transferred from one part
of the Province to the other. The people were there saying: Look, we are not
going to get enough hours. We are not going to be employed like we were in
previous years if this should happen. Lo and behold, I happened to ask the
question to the owner of the plant at the time. I said: Why are you sending all
your product out in sections? Why can't you do like you always did here, extract
the meat or do whatever you have to do with it? I thought I was going to be
thrown over the wharf. He said: Don't you bring that up here today. He said:
Don't bring that up here; that is what the markets dictate.
I have to say I think if we have a product and we can go into secondary
processing, regardless of what species it is, let's put it on the market if we
have a good marketing arm. Those sections go out, someone else is doing the work
on them; I guess they are probably getting it done cheaper. Mr. Speaker, those
are the issues that have to be dealt with.
Then we go into talking about the older workers and the retirement package. I
mean, that has been ongoing for quite some time. I notice on the local channel
out my way now, you see advertisements looking for people to work in the fish
plants; looking for individuals to go working on the boats, something you never
heard talk of for many years; however, that is where this industry is today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the private member's motion that was put forward by my
colleague calling on the House, call on government to consider establishing
"policies centered on the prudent long-term management of the fisheries." He
went on to include them all, like custodial management on the Nose and Tail of
the Grand Banks. I believe that has to be done. The federal government, I think
they have dropped the ball on this one and we have to apply more pressure to
them to see that that is done.
There are many other issues, Mr. Speaker. If Canada stood up the way they
should have in fighting for the fishery for this particular Province, and other
provinces, they should have done what they did in Iceland a few years ago. I am
not saying everything is rosy in the fishery in Iceland but they went out with
their destroyers, they chopped the nets away from the foreign draggers, and they
rebuilt their stocks. When I mentioned about what was in the Budget yesterday, I
do not see anything there to help us rebuild the stocks, and that is what has to
be done.
Many people in this Province depend on the fishery and right now we are very
fortunate that we have the resources, like the oil where our revenues are coming
from, but we all know unless there are further discoveries in that particular
resource, we know what will happen, whether it is ten or fifteen or twenty
years. If we do not have a fishery, we might never return to what it was in the
past, Mr. Speaker, but if we have a fishery at all, we know many communities on
this Island portion and throughout Labrador, we know that many fishermen from
this Island travelled to Labrador years ago, but if we do not see that the
stocks are built back and protect them, I guess we will not have that either in
a few years.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. I have to say I do not agree
with the amendment that was put forward and to say I will be voting against that
particular amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I suppose normally we would have seen the minister responsible for the
portfolio would have gotten up after the resolution was presented, but I wanted
to hear what some of the comments were before I had the opportunity to get up
and speak, because we can come into this House and during Question Period we do
what we do. We banter back and forth, but when it comes down to it, I do not
think there is anybody in this House who would argue with what I am going to say
next. Everybody in this House would love to see a fishery that starts on time
every year; that everything runs smoothly every year, but, unfortunately, that
is not what happens.
The Member for Port de Grave got up and mentioned that the Liberals did not
ask for the MOU. Well, Mr. Speaker, who asked for the MOU was industry. The
shrimp fishery was tied up for a period of time, an extended period of time,
almost three months I do believe it was, and in the interest of getting the
fishery up and running it was agreed to by three parties, that being the ASP,
the FFAW and government.
Government was asked to facilitate a process whereby industry would bring
forth proposals for rationalization and restructuring. I am not going to stand
for my time here today and criticize members opposite for their stand, or I will
not ask in the next few minutes do they support. All I am going to point out to
you is some of the points that came out in the MOU. The member just identified
one of those points. On the community channel there is an advertisement for
plant workers. No one five years ago, or seven years ago, would have ever
anticipated that we would need to put advertisements out looking for plant
workers. In fact, there was an over supply of them. We had three companies that
recognized that challenge and put out a call in The Telegram in February
looking for plant workers.
Now, if we go back to the evidence that came out in the MOU it will clearly
show you why they are having trouble getting plant workers. It says in the MOU
that with a 30 per cent rationalization, plant workers' revenues in crab plants
will go up from $6,700 to $9,500 a year. Mr. Speaker, I can ask anybody in this
Province if they truly think we are going to get the number of people that we
need to go into plants, and in particular young people, if they are going to go
into a plant to work for $9,500 a year, plus a bit of EI, and that they might
get ten weeks or fourteen weeks.
I have not heard from the NDP yet, but I cannot wait to see what the Leader
of the NDP's response is going to be. If we look to the situation that the plant
workers find themselves in, if they cannot get their hours - the wage of these
plant workers is going to go to $9,500 and they do not get their hours, what are
the options? Grants. She was very visible last year acknowledging that some of
the projects people had to go on, because they could not get their hours in the
plants, were degrading. I believe that was some of her commentary. I would
certainly hope that she would not rise in her place and say that is acceptable
for the people who are going to go into our plants.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at particular areas of the Province, and I look to
the Leader of the Opposition, in 2J, I do not think anybody would ever think
that there is going to be 82 per cent taken out there in that particular area.
If we go and speak to the Labrador Shrimp Company or harvesters that are on the
ground in Southern Labrador, I doubt very much if they are going to be in favour
of a rationalization of the harvesting sector even to 50 per cent. So, there
comes a time when we have to get on with the business here.
The Member for Port de Grave referenced that there have been reports. I can
name them. I have been in this portfolio now for about a year and a half and I
keep hearing about the Vardy report, the Dunne report, the Cashin report, the
Gregory and Broderick report, and you can go on and on. We seem to be caught in
a cycle whereby if this does not work we go to another report, and we never get
on it. So, it does not matter about this resolution, what is in here today, or
what the debates are, the thing is we have to get on with the business of
restructuring this fishery.
Let's take a look at the plants. If we see companies advertising for workers
and they do not get the workers, well, Mr. Speaker, I see two roads for us: one,
we go down whereby the product is caught at sea, it is frozen, and it is shipped
off somewhere else to be done; or, as other jurisdictions have discovered, they
have to import workers. I do not think there is anybody in this Province that
wants to head down that road. I definitely do not think there is anybody that
wants to head down that road. So, we are left with the task.
I go back to one of my points, that government, while the call is for us to
put leadership, the leadership piece is there, Mr. Speaker. We are saying to the
industry: come to us with suggestions around restructuring. How is it that we
are going to make the lot of those in the boats, and those in the plants better?
How are we going to attract, how are we going to retain, and most importantly,
provide for a strong industry so that it supports the communities as so many of
us, as MHAs, have in our districts?
Most of us can get up and speak to the communities and the impact that the
fishery has in our communities. I was in my community this weekend. The crab
fishery, thank goodness, we have $2.15 a pound for crab, we have 65 cents a
pound for shrimp, and we are seeing that the harvesters are eagerly out getting
their catches. Mr. Speaker, we know, and many people know, and history repeats
itself, that these are historic prices and they are not likely to stay there. We
certainly hope they will, but they may not. So we find ourselves back in the
situation again, and we have to, Mr. Speaker, we have to come up with ways to
make this industry better for those people who are involved in it.
Now, if we go and we talk about some of things that we are doing to make the
industry better: we have invested. The budget for our department, the Department
of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has increased fivefold since we have come into
government. Our total budget now is more than the other three Atlantic Provinces
combined, so don't anyone get up and say that we are not investing money into
it.
Our department is receiving money, and I can outline for you some of the
initiatives. We are looking to technology. There is no doubt we have to continue
to develop technology, because that is where the world is going, and for the
past number of years, we put in place the FTNOP, the Fisheries Technology and
New Opportunities Program. We put $6 million into that and we did an assessment,
we did a survey of it and the responses were unanimous that this is a successful
program. Again this year, we have invested in it.
Around the research piece, I hope everybody in the Province would recognize
the investment that we made of $14 million. As part of that announcement the
research vessel the Celtic Explorer we leased that and we are leasing
it for our own research. We doubt some of the research that comes out of DFO and
if we are going to be strong as a Province and ensure that our resource is
there, this is the reason we put in this research vessel. Dr. George Rose,
renowned in the Province, carried out that first set of research this year. We
have CCFI and the work that they do is all around advancing the cause of the
fisheries within our Province; very professional, very technical people who are
into it.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is winding down and I want to conclude my next
four minutes with making a couple of points. One, that if we are going to have a
processing capacity in this Province in the next few years and we think that we
are going to attract and retain people, we better get on with the business of
restructuring this fishery. There is no doubt about it. The numbers that are
coming out of it will not see it replaced with the wages and the weeks of work
that we presently have.
I can use the example of Arnold's Cove whereby they provide thirty-five-plus
weeks of work. They have their workforce there; they know that they are going to
get these numbers of weeks. That is the type of structure that we have to be in.
I certainly want to see a process whereby we do not see women and men out doing
jobs on the side of the road during a winter season when we should be looking at
having them in their workplaces, those being the fish plants, for longer periods
of time. We have to take a look at how we can extend those work seasons.
I am very interested in sitting down with the parties that are involved; all
I am waiting for is the response. It just cannot be a response that will not see
productive change for those people who are in the industry. If that is where we
are, then we are just throwing our hands up in the air and the industry partners
are throwing their hands up in the air and saying well the way it is, is fine.
Give us a bit of money every now and then to downsize it a little but there is
nothing that we can do structurally that will change and make the lot for those
who are involved better. I think that is simply unacceptable. I am eagerly
waiting what the industry is suggesting because government has shown again and
again that through report after report after report that we have not gotten on
with the business that needs to be done.
Our Premier, Premier Dunderdale, and Premier Williams before her, were always
interested in doing something to support the fishery. We can never seem to get
to the point where we have the industry coming and saying: this is what we need
to do, other than we need an early retirement or here is money that we need to
rationalize. There has to be that second component of it and that has to be the
restructuring piece. I would hope that neither party on the other side would
suggest and I look forward to their comments on it would suggest that a ten
to fourteen week, 6,700 wage income going to 9,500, is what we see as acceptable
and that if that does not work out, that there is a grant structure that falls
in place that will get them their hours so that they have a meagre and when I
say a meagre, I mean a meagre a meagre income that will see them through the
next year and hope that it gets better.
This fishery needs to operate more than on hope, Mr. Speaker. This fishery
needs to see a structural change that will make it better for everyone who is
involved and that fishery will be a strong, viable support for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador well into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to rise and speak to the motion that was put forward by my
colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what was a good motion that spoke to the fishing
industry and direction for the fishing industry in this Province has been
basically cut out of the entire motion, Mr. Speaker, and government is asking
for us today to stand and only support that government maintain its existing
policies centered on prudent and long-term management of the fisheries.
Well, Mr. Speaker, how do you support something that does not exist, I say to
hon. members? How do you support policies in the fishing industry that you claim
you have when they are non-existent?
Mr. Speaker, the minister today, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
for this Province, stood in his place and gave a great speech. Do you know
something, Mr. Speaker? We have been hearing that speech for eight years from
government members opposite. For eight years we have been hearing the same
messages echoing across the House of Assembly.
What we have not seen and what the fishing industry has not felt in their
communities, in their enterprises, in their plants, and in their homes, the very
people who live and breathe this industry, what they have not felt is commitment
and leadership from their government when it comes to the fishing industry. They
say that this government does not care about the industry. They say it, Mr.
Speaker, with great certainty because they have facts to back up what they
believe. They have many facts to back up what they believe.
Mr. Speaker, they have watched this government over the years as they have
allowed for spending in all different sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador. They
have watched government members opposite, their own MHAs, their own people who
they elected and sent here from their fishing-dependent communities. They sent
them here to stand up for them and their industry and they watched them every
year, year over year, tap their desk and support monies being invested in the
oil and gas industry in this Province and monies being invested in big companies
and huge corporations. They have not seen their MHAs, who they sent here to the
House of Assembly to represent them, tap their desk because the government was
going to invest in the fishing industry. They never saw it because it never
happened. It never happened, Mr. Speaker.
Again yesterday in the Budget in this Province, when we are talking about
sustainability and when we are talking about investing for the industries of the
future, why would you not invest in the fishing industry? Why is it that this
government sees the fishing industry as an industry that is on the way out as
opposed to an industry that, with stability, can sustain many communities, many
people who are partaking in that industry today, if it was done properly and
appropriately?
Mr. Speaker, this government first of all decided that they were going to
have a summit. The summit on the fishery was supposed to give the clear
direction and leadership for this industry. Here we are four or five years
later, and what have we seen as part of this summit? We have seen one thing: It
was the document called the Memorandum of Understanding on the fishing industry,
known as the MOU. That document had three signatories in this Province, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was one of them. The Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the members opposite that form that government today,
they took one thing from the summit on the fishery and that was they would move
forward with an MOU. It took them eighteen months.
Every day in this House of Assembly that the Minister of Fisheries was
questioned he stood up and said: We are going to wait for the MOU. The MOU is
going to be the answer for the fishing industry. It is the MOU that is going to
deal with the restructuring. It is the MOU that is going to reshape where we go
as an industry. Leading people to believe that the government was actually
leading a path forward for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador,
convincing people in communities all over this Province that we are on top of
the fishery and we are going to deliver for the fishing industry in Newfoundland
and Labrador. What did we see, Mr. Speaker, after two years of questioning the
government? After two years and seventy or eighty stakeholder meetings being
held, after $800,000 of people's hard-earned money in this Province being spent,
what did we see? We saw the minister come out, throw a document on the table and
wash his hands of it.
Am I saying that everything in that document is great and wonderful? What I
am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the document we have, known as the MOU today, is
neither to be condemned nor to be fully embraced, I say to you, Minister. I say
to you, Minister: Are there things in this MOU document that can work in
Newfoundland and Labrador in creating a path forward for the fishing industry?
Indeed, there is, and people in the industry recognize that and see that. Are
there things in this document that most people or a lot of people would not want
to see? Yes, there are, but it was the government opposite that chose not to
take a working, living document and create it into something that could be
beneficial for the industry in this Province. Instead, they took it and they
threw it to the recycling bin. That is where they threw it, Mr. Speaker. They
threw it to the recycling bin. Then the minister stands up and says: I will wait
for direction from the industry.
Well, Minister, you have had direction from the industry and now it is time
for you to make decisions. It is time for you to provide leadership and with
leadership comes investment in the industry. We need a process that strengthens
the industry for all of our coastal communities, but also for all of the people
who engage in it.
The minister likes to stand up, look across and say to me: What would you do?
Would you implement this recommendation around 2J fisheries? I say to you,
Minister: No, I would not. What I will say to you, Minister, is that there are
things in this document that I would do, and I make no bones about it. There are
things in this document that I would do, I would implement, and I think it would
provide some clear path in the fishing industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the 2J area, which is my district: In
Labrador, every single processing plant with the exception of one is in my
district every single one. We are engaged in fisheries in the offshore, in the
inshore. We are engaged in Aboriginal fisheries. We are engaged in fisheries in
shellfish and groundfish. We are engaged in fisheries that extend from the most
northern regions to the most southern regions in those particular NAFO
divisions. Mr. Speaker, we take our industry very, very seriously because it
provides for the livelihood of every single community and I would say for about
75 per cent of the population. So, we take our industry very seriously.
We are a region in this Province that is investing in the industry, I say to
you, Minister. You might want to take a page out of the book of companies like
the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company that do not believe that this
industry should be left to rationalize itself, or as the Member for Bonavista
North said it is going to happen through attrition. It is all right to leave
people out there in limbo, in chaos, wondering where their next dollar is going
to come from, how they are going to survive in this industry. The Member for
Bonavista North thinks that is fine for the people he represents in Wesleyville,
Lumsden, Carmanville and all of these communities down there, but I do not think
that is acceptable at all. I do not think it is acceptable to leave the industry
to rationalize itself, and through attrition we will see what happens at the end
of the day, may the survival of the fittest prevail.
If we were to use that analogy in every other industry in this Province,
where would we be today? If we were to use that kind of philosophy and thinking
around every other sector of government, where would we be today? Where would
health care be? Where would social services be? Where would the oil industry be?
It does not work that way, I say to the Member for Bonavista North. If there are
other members in this House of Assembly who share your view on that, well I
would say they are being less than accountable to the people who sent them here.
They are certainly not representing what their best interests are.
Mr. Speaker, in areas like the one I represent where the minister likes to
throw across the House every day on the fishing industry, they are building a
new processing plant this year. They are upgrading other processing facilities.
They are investing in the industry. They are investing in vessels, Mr. Speaker.
They are expanding their fleet inshore and offshore. They are supplementing
those who are in the industry. If government wanted to look for an example where
people in this industry see prosperity and where they are still seeing some
opportunity, he can look there. Maybe that will give him inspiration, Mr.
Speaker, to provide some leadership to move forward.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista North talked about licences that were
given out in this Province. Well, I would like to ask him a question: What ones
would he like to see revoked? Which ones would you like to see revoked? Since
the cod moratorium, we have seen something like 80 per cent of licences in this
Province being revoked already, I say to the member. I ask him today: Which
other ones would he like to see revoked?
We know what is happening in Port Union today. We know in Port Union today
that plant will not open because of the damage that was done by Hurricane Igor.
What we do not know, Mr. Speaker, is if it will open in the years to come. What
we still do not know is what adjustment measures mean for workers in those
plants.
What does it mean for the people in Jackson's Arm? Maybe the Member for
Humber Valley, who represents that area, would like to tell us what the future
outlook is going to be, or is that one of the plants they believe the licences
should have been revoked from and that it should never open again? Because when
you make those kinds of statements as a government, you should be prepared to
back them up, and back them up by saying what plants in this Province should
close and never open again. Maybe it is Jackson's Arm that should never open
again. Maybe it is Port Union that should never open again. Maybe that is the
message that government members are sending today.
What is really upsetting about all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that not only as
this government not provided leadership, but it has given people false hope. It
is not implementing programs around the fishing industry that allows people to
have an exit strategy and allows people to make adjustments that are sustainable
for them. The minister says: I hope no one in this House gets up today and says
that make-work projects or cutting trees on the sides of the roads is
acceptable.
Well, Minister, that is the only thing your government has offered to the
fishing industry in this Province year over year. That is the best that you have
been able to come up with. I have supported it, Mr. Speaker, because without it
there are so many people in this Province who would not put food on their table.
I say to you minister, too many people who would not put food on their table,
but where are the real adjustment measures for the fishing industry? If you are
going to make statements like that, put your money where your mouth is. Put your
money where your mouth is and make the proper investments so that these people
can have real jobs in their communities, so that they can exit the industry with
some dignity. That is what they are looking for all over rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is what they are looking for, Mr. Speaker, the people who are in
this particular industry.
Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that not only do we have leadership in the
industry but we need to ensure that there is investment in the fishing industry.
We also need to ensure that there is a plan, and a plan that includes custodial
management. The former Premier was very keen on custodial management. In fact,
he made a commitment and took on Ottawa several times. Obviously, this
government will not take on Ottawa on custodial management because when Premier
Dunderdale sent her letter off to Stephen Harper she did not even include the
words custodial management in her letter on the fishing industry.
We all know as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, that a way
forward in this industry includes rebuilding the stocks for tomorrow; rebuilding
the fish stocks off our Province and it requires us having control and having a
say, and that is something this government has not been able to achieve for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians inside our federation with Canada. Yet, Mr.
Speaker, they will cuddle up to Stephen Harper. They do not mind the fact that
he came here in 2006 and committed to having more co-operation and custodial
management on the fishery with Newfoundland and Labrador but he broke