Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 15 May 2006 (45th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLV No. 20)
2006-05-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 15, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 20
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we have a number of visitors in our gallery, and I would like
to welcome them individually and collectively.
We would like to welcome, first, sixty-two Grade 5 students from Larkhall
Academy in the District of St. John's North. They are accompanied by their
teachers, Mr. Ralph Cann and Ms Kelly Burke, and by their student assistant Miss
Kathy Philpot. Their chaperones are: Marilyn Hoyles, Tina Thomas, Danielle
Murrin, Lois Barbour, Margaret Hann, Kelly Hart, Linda Clarke, and Marilyn
Callahan.
Welcome, especially, to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we have a very special visitor in
the Speaker's gallery.
We extend a welcome to Warrant Officer Kristi Bourne from Squadron 589 of the
Royal Canadian Air Cadets in Carbonear. She is accompanied by her parents, Alf
and Debbie Bourne. Kristi is one of two cadets from Newfoundland and Labrador
accepted to participate in the International Air Cadet Exchange. She will be
spending part of her summer in the Netherlands.
Congratulations, Kristi, and we wish you a very interesting visit to the
Netherlands over the summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We also have Ms Hilda Whelan and a group of her friends who
are here in connection with the debate we anticipate this afternoon on Bill 22.
A special welcome. This bill is of special importance to these particular
citizens.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Also, we would like to welcome, from the Town Council in
Bishop's Falls, the following members: Mayor Jody Fancey, Deputy Mayor
Josephine Budgell, Councillors Barry Saunders and Hubert Sutton, and Town
Manager Toni Elliott.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the
District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of
Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the
hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon.
the Member of the District of Port de Grave.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 12, I attended the sixteenth Annual Municipal
Awards Banquet for the Town of Paradise, along with my colleague for the
District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island. This event, Mr. Speaker, is
held annually to recognize and thank residents who volunteer and contribute to
the well-being of our community.
Mr. Speaker, during the evening, the following awards were presented:
Kimberly Crocker was awarded Youth of the Year; Patsy Whalen was awarded Citizen
of the Year; Derek Strickland was awarded Coach of the Year; Wes Welcher was
named Male Athlete of the Year; Sarah Strickland was chosen Female Athlete of
the Year; Joyce Hussey was named Volunteer of the Year; and the Kinsmen Club of
Paradise was named Volunteer Group of the Year.
In addition to the seven winners, a number of individuals and groups received
honourable mention and should also be commended for their contribution to their
community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the award winners, the Town of Paradise for sponsoring the event,
and all the volunteers who work diligently for the betterment of our community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Warrant Officer
Kristi Bourne, Squadron Commander of 589 Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Carbonear,
who, along with her family, are present here today, as was previously announced
by the Speaker.
Kristi, a seventeen-year-old Level 2 student at Carbonear Collegiate, is one
of two cadets selected from Newfoundland and Labrador for the International Air
Cadet Exchange. Sixty-one out of 23,000 cadets from across Canada were selected
to receive a trip as an "Ambassador for Canada" to one of eleven host
countries.
Mr. Speaker, the selection process was based on a number of prerequisites,
including: weekly performances at local squadrons; good citizenship; previous
summer training and camp reports; academic excellence in school; and, a personal
interview in which the cadet is questioned on their knowledge of military issues
and current affairs.
Kristi will be travelling to Ottawa for training, and then on to the
Netherlands for three weeks in July. She is currently working on the Gold level
of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which she hopes to have completed this
summer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Kristi Bourne as an "Ambassador for Canada" for the
International Air Cadet Exchange.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge the dedication of
numerous individuals in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
The eighth annual Community Awards Banquet was held earlier this month, which
I was honoured to attend. Some fifty nominations were submitted in twelve
different categories, including: Builder of the Year, Athlete of the Year, and
Volunteer of the Year. All of those individuals and groups were deserving of a
win, and I wish to thank the winners and the nominees for their dedication.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a special note with regard to the winner of
the Citizen of the Year, Nanette Blake, who, for as long as I can remember, has
given tirelessly of herself to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Special Olympics Team.
Members of the team have won numerous awards and achieved great things due to
her commitment over the years. Two of the team members, Jodi Michelin and Brian
Allingham have, this year, been named to the national team and will be
travelling to Manitoba in July for competition.
Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this hon. House today to join me in
congratulating Nanette Blake on her win as Citizen of the Year; also, the
coaches and volunteers of the team; and also the Special Olympics Team for their
hard work, dedication, and training in competing with their peers in the
provincial and national competitions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Ms Jackie Jenkins, a
Grand Falls-Windsor lawyer who has been awarded Entrepreneur of the Year for
Central Newfoundland by NLOWE, the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of
Women Entrepreneurs.
Jackie was born in Grand Falls-Windsor, and completed an undergraduate degree
at Memorial University. After completing her law degree at Dalhousie University
in Halifax, Jackie returned to Grand Falls-Windsor in 1989, joined the practice
of brothers Gerard and Michael Griffin. On February 24, 2003, she opened her own
business, Jacqueline Jenkins Law Office in her home community, practicing
family, real estate, corporate, civil and criminal law.
Mr. Speaker, Jackie says that one of the best parts about being a lawyer is
the wonderful feeling she gets when she has helped resolve a substantial problem
in someone's life and also the realization of her dream of being an
entrepreneur. That same commitment to her work carries through with her
involvement in many volunteer groups in the community.
Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest in Sunday's Telegram the twenty
questions asked to Ms Jenkins, and she credits her mother with being the
greatest inspiration in her life. What a fitting tribute, and especially on
Mother's Day.
Mr. Speaker, Jackie will now have a greater opportunity to work for the
furthering of women's issues in this Province, as she was recently appointed
to the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Ms Jackie Jenkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure that I rise today in this hon. House to
congratulate two Level III students, Brenda Greene and Deanna Power, who
exemplify motivation, self-discipline, leadership and the pursuit of excellence.
Throughout her academic career at St. Catherine's Academy in Salmonier,
Brenda maintained an average of ninety-plus - an amazing feat, considering she
completed her math and physics courses through distance education. She is the
member of the 3A High School Basketball Champions and a provincial champion
shooter in the Enright Memorial Cadet Corps. She is the daughter of proud
parents, Donald and Magdelene Greene of St. Joseph's.
For her efforts, Brenda has recently been named the winner of the Dr. Leslie
Harris Entrance Scholarship to Memorial University, a value of $25,000, which
she plans to pursue a career in biochemistry.
On Friday of last week, at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Deanna
Power of Laval High School, Placentia, and daughter of Tom and Anna Power of
Dunville, was presented with this year's Toronto Dominion Canada Trust
Scholarship for community leadership and academic excellence. One of only twenty
recipients across Canada out of 3,500 applicants.
Deanna is a member of her school council, yearbook committee, RCMP Youth
Advisory Committee and founded the first ever Red Cross 4-H Group in Canada. She
is active in her church, a member of the CLB Regimental Band - she plays eight
instruments, by the way - and is a youth representative on the Atlantic-wide
anti-drug awareness campaign.
In 2003, she received the National Youth Service Award from the Canadian Red
Cross. The scholarship is for $60,000. She will receive full tuition, $5,000
going towards living expenses per year, and an offer of summer employment for up
to four years. She is pursuing a music degree from Memorial this fall.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
expressing our heartiest congratulations and sincere best wishes to Brenda
Greene and Deanna Power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate April Yetman of
Bryant's Cove who won a visual arts award on Saturday, May 13, 2006. She was
one of five winners in the Visual Arts Division of the Arts & Letters
competition, the E.J. Pratt Junior Division.
April is a Grade 8 student at St. Peter's Elementary in Upper Island Cove.
Ninety-six paintings were entered in the competition and April's entry was a
painting of her grandfather's horse.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the winners and organizers
of this outstanding competition, and I ask all members of this House to join
with me in extending sincere congratulations to April Yetman on winning this
prestigious Visual Arts Award.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to talk about a very important division within the Public
Service Secretariat - the Office of French Services, which exists through the
Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement on French Language Services.
We are pleased to work with the federal Department of Canadian Heritage in
this way to continue to increase government services in French to the Province's
francophone community.
This division, while known to some throughout government for French language
training, is becoming a vital instrument in enhancing government's ability to
provide services in French through translation, linguistic support and liaison
with the community. The role of this office, Mr. Speaker, is expanding every
year.
Our government now has a policy requiring that all government translations
are to be coordinated by the Office of French Services to ensure highest
quality. Also, the Office of French Services now has a dedicated translator on
site to reduce costs associated with out-sourcing and to ensure that urgent
requests are dealt with promptly.
Thanks to this division, our government departments have more Web site
content available in French to better serve our French speaking citizens.
The Office also is proud to boast on-going partnership with the Canada School
of Public Services and the Eastern Health Authority to provide French language
training to the employees of these organizations. We are the only Province in
the country providing specialized French training to health care professionals.
As Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat, I encourage
everyone to visit the Office of French Services and browse their Web site to
become more familiar with the varied services they can provide government
departments. There will also be an opportunity to learn more at the information
booth during Public Service Week in June.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating
Provincial Francophone Day on May 30. This year, to commemorate this important
day, members of the francophone community and children of the French school will
gather in the East Block lobby to celebrate the event and then proceed outside
to witness the raising of the French-Newfoundland and Labrador flag. Much to our
delight, this year members of the national Committee of Officials Responsible
for the Canadian Francophonie will be in St. John's for meetings and will take
part in the ceremony to mark this important day.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After some prompting, we made sure that the minister had an opportunity to
give his first minister's statement this year. When I opened the package and I
thanked the minister for a copy, I thought: Well, the minister must be going to
stand in his place today and announce funding for the paramedics like he said he
would do in Opposition. I was going to stand here and say: Yes, I agree with
that.
Seriously, this announcement today is one that I can agree with for sure.
When I was President of Treasury Board, I used this Office of French Language
Services on many occasions for translation of correspondence and it was always
good to see our public servants being able to avail of that particular service.
Many of them left work, moved around their lunch hours and their hours of work -
we gave them flexibility when we were the government - to make sure they were
able to take
part in these classes because being proficient in French was a
valuable asset for this Province as well. You know, this time of the year it was
always interesting. We always wondered if we -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS THISTLE: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was always interesting this time of the year because you never did know if
you were going to actually receive federal government funding until the federal
government Budget was actually brought down, but it is a program that has been
in effect for many years and a good one. This side of the House would like to
join in congratulating the people in this Province who will be celebrating
Francophone Day on May 30.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bonjour!
MR. R. COLLINS: Bonjour! Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I would like to congratulate the department on continuing the expansion of
French services in our Province.
I would like to say to the minister, that the inclusion of the French
language in our public schools for people who are going through the Immersion
programs - people have said it is better to be bilingual. It is probably more
important than a university degree in getting a good paying job, particularly
with the federal government. The emphasis should be on education and teaching
people to become bilingual.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. R. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A degree of important should be attached, a higher degree of importance than
is presently attached, to the offering of French courses in our post-secondary
and primary and secondary school systems, and the French Immersion program in
our Province should be expanded to a lot more areas than it currently is. I know
the one in Labrador West, as an example, had to campaign vigorously with the
minister and with government to protect the program that has been in place there
for many, many years. That is very important to the school and I don't think
that should have to happen, Mr. Speaker. Rather than fighting to protect
existing programs, this government should be offering an expansion of French
education in our Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions on very important fisheries issues
since this House opened in March, and yet we have received few, if any, answers
to those questions. The issues were very important and remain important today,
and the Premier admitted as much when he stated in the House on May 1 as to why
he couldn't attend an oil conference in Houston, Texas.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier said and I quote, "We have a very serious
situation going on in the fishery in this Province and I thought the place I
should be is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador."
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What has happened in the last two weeks that
gave the Premier the comfort level that things have so much improved in the
fisheries that he could take off for a conference in Rhode Island?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last, I guess,
three weeks to a month I had committed to attending three major functions. One
was the oil show in Houston, the other one was a New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers Conference, and the other one today was a Trade
Mission with the Atlantic Premiers in Miami, with the other Premiers on behalf
of the Atlantic Provinces. I cancelled two of those. I decided it was important
for the Province to be represented at the other conference, which was last week.
At that conference, six states, New England States, were represented. Five
provinces were represented, including Quebec.
On Monday, we had just announced the Lower Churchill project as proceeding
forward. The New England States are an extremely important customer. They were
very keen, very interested, in what we had to hear down there. There were also
interested in the potential of our natural gas and our oil. Our leading economic
initiative is ocean technology. That was the number one agenda item down there;
we spoke to that. We spoke to U.S. trade relations.
I left on Wednesday. I worked on Friday. I spoke to the Minister of
Fisheries. I spoke to some of my fellow Cabinet ministers. I spoke to the
federal Minister of Fisheries. I spoke to staff on fisheries issues.
I worked on Thursday, I worked on Friday, and I worked on Saturday. I got
home at 4:00 o'clock on Sunday morning. I went to bed for five hours. I went
out for Mother's Day. I worked yesterday afternoon, last night, and I am back
to work today. That is seven days a week. I can't do much more than that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It seems that the Premier works a lot, but he has not done much on the FPI
file. That is what I would say to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, talks broke down between the union and FPI over what
the union considered contract stripping. Mr. Speaker, we all remember when
another union, the papermakers union in Stephenville, were in talks with Abitibi,
the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources both said that they would not
tolerate contract stripping by the company.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will you stand today and give FPI employees
in this Province the same assurance that you gave to the people in Abitibi, that
you will not allow FPI to gut their contracts?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, and all members
of the House, know the extra effort that this government did in order to try and
bring a resolution to the problems in Stephenville. The people of Stephenville
acknowledge that. They are very much on side with what we are doing. We stepped
up to the plate in the biggest kind of a way in order to ensure that particular
mill would stay open.
Unfortunately, because of economic circumstances, what was going on in the
industry internationally, but also because of that particular company, we were
not able to accomplish what we set out to do; however, we did make a significant
step forward. We did everything we could, we thought, that was responsible and
balanced for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing exactly the
same thing when it comes to FPI.
I just left a meeting in the last hour, before I came to the House, with the
minister, with his deputy minister, with information from officials of the
department. We are in constant contact with the federal government. We are
advancing the Cooke Aquaculture file. We have the Department of Justice now
looking at possible amendments to the FPI Act with regard to governance, in
order to tighten up what the directors can do to make sure they are in
compliance with the spirit and intent of the act. There is a collective
bargaining process which is taking its course right now. The parties have asked
for conciliation; we are accommodating their request.
We are doing absolutely everything we can, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we saw the results of the Premier's efforts in
dealing with the Stephenville mill, even though he said it would never close
under his watch. I just hope that his efforts in dealing with FPI are better
than those that he had with Stephenville.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Deputy Premier often give conflicting
answers to same or similar questions. On May 4, when asked if he would consider
buying FPI, the Premier responded by saying: It is not going to happen. It does
not make good sense. It is not the right thing to do.
On May 10, just a week later, when asked a similar question, the Deputy
Premier said: Have we categorically stated that we would not buy FPI if we have
to? We have not. So, in terms of options, all options are open to us.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he can tell us what the answer is today.
Are you considering buying FPI?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not our preferred
option. It is not something we want to do. It is not something that we consider
the right thing to do. It has been suggested by members in the House. It has
been suggested by the union. We do not feel that this government should be in
the business of running FPI, so it certainly isn't under serious
consideration.
I have stated in this House, the Minister of Fisheries has stated in this
House, that all options are always open. We never close the door completely, but
that is certainly not, under any circumstances, a preferred solution to this
particular problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier: You are prepared to buy into the oil industry, you are
prepared to do a Hydro contract by yourself, but when it comes to our most
important industry you are prepared to do absolutely nothing.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the Deputy Premier say on many occasions in the past
few months that government was prepared to amend the FPI Act. Over the weekend,
the Deputy Premier stated in the media that legislative amendments could come
forward as early as this week.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What are these amendments that your minister
talks about all the time, and will these amendments be brought to this House
before the end of this week?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has already indicated, only a few
moments ago, that we are considering amendments to the FPI Act as it relates to
governance, for example, and other amendments that we have given serious
consideration to over the last several weeks. Whether they will be ready to
bring before the House before the end of this week, I really do not know. That
is another decision.
Certainly, the amendments that we have talked about publicly are in a form
that could be brought before the House rather soon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There seems to be a real pattern rising in this House between the Premier and
the Deputy Premier concerning FPI. Now, we heard about amendments three months
ago. Then when we question them: Oh, they may come forward. They may come
forward. When are you going to do something for the people who depend on FPI for
a living in this Province, or are you waiting until they all leave the Province
and find jobs elsewhere?
My final question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Premier. The Premier stated he
would not rule out buying fish quotas from FPI for the plant in Fortune. I say
to the Premier, that if FPI has fish quotas that are beyond their needs to
operate the plant in Marystown, then why are we buying those for Fortune? Why
can't that fish be processed in Fortune?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has said from time to time, and in the public domain just recently, that FPI, or
any other fish company for that matter out there that has quota, that is a
public property resource, that they better operate under the principle of use it
or lose it. Now, having admitted that and having said that, we, as a government,
turned our attention to buying quota from National Sea a couple of years ago
now, so that we could ensure a future for Arnold's Cove. We would -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?
MR. REID: Does FPI have fish that (inaudible)?
MR. RIDEOUT: We would, Mr. Speaker - we have said publicly. The Premier
has said, I have said, we would consider, if a quota is available from any
source - whether it is FPI, whether it is some other source. We would consider
it good public policy, Mr. Speaker, to be in a position to acquire that quota
for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to members of the Newfoundland and Labrador
delegation who attended the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston earlier
this month. These individuals have indicated to us that there was, certainly, a
chilly reception from the industry towards the Province's investment climate
and visits to the Province's booth were apparently way down this year. We know
this is having an impact on the local economy as well.
I ask the Premier: When will the industry have the regulatory and royalty
certainty they require so that local businesspeople can, once again, have
confidence in growing their business interests?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the Opposition House Leader to lay on the
table where the chilly reception was, who they got it from, because we would be
interested to assure any member who received a chilly reception. As a follow-up,
we would like to be able to do that. So, I ask the hon. member, if he has
substantive information that he would like to pass on for us to deal with, I
certainly would.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, my own information is this, we had the largest
delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador ever to attend the oil and gas show in
Houston. The largest delegation, led by a senior Minister of the Crown and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Our reports, and the reports that we
received back, was that there was a significant amount of interest related to
our industry with respect to gas development, with respect to oil development,
with respect to supply and service. Were there questions related to the
negotiations with Hebron? Absolutely! There were questions here, there were
questions in Newfoundland and Labrador and there were questions in Houston, ones
in which we would not shy away from.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter part of his question; our view has
been the same as it was six months ago, as it is today. Once the energy plan is
complete, which will be about four to six months from now, the certainty
surrounding natural gas royalty, development of wind energy, energy policy
generally, where that will go will be answered.
Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to stand by that commitment because of this
reason. For the first time in our Province's history we will have a plan that
speaks to the future in a coordinated, long-term and visionary sort of way.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps if the minister and the Premier had taken the time to be in Houston,
in fact, they would have felt the chill themselves and they would not have to be
looking to us for the answers.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard much over the past few weeks regarding the
problems associated with the Hebron-Ben Nevis project and the development of our
oil and gas industry. Officials with the oil companies have stated publicly that
they are in a holding pattern until government solidifies the rules which govern
the offshore, and they will not be moving forward with natural gas developments
until a royalty regime is in place.
The Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources have stated that no energy
projects, including such things as Anemos Energy, for example, will be approved
until the energy plan is finalized. However, last week the Premier, during a
polling period, announced his intentions for the Lower Churchill.
I ask the Premier: Why are you making announcements on the Lower Churchill
that contain no concrete details, yet your Minister of Natural Resources is
constantly saying we are not making any final decisions on anything until the
energy plan is done?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be
dictated to by oil companies, gas companies or anybody else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Fish companies (inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. leader of whatever he is leader now, interim
leader, possible new leader, Opposition leader, is mouthing off over there. I
mean, you went down there. You did not get a cool reception down in Houston
because you were out on the golf course all the time. There is a lot of heat out
there on the golf course. That is all you and your predecessors ever did when
you were down there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I go to these conventions to work. That is what I do
when I go to these conventions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, in answer to the question from the House Leader -
MR. REID: (Inaudible) Stephenville went down? South Carolina golfing. If
you want to talk golfing, you know more about golfing, you own three courses.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked. I ask the Premier now if he could complete his
answer quickly.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: In answer to the allegation from the Leader of the
Opposition, I haven't golfed in South Carolina in about ten years, so your
information is incorrect. Just so you know.
Mr. Speaker, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I mean, we have the
quote which the House leader gave when he did his interview on CBC, and he said:
If it going to be a weak deal, there should be no deal, and we are suggesting
that the Premier should stick to his guns by all means. I think there is some
posturing here by the oil companies. I think the Premiers should keep their feet
to the fire. If they think I am going to go to Houston to kiss the backsides of
oil companies, it is not going to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Just for the record, there is certainly nobody talking about me when they
talk about golf. I don't know the first thing about it. That must be between
the Premier and someone else over here, it is certainly not myself.
With respect to keeping their feet to the fire, no problem. We have been
suggesting that, Premier. All we have been trying to do, as an Opposition, is
find out some detail. We have gotten very little of that from you and your
government in the last three weeks.
Mr. Speaker, last Monday in the House of Assembly, the Premier stated that he
hopes to finance the Lower Churchill project through a guarantee from the
federal government. He stated that the Prime Minister made an election
commitment and he hoped the federal government would follow through on that
commitment. After reviewing the statements of the Prime Minister, it appears his
words are anything but a solid commitment to the Lower Churchill project.
I ask the Premier: Have you started any formal process with the federal
government to solidify this financing guarantee?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say we were prepared to do the
Lower Churchill on the basis of a guarantee from the federal government. I said
that we did have a commitment from the federal government, that we were prepared
to provide a guarantee. What I have said quite clearly though is that, if
others, like the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec, SNC Lavalin,
Trans Canada, and other companies, other groups and other consortiums are
prepared to do this project and they consider it to be feasible, why shouldn't
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do it? If everybody else finds it profitable,
if everybody else finds it economically feasible, and we have looked it and we
have studied it and we think it is feasible, why wouldn't we do it ourselves,
why wouldn't we own it ourselves, why wouldn't we keep it ourselves?
With regard to the commitment of the Prime Minister: I wrote the Prime
Minister during the last election as I wrote a previous Prime Minister during a
previous election. I wrote all leaders and got commitments from them in various
aspects of the election. This particular Prime Minister came back and said that
he would seriously consider a guarantee. When he was in St. John's, at an
interview at CBC, he said: I am quite prepared to do that. Now, that is a
definitive commitment and we will hold that government to that commitment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Thursday past, the MP for Labrador asked the Prime Minister a question in
the House of Commons regarding the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill
project. It is very telling that the Prime Minister was in the House of Commons
and our regional minister, Mr. Hearn, was in the House of Commons when that
question was asked and neither rose to respond. In fact, Natural Resources
Minister Gary Lunn responded on behalf of the federal government and he was
very, extremely, vague on whether this loan guarantee will be forthcoming.
I ask the Premier: What is Plan B if the federal government refuses to
provide the guarantee?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in my discussions with
him when he was here in the Province and when I returned to the mainland with
him, indicated that he wanted to see the business plan for the Lower Churchill.
That plan is being prepared. We want to make sure that, when we have the plan to
put before the government, we have the very best possible plan that we can put
forward, so we actually have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the minister's
department working on that right now. It will not be a power point presentation,
like the Member for Bellevue did when he used to drive up to Ottawa and look for
$800 million or a billion dollars and come up with a power point and turn around
with nothing.
In answer to that, we are in the process of preparing a business plan to
present to the Prime Minister, which, in all fairness, he wants; and the federal
minister, Minister Hearn, is clearly on the record that he very strongly
supports the Lower Churchill and our involvement and our lead on the Lower
Churchill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
commonly known as FERC, oversees and regulates the transmission of energy in
North America. If transmission
capacity is available in Quebec under FERC rules, Quebec must allow our
Province access to that transmission capacity for a feed.
My understanding is that this rule only applies if there is capacity
available. With Quebec's recent announcement of their $25 billion energy plan,
much of their available capacity is expected to be utilized.
I ask the Premier: If Quebec does not have existing capacity available for
the Lower Churchill power as a result of their own developments, would this
Province, and has it been contemplated that this Province would have to build
and maintain new transmission lines? If so, has that cost been factored into the
$6 billion to $9 billion figure that has been bandied about for the Lower
Churchill?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the Opposition House Leader asked that question. It just confirms
another reason exactly why I was in New England, exactly why I attended at Rhode
Island. I did actually have consultations with officials who are dealing with
FERC, a gentleman who has appeared before that body for a period of over
twenty-five years, who we now may be consulting on behalf of the Province to
look at these very issues.
Officials from Quebec were there at that particular conference, the Assistant
Deputy Minister was there, along with the Premier, so those issues have been
discussed and that is an ideal forum in which to discuss it because of the huge
demand for energy of all sorts in New England.
With regard to the upgrading of transmission, absolutely, if there is not
enough capability to carry what we are trying to deliver to either Ontario or to
the United States, it will have to be upgraded.
As you are aware, our power will not come on stream until about 2015. Ontario
needs a lot of juice right now. They are looking to buy some from Quebec at this
particular point in time. If Quebec power is going to be brought into Ontario
there will be upgrades necessary, so they will either be done to use our power,
to use Quebec power as it presently is. If there are upgrades involved, and if
there is additional cost involved, that would be part of the tariff that we
would have to pay in order to wield our electricity into other markets, and that
is an expense that has been factored in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My final question for the Premier: Over the past several years, environmental
assessment studies have been undertaken and completed on the Lower Churchill
project. On Monday past, government announced another study will be undertaken
that would take up to three years to complete. As a matter of fact, I understand
no final decision on the project is expected to take place until 2009.
I ask the Premier: What is the scope of this new environment assessment, and
why is the information contained in the other studies not sufficient or cannot
be used? Is there any particular reason we need a new one?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think if the member would reflect upon the question, it is
simply this: It has been about three-and-a-half to four years since the last
attempt to develop the Lower Churchill did not go anywhere. Rightly so, it did
not go anywhere. In 1997 and 1998, when some of these studies were completed,
again, there is dated information. This is up-front information, part of the
process that is required to move the project forward to project sanction,
hopefully, by 2009. This is a part of the environmental assessment process, both
provincially and federally, and a process that will adhere to the letter of the
law and a body of regulations that are associated with it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
When the minister was on this side of the House of Assembly, he met with
ambulance operators and supported their cause for increased services. In his
questions to the House at that time, he recognized that there was a lack of
ambulance services being provided in the city and that it was having a serious
impact upon people's health and, in some cases, jeopardizing their lives.
Today, I ask the minister who is now the Minister of Finance with surplus
budgets: Are you prepared to address this serious problem and instate a service
in this city that is comparable to other cities of its size across the country
just as you advocated for three short years ago?
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Visitors in the gallery are welcome to our House. It is not my wish to ask
you to leave; however, I ask you for your co-operation.
I would invite the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board to give a response to the question put by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, over six years ago I raised questions similar to what the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has indicated. Since that time I have been
informed, through the Department of Health, through the Regional Integrated
Health Authority, concerns I raised on April 27, 2003, over three years after
raising those concerns, that there were concerns with having ambulances in the
evening, and there was an extra ambulance put on every day from -
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If there are further interruptions from the gallery -
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If there are further interruptions from the gallery, the Speaker has no
choice but to ask the members who are here for this particular issue to leave.
The Chair recognizes, for a few concluding comments, the Minister of Finance.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was asked a question in the House, and I indicated that I would like an
opportunity to finish it.
I was informed by the Department of Health, in consultation with the Eastern
Regional Integrated Health Authority, that, on April 27, 2003, there was an
ambulance put on from four to twelve every day, and an extra twelve hours on
Saturday and Sunday. I have not heard their issue raised since 2003. I have
never raised it since that, while in Opposition.
At the time, I assumed that the action that was taken was adequate. I have
not heard from anyone on it in the last three years. As to what is happening in
the future, I am sure the Minister of Health is quite capable of answering
questions on his department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a
supplementary.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the time, the minister based his argument on the fact that there was a
lack of ambulance services and that there were six ambulances actually in the
Health Care Corporation, of which only four of them were in use at any time
serving a population of over 200,000 people.
Minister, today there are still only four ambulances in service on a daily
basis and two on an evening basis. The circumstances have not changed.
Now, as the Minister of Finance, will you make a commitment to deal with this
problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there was an increase in ambulatory service in 2003. Myself,
prior to the Budget, I did not hear any representation from the paramedics on
this particular issue. The Member for St. John's East, the former minister,
did not hear any representation from the paramedics on this issue, and the
former minister, the Member for Topsail, the former Minister of Health, did not
hear any representation from the paramedics on this issue.
In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, we have put $400,000 that was not budgeted
for in this year's Budget towards ambulatory services to increase dispatch
services and to put a transfer service on during the days.
Mr. Speaker, we have agreed that during the next six months we would review
the night services and address those services should they need to be addressed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
In October of last year the Premier said, in relation to Abitibi Consolidated
in Stephenville, and I quote: We have had enough of the antics of this company.
We are not going to be part of a union bust out there. That is not what this is
all about.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of FPI seeking to take away vacation pay, overtime,
bereavement leave, other types of leave, lower wages, why is it that the Premier
was so adamant about the actions of a private company, of which the Province has
no jurisdiction, and yet appears to be unwilling to take strong action against a
company that is a creature of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador over
which we have total control?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. gentleman for that question. I think it is a fair question.
We certainly did not like the way that Abitibi were behaving and the manner
in which they were treating the union and the employees out there. The union
wanted to enter into a bargaining arrangement. The union were quite comfortable
with what government had done in order to step up for the people in the
Stephenville region and on their behalf.
With regard to FPI, we do not like what FPI are doing with their workers,
quite frankly. That is why this government at its Cabinet meeting, and as
recently as this weekend, has authorized the Department of Justice to look at
the FPI Act, to look at possible amendments, and when those amendments are
ready, those amendments will be brought before this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, last fall the Premier and his government considered expropriation and
argued in favour of that. Today, an experienced international business advisor,
Bruce Keating, talked about the need for restructuring of the company and
suggested that the government should be much more aggressive in dealing with a
company who appears to be run by its competitors.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier will recall that it was a PC Government in 1984 that
created FPI out of restructuring. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and
his government appear to be willing to be weak and ineffectual when it comes to
FPI in the face of one of the most significant crises in rural Newfoundland
since the cod moratorium?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the Province will
accuse this government of being weak and ineffectual under any circumstances
whatsoever. This is a very, very complex matter. The hon. gentleman opposite
knows that. The members of the Liberal Party on the other side of the House all
know that. The fishery is an extremely complicated industry. What we are doing
is allowing some of the process to work out. You know, there are people now who,
this very day, are making an application to the Board of Directors of FPI. The
Member for Grand Falls-Buchans knows that. A relative of hers is looking at,
possibly, acquiring assets in the company. That is taking its course. The union
are taking their course with respect to Marystown. We are allowing these things
to move on. We are monitoring each and everyone of them very, very closely. As I
said before, when it comes to governance, when it comes to conflict of interest,
when it comes to the manner in which a couple of those individuals are running
that company, we are extremely concerned about it and we are having a hard look
at it and amendments will come before this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, there is time
for a very short question.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, consumers in this Province are paying too much for gas and home
heating fuel. We already know that Newfoundland Hydro have set the wheels in
motion to ask for another increase, which will affect all of us burning
electricity. The Minister of Finance has always maintained that the HST could
not be adjusted unless all Atlantic Provinces agreed, yet Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick have found a way to give a subsidy, equivalent to 8 per cent, to all
households in their jurisdictions. This is the same government that left a $76
million cash surplus on the table. What are you going to do about consumers in
this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance, time for a very brief response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This House is in recess. I ask the gallery to be cleared and when the House
is ready, the House will resume.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The
St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 31)
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I
give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 30)
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. tomorrow, and I give further notice, according to the same Standing
Order, Standing Order 11, that the House not close at 10:00 p.m. tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand again today with a petition on behalf of the residents on the North
Shore of the Bay of Islands concerning the Wild Cove dump site. Today I have a
petition signed from the residents of Cox's Cove, and this is over 1,000
people now who have signed the petition since it was circulated.
I will not read the prayer of the petition because we are all well aware of
it, but I will say now to the people on the North Shore that the two ministers,
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Minister of Environment
and Conversation, have agreed to meet with the concerned councils on May 26 in
Corner Brook so that they can voice their concerns. I just hope that the two
ministers will come with an open mind to listen to the concerns of the mayors,
and I hope that the decision is not already completed.
I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the Minister of Environment
and Conservation, if you have a bit of time, a half hour or fifteen or twenty
minutes, take a drive over to the dump site and you will see what the concerns
of the residents are and why the concerns are being expressed.
I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker. I always knew this, but
someone asked me to just bring it up in the House. The dump site is over there
for all the municipalities, the North Shore, the South Shore and the Bay of
Islands. I am from Corner Brook, Curling which is a part of Corner Brook. I can
take my truck, bring over any garbage, Monday to Saturday, and drop it off, no
problem. Someone from Irish Town or Hughes Brook, the adjacent communities, have
to pay twenty-five bucks to drop off a bag of garbage if it is not collected by
the garbage collector. This is for all the municipalities outside the City of
Corner Brook. It is unfair, if your town is paying a certain fee to the City of
Corner Brook to collect your garbage, that I, as a person from the City of
Corner Brook, can drop off garbage anytime I like free of charge.
I say to the two ministers, it is getting so bad now, when you drop off
garbage at the dump site you have to show an ID of your address. That is how bad
it is getting over there now. If people have to continue paying twenty-five
bucks, where is the garbage going to be? It is going to be on the sides of the
roads. It is going to be tossed over the banks somewhere. This is one of the
concerns, that somehow it has to be a regional dump site.
I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: I know you said in you speech
last week about the gulls flying around. I will just give you a little tidbit.
Go over and visit the dump site but wear plastic, because if you walk on the
dump site and you don't wear plastic around your shoulders, you will not be
able to wear that suit from stuff falling from the gulls; I can assure you that.
If you feel there are no gulls over there flying around, there are no gulls in
the dump site area, go over, take a walk over.
MR. J. BYRNE: I will be going over.
MR. JOYCE: And I hope I am with you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. JOYCE: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.
Has leave been granted?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. JOYCE: Just in closing, I look forward to meeting with the two
ministers in Corner Brook. Thank you for agreeing to meet with the councils.
Again, visit the dump site just so you can get a firsthand view.
If there is going to be a regional disposal site, as the minister says, this
is what has to be explained to the residents of the North Shore. They are
unaware of it. I can tell you, they are unaware of it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank District.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of the District of
Grand Bank. The same petition that I have been presenting now since, I guess,
the House has been sitting this session; a petition that has been signed by
hundreds of people who worked at the plant in Fortune but, as well, people who
are now feeling the impacts of that plant being closed.
What they are asking in the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is that the
government find a way to ensure that the quota traditionally processed at the
fish plant in Fortune continue to be processed there. They really are feeling
the impacts of having, I guess, borne the brunt of the callous actions of a
company like Fishery Products International, when they chose to close the plant
in Fortune, putting over 300 people out of work. I think if you do the
multiplying factor, Mr. Speaker, you realize that we are talking about more than
300-some odd people. In fact, when you look at a small community like Fortune
and the other communities that are being impacted by this decision, you are
talking about eight communities all together. Not only the communities where
people actually worked at the plant, but the fishermen who supply the product to
the plant as well. Then you have to look at the businesses that relied on the
money that was made by the employees who worked at that plant.
So, concerning the multiplier effect here, you have hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of people being impacted by a decision made by a company who has lost
sight of their social responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A company that was created to not only make a profit, as we expect all companies
to do, but in doing so, bear in mind that you are able to make that profit
because of the people who work for you. What we are finding today is that
hundreds of people are out of work because of FPI and we are calling on the
government - and I am doing it on behalf of my constituents. In fact, on behalf
of the entire Burin Peninsula, because do not forget, people who work there in
Fortune shop in other parts of the Burin Peninsula, particularly in Marystown.
So I am calling on behalf of the government to acknowledge that there is an
issue here, recognize that if we could keep those quotas in Fortune, to be
processed in Fortune, then there would be employment opportunities for the
people who traditionally processed that fish in Fortune. All it would take would
be for this government to use the authority it has under the FPI Act - it is a
piece of legislation - that they can come back into this House, amend however
they see fit, to ensure the quota that is traditionally processed in a
community, stays within that community, but that is not what is happening today.
What we are finding today is we have Harbour Breton closed, we have Fortune
closed, and we have Marystown where we have seen a significant cut in the
workforce there. What we are saying is that if FPI has surplus in terms of
quota, then why wouldn't they just turn it over to Fortune or turn it over to
Harbour Breton? Why is it that we have to have a discussion about whether or not
we are going to buy quota? What the people here are asking is for the government
and the company to recognize the historical attachment here to the fishery and
to try and do everything possible, as a government, to make sure that those fish
continue to be processed at those plants where they have been processed
historically.
If you were to look in my district, in particular, you would see what is
happening to people. They are having to leave on a daily basis. They are going
to Alberta. They are going to Northern B.C. They are going to P.E.I. They are
going to wherever there is employment opportunities available to them. The
difficulty with that, of course, is that they are either having to leave their
families or the entire family will be moving. That is what we are fearful of now
come June, that the exodus we have seen to date will be that much greater -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if I could have leave to revert to Notices of Motion? There was one
that had to be put down. I do not think that would be too much difficulty. I
just want to have leave so -
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to give notice, and by leave, move that Mr. Charles Furey be
appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under
section 4.(1) of the Elections Act,
1991, effective May 1, 2006 and that Mr. Charles Furey be appointed as a
Commissioner of Members' Interest under
section 34.(2) of the House of
Assembly Act, effective March 1, 2006.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the undersigned
residents. The prayer of the petition simply goes:
WHEREAS the Department of Education, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
is responsible for funding school districts in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Eastern School District is responsible for the administration and
funding of schools in the Eastern District and, in particular, Harbour Grace
Primary School at Harbour Grace; and
WHEREAS Harbour Grace Primary School at Harbour Grace is a Kindergarten to
Grade 4 school which provides education to children from the Carbonear-Harbour
Grace area; and
WHEREAS the Eastern School District is currently recommending closing Harbour
Grace Primary School and transferring the young children to St. Francis School,
a Grades 6 to 9 school;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to support the residents of Harbour Grace in their request to
have the Harbour Grace Primary School in the Town of Harbour Grace remain open,
and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I received this petition over the weekend, and it is signed by
quite a large number of residents of the town. They have asked me to offer my
disappointment and their disappointment at the decision of the Eastern School
District to close yet another school in that particular town. The closing date
is scheduled to be 2010. The school slated for closure, Harbour Grace Primary,
is one of the newest schools in the district. It was built in 1989.
Mr. Speaker, we all support maintaining high standards in our educational
system. I would be the first to applaud the construction of a new school if it
were believed to be needed in the area.
I think there has to be an assessment done of the schooling needs and the
school buildings in that particular area.
I received a number of letters from the mayor and from other concerned
citizens. One of the things that galled the people most of all was that they
were only allowed a ten-minute stopwatch presentation to a minority group of
elected trustees. When I say a minority, there were two trustees out of fifteen
who were there. Now, when you only have two people representing a group of
fifteen, how can anything constructive be accomplished? There was no time given.
There were no allowances made for conversation afterwards and no input from any
of the residents there; ten-minute presentations by the people of that community
to two people of that board.
Mr. Speaker, the Town of Harbour Grace is a very historic town and they
deserve better. I have worked with the town long enough to know that they are
open to healthy, constructive dialogue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. SWEENEY: By leave to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that after today I will be
back again on this issue. It is a very, very important issue, I say to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs. The people out there, and the children in
particular, deserve to have a full hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting today that the petitions we are hearing are really the
voices of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and they are falling on deaf ears.
Today, again, I am standing on behalf of the residents of Buchans and all the
area connected to the Buchans Highway, which would include Millertown, Buchans
Junction, Badger and Buchans.
It is also interesting, Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard Randy Simms talking
about the Portnoy case of bureaucratic paralysis. I would say this is
politicians' paralysis. When they hear the needs they just slough it off,
because from what we are hearing, the need is great. The need is great in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador and, particularly, in the Buchans area.
I had several letters and e-mails from people who work at the hospital, who
are afraid to bring patients over the highway, afraid intravenous would slip
from the patient's arm, afraid that they would not make the hospital in time.
Then you have two new industries that want to be able to bring heavy
equipment over the highway, and that same heavy equipment will be bringing
dollars for the provincial Treasury. Now, this is something that the Minister of
Finance is overlooking. You have at least 250 permanent jobs being created in
the Buchans-Millertown area, so this government has an obligation to put down a
good highway and maintain it.
The highway is there; the basic structure is there. There has been nothing
done with it in the past three years, but this government has an obligation and
a responsibility to the people of that area who in turn spend money all over our
Province.
They are trying to say that they are promoting economic development. They are
willing to spend money over in Strawberry Hill Resort, the Terra Nova Lodge,
trying to drum up something for the Rural Secretariat to announce in a booklet
that she never even prepared this year, and I can fill her book. I can fill her
book with good news announcements from the Buchans area, but they will not
listen.
They have an obligation to spend some money on that highway so they can take
pride in the money that they are going to collect for the public Treasury; yet,
the Minister of Transportation and Works said he has no interest. He has no
interest in the Buchans Highway, as he said here in this newspaper. He has never
been over the highway and, furthermore, he is not going to spend or ask any of
his cabinet colleagues to come up with any money. Yet, the Finance Minister
stands in his place, takes $76 million, and plows it right back into the
Treasury again. He has no need for that money. Here is a crying need on the
Buchans Highway and this government are sitting on their rear ends today in
sealskin chairs and saying that there is no need to pave the Buchans Highway!
They need to re-examine their mandate -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to give the House an indication, notice, that, pursuant to Standing
Order 36 of our Standing Orders, which deals with Matters of Urgent Public
Importance, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and Leader of the Opposition
will be shortly seeking leave of the House pursuant to subsection 3. Subsection
1 requires that this motion be made, or leave be sought, following the ordinary
routine, daily routine, of business being concluded and before the Orders of the
Day are entered upon.
I am assuming that we are past that daily routine piece and this would be the
appropriate place in which to give notice of that application or motion pursuant
to thirty-six, and it will be the Member for Twillingate & Fogo who will be
moving that pursuant to subsection 3, seeking leave to move the adjournment of
the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance,
and he will, of course, be stating that matter.
MR. SPEAKER: I note that the hon. the Opposition House Leader forwarded
to me, after the opening of the House today, a copy of the proposed motion. I
thank him for that.
The Chair would hear commentary - one from each side of the House, if
desirable - as to why this matter should be part of an emergency debate or why
it should not. The Chair will listen to the commentary - hopefully, a very brief
commentary - and then the Chair will recess the House and make a decision.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave under subsection 3 of Matters of Urgent
Public Importance and I will asking for leave to move the adjournment of the
House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. It is
concerning FPI, Mr. Speaker, and what is happening to the company.
We would like to be able to have a special meeting of the House of Assembly
starting immediately, because we have been asking questions on FPI for the past
three, four, five or six months and we have not been getting the appropriate
answers from the members of the government.
It is an urgent need, Mr. Speaker, because, as we speak, there are many
people in communities like Harbour Breton, Fortune, now in Marystown, in Triton,
Bonavista, in Port au Choix and Port Union, who are trying to make up their
minds as to whether or not they should remain in the Province in the hope that
FPI stays afloat in some of these communities, while in others, like Marystown
and Fortune, they just want to know whether or not they should move on, or if
there is any hope of that plant, or those plants, ever being opened again.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the time has come, after all of the procrastination
that we see from this government in dealing with it, the issue, when they talk
about bringing legislation before the floor now for the last four months, and
things that they are going to do with the company: they are going to charge them
for this, that or the other thing; they are going to bring forward legislation -
but in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, as we speak, it reminds me of the phrase: Nero
fiddled while Rome burned.
In this particular case, I guess, it is the government that is fiddling while
communities that have plants owned and operated by Fishery Products
International are going down the tubes and people are being faced with complete
devastation, upheaval in their own families and their lifestyles, and they are
being forced to seek employment out of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the government, realizing the importance of
FPI to these communities - because a number of the towns, like the Member for
Bonavista South, his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment,
who represents Triton, is up there, and the member who represents Port au Choix.
All of these members, I am sure, would like - and, on the Burin Peninsula, I am
sure that the Minister of Tourism, who represents Marystown, would like to stand
today and try to come to some conclusion or some decision as to what actions
need to be taken by government.
We are willing to take whatever actions are necessary to amend the
legislation to protect that company for the people for whom it was originally
intended and for whom it was originally established, and they are the people who
live in rural communities and work for Fishery Products International, so I
would assume, Mr. Speaker, that all of those members opposite would like to rise
and give consent to give leave so that we can carry on with this very much
important debate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would just like to read the motion. It is a
motion for an emergency debate on FPI and it reads:
WHEREAS several FPI plants are currently closed; and
WHEREAS other plants are in immediate danger of closing; and
WHEREAS thousands of people are currently in the process of deciding whether
to leave the Province and are looking to government for action which would
encourage them to stay;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to
immediately bring forward amendments to the FPI Act which will enable government
to force the company to adhere to the principles upon which that company was
established.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for the last what?, since the House has been open, the issue
surrounding FPI, the decisions the company is taking, the consequences of those
decisions, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the communities in
which they are operating, have been debated thoroughly, or have been debated in
Question Period each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, government is fully aware of the significance and the importance
of what is occurring or not occurring with respect to FPI.
Now, what the statement calls for today is for us to begin an emergency
debate this afternoon, which means - this is what the Opposition is asking for -
we suspend the rest of the parliamentary day, so we do not do any business in
terms of legislation that we have planned for today. That debate, then, if we
agree to that, no legislation will be discussed today, and that debate can go on
no longer than 6:00 o'clock tonight.
What the member has asked for, and I listened to him intently, is contained
in the THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED part of his motion. "THEREFORE
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to immediately bring
forward amendments to the FPI Act which will enable government to force the
company to adhere to the principles on which the company was established. On
Friday past, my colleague, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, talked about, publicly, that that is the direction we are headed in
today.
Under direct questioning today, Mr. Speaker, by the Leader of the Opposition
with respect to amendments to the FPI Act, and I think in response to questions
directed by the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the
Premier alluded that the Department of Justice is working on that right now.
With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, as asked by the Opposition, we won't be
granting leave to suspend the Orders of the Day and suspend the legislative
debate. The Premier has indicated we are moving in a direction and making some
decisions very soon with respect to the FPI Act, and potential and possible
legislative changes to that. Once that is complete and our assessment is
complete, we will be bringing it forward at that time, Mr. Speaker. So, we won't
be providing leave for the request today.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a brief presentation by the hon. the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the position of the Government House Leader, but I didn't
understand it as a request for leave. Although I know the unanimous vote of the
House can have an emergency debate, this, in fact, is a matter in the hands of
the Speaker based on the principles and the discretion that lies in the Speaker's
hands.
I will say, though, that Question Period is not debate, is not supposed to be
debate, although obviously it is an opportunity to ask questions. If Question
Period were an alternative to emergency debates in Houses of Assembly or
Parliaments, there would never be any emergency resolutions. I think that
particular argument shouldn't hold much weight.
We haven't had a full debate on FPI. We did have one last summer when
amendments were being put forward. So, there hasn't been a debate on this. In
the sense of emergency, Mr. Speaker, there has to be some pressing matter. I
will put forth for your consideration some statements made this morning on CBC
by Mr. Bruce Keating who is said to be an international business consultant who
is working out of the United Kingdom. He is a Newfoundlander advising people
like Chevron, Texaco and Ford Motor Company. He talked about this company as
being on the verge of collapse. He talked about the need for the Province to act
urgently and more aggressively to start to specify what changes may need to be
made to the Act, initiating discussions with debt holders, et cetera. It is an
issue of restructuring of the fishery. He also referring to a rising level of
concern about control of the Board of Directors of FPI by competitors. These are
matters that have been drawn to the urgent attention of you, Sir, as Speaker, to
give rise to the need for an emergency debate at this time. It is not enough for
the government to say, look, we are working on it, we are going to get to it, it
is something that we have been thinking about and we are talking to lawyers
about, and all of that. I think the nature of those changes again - he says
here: It is time for the government to put forward the kind of ideas, and say
just what they are prepared to do, to let us know and specify what changes the
government are prepared to make.
In the context of that situation, the terrible situation in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, the need for this flagship company, FPI, created by
an Act of the Legislature to act in the best interests of the people in rural
Newfoundland and the demonstrable fact that they have not been doing that, all
of these give rise to the urgency that is laid upon you, Sir, today, as reasons
for an emergency debate on FPI.
Those are my comments in support of the suggestion of the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a very brief presentation by the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had a word when I gave notice we were seeking leave, but I would like to
have a comment, if I might now, regarding the propriety of the leave request.
I think it is fairly straightforward here. Under Standing Under 36,
subsection 4, which is the point we are at right now, the member provides the
Chair, the Speaker, with the written commentary as to what we would like to
debate. The Chair, yourself, Mr. Speaker, decides two things at this point. You
decide whether it is in order, i.e., I take that to be the grammatical form of
what it is as a motion to this House. We understand that it is in order having
cleared it with the Table Officers prior to giving it to Your Honour. The second
issue is: of urgent public importance. That rests with the Chair. It is fine for
us to stand here and say that it is important, urgent, and the Government House
Leader to say he does not think it is urgent, but that decision rests with
yourself. The Chair, no doubt, would take into consideration all of the
surrounding circumstances of the issue to decide whether it is not urgent. We
certainly know it is public. We certainly know it is important. It says, of
urgent public importance. Those are the three operative words here. There is
nobody in this House or in this Province who is going to say that debating FPI
is not public. There is nobody going to say that it is not important. The only
issue we have, I would submit, for the Chair to consider is, is it urgent.
One might argue that it is not urgent because we have been talking about it
in Question Period, and some members have talked about it in the budgetary
context, for the last two or three months. The bottom line is, a lot of things
have happened in the last few days; a lot of things. Even the Premier has
acknowledged, for example, that he, himself, while he was in Rhode Island on a
conference, as recently as Friday past, this thing has reached urgent
proportions. The Premier is on one conference out of the country and he is on
the phone in constant contact, acknowledged by himself, acknowledged by the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on the public airwaves this Friday past,
that I am in constant contact with the Premier discussing this issue. I think
that is where the boiling point was reached was on Friday. That is just from the
Premier's perspective of giving the urgency to it, and the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, but in addition to that we have had the union
situation.
We have not had an opportunity to come back in this House and make such a
request until today, the House not having been in session on Friday. We know
what happened between the union and the company. Now if that does not give you
some sense of urgency, when every living soul, other than management, who works
with FPI, all of a sudden fear for their future, and given the comments of the
union leadership, I do not know what else we can have to indicate urgency to
government and to the public here. What are we supposed to do? Wait like we did
in the Abitibi situation, let is drag out and drag out and drag out, and then
all of a sudden when the issue is dead, the doors are locked and they are all
gone back to Mainland, Canada, somebody says: Oh my God, it was urgent after
all, but we did not deal with it.
As far as having been discussed on previous occasions in this House, I agree
with the Leader of the NDP. It has been raised in Question Period. Dozens and
dozens of questions from the Leader of the Opposition here have been asked of
this government, but the fact that he has asked the questions does not deal with
the issue, because we have gotten very little answers. The government has been
all over the place on this issue and not been focused. In fact, there was a
private member's motion, I do believe, in this sitting about FPI and asking
this government for an inquiry, and they said no.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the member if he could conclude his presentation. I have heard
the presentation and I am reminded of -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is anxious to hear the presentations, however we have to be very
careful - the rules are laid out in Marleau and Monpetit - that we do not engage
in debate. Several times we have been very close to that and I would ask the
member if he would keep that in mind in concluding his presentation.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate your informing me of that. There is no intention to debate here.
The intention here, Your Honour, is strictly to inform the Chair of the types of
circumstances that get taken into consideration to determine if the issue of
urgency has been established. I submit that it has, and once that decision is
made there is not a case of leave or no leave, I would submit. If you follow on,
under subsection 4 under
section 36 the procedure is laid out quite clearly as
to where we go from there. If this Chair, Your Honour, decides that it is in
order and that it is of urgent public importance, that ends it at the point of
the Chair, we put it to a vote in this House and if twelve members in this House
decide we should debate it, the debate should then be on.
MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the hon. members for their presentations.
They are helpful to the Chair. The Chair will recess the House and come back
with a decision in about ten minutes. We will ring the bells appropriately.
This House is now in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Are the Whips ready?
MR. E. BYRNE: Ready, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair thanks hon. members for their presentations.
The request for an emergency debate, or a debate on a matter of urgent public
importance as per Standing Order 36, is governed by our parliamentary
traditions, the practices of our House, and the practices in other Parliaments
that follow the Westminster model. By reference, we also consult the authorities
in this matter: May , Beauchesne, Marleau and Montpetit .
The main issue is the urgency of the debate, not the urgency of the matter
itself. Beauchesne states it clearly on page 113, 390, "Urgency'
within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means urgency of
debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do
not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest
demands that discussion take place immediately."
In other words, urgency would imply that irreparable harm could occur if the
matter was not dealt with immediately by the Legislature.
I also note that it has been very rare in our House for a request for debate
on a matter of urgent public importance to be granted without leave of the
House. Members will know that many such debates have occurred with the consent
of the House; however, my research indicates the last occasion a Speaker in our
House granted such a request was twenty-eight years ago, in 1978, and involved a
matter where there was immediate potential for harm to the people of the
Province.
The Chair is of the opinion that, while there may be some varying opinions on
the urgency of the matter, the urgency of debate itself does not meet the
criteria that would cause the Speaker to grant leave for an emergency debate in
today's sitting.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members opposite would know - at least this is the rule that I operated
under, when I was in the Opposition - that governments open the House and
Oppositions close them; so, when we leave this place, it is entirely up to how
much debate we have. It is not a matter for government to say we are opening
today and closing tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, unless we completely took every piece
of legislation off the Order Paper.
I can say to members of the House, and the public, that we have business left
to do, to discuss on a variety of matters through legislation, and we will do
exactly that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the matter today, before I call Bill 22,
An Act To Amend
The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I do want to move a few
motions so we can get other legislation on the Table.
Motion 2, that we move first reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Student
Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that hon. the Minister of Education
shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Student
Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 29)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall
have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act
To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.
(Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.
On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to move second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Workplace
Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 22, introduced by my colleague, the
Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,
Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as many times as you rise in this House on many different
occasions - this being some thirteen years in this Legislature - we speak on
many important pieces of legislation. Of course, this is certainly an important
piece of legislation. In my years here, I have to say that this can also be
referred to today as a very special piece of legislation.
Before starting my remarks - you did it earlier today, and I would like to do
it now again today - I would like to acknowledge Hilda Whelan, who is in our
gallery today. Many women throughout this Province know her name very well, and
I am sure many Members in the House of Assembly certainly do, dealing with Hilda
over a long period of time.
Mr. Speaker, just a quick story. The first day that I entered my new office
as Minister of Human Resources, Employment and Labour - and Hilda knows this
story - the very first message on the top of a pile of messages was none other
than Hilda Whelan, and her phone number, and: Please, could you call me back
immediately?
Mr. Speaker, I did know the name because the fact of the matter is that I had
spoken to - and, of course, we had discussions with - the former Minister of
Human Resources, who is now the Minister of Education, on a number of occasions
about the discussion, of course, about the debate on the issue, but also in
talking about Hilda and how she has brought forward this particular issue for a
long, long time.
It is sort of coincidental today that we are standing on Monday, the day
after Mother's Day - Mr. Speaker, I am sure nobody in the House today would
mind if I extended that Mother's Day to say Happy Mother's Day to many
people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe it is a
special day for Hilda and many of her friends today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, Hilda has been a spokesperson - you can call it
official or unofficial - for a group of women in this Province who have been
bringing forward this issue for a long, long time. After just returning her
call, of course, and then Hilda coming in to speak with me just after that -
that is some months ago now. When you sit down and talk to one of these ladies
and get the real story I guess, the individual stories - because today in this
House of Assembly we will certainly have discussion, I know, back and forth
across the House, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to comments by all members of
this House today. I guess you can never really stand here and tell the real
story unless you knew all of the individual cases. Sixty-one women in this
Province now have watched this debate and discussion unfold for a long time.
I am sure when the Minister of Education gets up to talk later today, Mr.
Speaker, she will reiterate some of the points that she has heard throughout her
tenure as she dealt with this particular issue. But, it is not until you sit
down and deal with individuals, especially Hilda, I have to say, that you really
get a perspective on the real story that has evolved here over a long period of
time.
It is funny, too, today, Mr. Speaker, with the circumstances in the House -
and we certainly were delayed slightly, because you never know what will happen
in the Legislature. I told Hilda that before she came in today, but certainly, I
guess after waiting for so long, that a few more minutes is not going to make
too much difference. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, another part of me says,
after such a long time: Get on with it. I assured Hilda today that I would not
be doing any hour-and-a- half or hour speech or anything like that, because we
have gone over this issue. It is very well-known to all members in this
Legislature; very well-known to the sixty-one women across this Province who
have been following this debate and this issue for a lifetime. As I said
earlier, the individual stories would probably tell the truest and most honest
story behind this particular piece of legislation.
The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, not a lot of words, but what it means is very
important to, not just the sixty-one women affected directly, but I think a
message to this entire Province, indeed, the entire country from that point of
view. The explanatory note, I guess, if you read the explanatory note.
"This bill would add a proposed subsection 65 (1.1) to Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensations Act to allow payment of compensation benefits to
surviving spouses who remarried before 1985. This would be retroactive to April
17, 1985."
I guess, Mr. Speaker, if I want to get into detail and go down through the
history, we could talk about a lot of things here today. But, the fact of the
matter is, Hilda and the rest of the women in this Province, some who live
outside the Province now - I know, by the way, that a lot more would like to be
here in the galleries today, because I talked to Hilda just a few minutes ago.
Of course, a lot of them are watching today, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker,
because a lot of them cannot travel; varying age groups, different reasons and
so on. I understand one lady, eighty-three years old, said she would love to be
here today but she did not want to travel from Central Newfoundland. I have a
lady in my own district who has been talking to me for a number of years, way
back, about this particular issue. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a special piece of
legislation. It is special for, as I just said, not just the sixty-one women who
are directly affected by this, but I think for our whole Province.
So, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Workplace Health,
Safety And Compensation Act to provide retroactive benefits to sixty-one spouses
of fatally injured workers who remarried prior to 1985 and the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, equality provision,
section 15 was enacted. The issue of paying
retroactive workers compensation benefits to spouses of workers who died as a
result of a work-related illness or accident who have since remarried has been
the subject of debate for many, many years. The termination of spousal benefits
upon remarriage places an extraordinary burden on widows and their families,
especially in cases where the subsequent marriage has also ended due to death or
divorce. Many of the women were very young and left to care for their children
and, in many cases, Mr. Speaker, the children were only infants and, as I said
earlier, the individual stories that can be told with this particular piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am introducing today ensures that women of
fatally injured workers who remarried before 1985 and those who remarried after
1985 are treated consistently and fairly. That is where the debate happens, that
in 2001, when the task force went ahead, the government of the day, at the time
in 2002, did provide compensation benefits for spouses who married after 1985.
What that did, it split it into two significant groups, and the group who
married before 1985 believed that was unjust and was unfair, Mr. Speaker, we, as
a government, believe the same thing.
I would like to thank my colleague, the former Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment who began this debate sometime ago with Hilda, and also
other people throughout the Province. It has been still, in my mind, a long time
coming, although it seems short, I guess, in the history of 1995 up to today.
But, at the end of the day, I guess to wrap it all up, what we believe is the
just and fairest thing to do is that these sixty-one women from Newfoundland and
Labrador are fairly treated. That is what this is all about, and that is why,
without going on with a longer history - and I know I will hear some comments
today on both sides of the House - that it is a special day, and I am pleased to
be a part of a government with the support of the Premier and my colleagues of
the government, to support this and to bring forward this amendment.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this bill. I
think the hon. minister said that he was in the House for thirteen years and I
have been here for seventeen years and, to me, it is a very important piece of
legislation that we are considering here. I also can relate to the minister in
terms of how happy he is about this piece of legislation.
I know, in my short term as Minister of Labour, I corrected one of the
inequalities that existed in terms of Canada Pension. One of the last things I
did, as a minister, was to make sure that 340 individuals received something
like $8 million because there was an injustice made on the Canada Pension and
Workers' Compensation. So I think this is fantastic in terms of the people who
are going to receive it. I received quite a number of calls on this in the last
number of days and number of weeks in terms of some of the individuals who are
about to receive the money from this particular settlement.
As a matter of fact, I received a call about three weeks ago from an
individual, sadly to say, who was receiving treatment for cancer. I guess she
was calling me and wondering when she was going to be able to receive this money
and to clarify what was happening in terms of this particular piece of
legislation. I said: Well, the procedure is that the government has to bring the
legislation before the House. The legislation has to be passed. My understanding
is that the cheques are available at Workers' Compensation to be paid
immediately, just waiting for this bill to be passed in the House of Assembly.
I am recommending now that - normally the minister, the critic and the NDP
speak in second reading and we go into committee - my recommendation right now,
and I propose that we immediately pass this piece of legislation. Normally, a
piece of legislation -
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Government House
Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: I do not mean to interrupt the member, I just want to let
him know that prior to the House today, myself and your House Leader had already
agreed to that. So it will be passed immediately.
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) individual, as a member in this House, I
recommend that we go through all the stages of the bill and pass it immediately.
Hopefully -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. BARRETT: No. I am just talking about how seriously I think, as a
member in this House of Assembly and as the critic for labour in this Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador - they waited long enough. The House has been open
for a month. We normally go through second reading, committee and third reading
of the House, but precedents in this House has shown that we can pass a piece of
legislation in five minutes. If everybody on this side of the House and on that
side of the House agree with the legislation, then we can go ahead and pass it
so that the people at Workers' Compensation have the cheques available and the
woman I talked about, who is receiving cancer treatment, can get her cheque
today and she can travel to St. John's, because she lives a great distance
from St. John's. She needs the money right now to get back and forth to St.
John's.
My recommendation is: Go ahead, pass this legislation immediately, and go
through all of the stages. I want to congratulate the minister on passing this
piece of legislation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Justice is sometimes a long time coming, and sometimes it comes in stages and
dribs and drabs. With all due respect to the previous speaker, who was so urgent
and obvious, it is surprising that it has taken this long to get to this point.
I know that they are bringing into place the Charter of Rights back in 1983.
Even at that time the postponement of the rights in favour of women was placed
until April 17, 1985, two years later. Just because the legislation, the Charter
of Rights, for example, which, as of April 17, 1985, actually forced governments
to comply with the rights of equality for women, it does not mean that the
rights of equality for women ought not to be recognized prior to that date.
I think this is something that the women who were affected by this have been
fighting for, for many, many years. Justice does not actually arrive until
someone is prepared to fight for it, to continue to fight for it, and have the
determination shown by these women in keeping this issue in the forefront and
not letting it die.
I want to congratulate them in success in their fight for justice. Let us
remember what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where
individuals who were survivors of a person in receipt of workers'
compensation, or people who had died or were killed on the job, who received a
widow's pension or allowance, that, upon them remarrying, regardless of the
financial circumstances, presumably, of the person to whom they were marrying,
they got cut off workers' comp. The assumption was that, if you were going to
get married, well, the person you are marrying is obliged to support you and
therefore your right, your independent right, to workers' compensation is
going to be cut off as a survivor of person injured or killed on the job.
When you think about it right now, in the Twenty-First Century, we are all
shocked by that, but that was government policy; and, not only government
policy, it was implemented by the Workers' Compensation Commission for many,
many years. It is only as the notion of rights and equality matures do we even
get shocked by situations like that.
I know this has come in stages, because there was an amendment to 1993,
another one in 1998, and now we have a third one undoing, at least for those who
are still alive, the wrong that was done to their rights along the way.
I am very supportive of this legislation. I am grateful, for the sake of the
women who carried on this fight, that they have been able to be successful in
persuading this government - with a little bit of help, I guess, from the courts
and other provinces in terms of the rightness of the cause - that this is the
right thing to do. We certainly agree, in the New Democratic Party, it is the
right thing to do. It is something that we supported for a long time.
I know my colleague from Labrador West will want to say a few words on this
as well. I, too, support, as I did when suggested by the minister, that we do,
if we can, with unanimous consent, have a speedy passage of this legislation
today while those who have been carrying on this struggle - some, I think, are
present in the gallery - and a special recognition, of course, to Hilda Whelan
for leading that particular charge and for bringing to the attention of all of
us this injustice that needed to be corrected.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to be able to speak to this amendment today, because this
has been an issue that I have been following and working on since I became the
Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency in February, 2004.
When I left that ministry in November of last year, to take on the Department
of Education, of all of the issues that you leave behind, this was one I felt
very close to. If the minister responsible had to look beyond the message from
Hilda Whelan as his first message, he would have seen my message right behind it
that we need to speak.
Mr. Speaker, being the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women really
came to life when I began to look at this issue. As the Minister Responsible for
the Labour Relations Agency in February, 2004, one of my first calls, as well,
was from a woman named Hilda Whelan. I returned the call, and I think probably
one of the first official meetings I had in that capacity as well was with Ms
Whelan. She came in and she laid out the issues as to what she felt was an
injustice to a group of widows in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Basically, as we have heard here in the House, years ago, prior to the
Charter of Rights, many policies of government, and probably within society,
within the community, often marginalized women and often set up a situation
where women were treated in a manner that was less than fair, and they did not
have the same rights to share equitably in many of the social programs.
Then, in 1985, we certainly had the Charter of Rights which meant that women
could not be discriminated against, or people could not be discriminated
against, because they were women or because of their marital status. In an ideal
world on that day when the amendments came to the Charter of Rights, it is
absolutely on that day that the people whose benefits as a widow were
discontinued because they remarried. They should have been reinstated right on
that day, and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, today we are able to do that. We are
able to go back and retroactively make the payments back to April of 1985, when
they should have been reinstated, when the Charter came into effect.
Mr. Speaker, the policies at that time certainly advocated the societal view
that women were not the breadwinners and that they would be taken care of by
their husbands. When a person was killed in a workplace accident, the surviving
spouse, and in all these cases are widows, are women, they had to live on
benefits that have been described to me at the time as being less than the rates
of what we would consider Income Support today. When they remarried, and if that
marriage only lasted a month - I talked to one widow, and that was the case -
they did not get their benefits reinstated.
The unfortunate part about all this, Mr. Speaker, is that many of these women
lived in extreme poverty, as women with children. In the case of Ms Whelan, she
had two infants. She had one infant who was probably six weeks old, and another
one who was less than two. Mr. Speaker, based on the income that they received
because of the policies of that day, they lived in a barn, and she raised the
children for a number of years living in a barn. That is all she could provide
for her children.
Mr. Speaker, when amendments came to the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act back in 2001, at that time there was a group of widows in
Newfoundland and Labrador who had their benefits cut off. As a result of the
legislation in 2001, the widows were divided into two groups: one who we
acknowledged, as a Province, that they would get retroactive benefits, and the
women who married prior to 1985 received no compensation.
Mr. Speaker, we are back today to right a wrong that happened to those women
at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, these women lost their spouses through no fault of
their own. They went to work one day and, because of a fatal accident, they were
unable to return. We had policies of government that certainly did not take care
of the women at that time.
As Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, when I started to deal with
this particular issue and deal with Ms Whelan as either the official or
unofficial spokesperson for this group, it became very apparent what the whole
role was of being the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. It is how we
advance the status of women in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. To be
able to advocate and work on policy change that really make sure that women are
able to share equally in the benefits of this Province is what it is all about,
to be able to be attached to the Women's Policy Office, to be able to provide
advice to departments, and to be able to provide a gender analysis to the
policies or the legislation that we move forward. Mr. Speaker, this was truly an
example, where women were not treated fairly under the legislation, where we
have been able to go back and help the situation.
Mr. Speaker, there is one woman who lives in the District of St. George's-Stephenville
East who I spoke to, Ms Theresa Snook. She came in to see me, and she was left
with, I think it was, five small children when her husband was killed in a
workplace accident. Based on being able to provide retroactive payments, she is
able to attend the wedding of one of her children. She has experienced poverty
and she has lived in poverty, but she is also a very intelligent women who has
been able to have the capacity and the ability to move her life forward. Without
this retroactive payment at this time, she would not even be able to attend the
wedding of one of her children.
Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of issues in the past and these women have
experienced poverty and they have done without, through no fault of their own.
It was a result of government policy that kept women in marginalized roles in
society, but as we move forward we are able to acknowledge that these women
should never have been cut off from their benefits. As the charter came in 1985,
at that time, at that day, they should have been reinstated, but it took a
number of years. None of the widows were reinstated until 1993, then in 2001 the
group of widows, unfortunately, were segregated into two groups.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are able to have this legislation
before us today. I know that Hilda Whelan has been a real advocate for the women
of Newfoundland and Labrador. She has probably never classified herself as a
feminist or a person who is promoting the rights of women in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but she truly exemplifies that whole feminist perspective, to be able
to look at policies and realize how they discriminate against women. Not only is
Hilda Whelan here today to hear this legislation and hear the debate on it, but,
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to acknowledge that Ms Whelan sits now on the
Provincial Advisory Council of the Status of Women. She has certainly been a
true advocate for women in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it has taken quite some time, since 2004 until
today, for myself being personally involved in this case to be able to bring it
to a resolution in the House of Assembly. As we started proceedings today and I
thought there may be a delay, I just thought it further exemplified how much
patience these women have had and how there have been set backs, waiting and
delay, and making sure we look at all avenues before we are able to move ahead.
These women have been extremely patient. They certainly have been able to put
their case forward. They are a wonderful group of individuals. It is extremely
unfortunate that in 2001 they were not included in the legislation, but, Mr.
Speaker, they are included today and I am very pleased with that.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today and make a few comments on this
particular bill before the House as well. I want also to compliment Hilda Whelan
and the other sixty spouses of this Province. I want to say to them, that they
have been a driving force behind what is happening here today, and they are
indeed a classic example to the young people of this Province, and indeed to all
people of this Province, that if you have a cause and you have a belief and you
have the determination and fortitude to keep fighting for what you believe in,
eventually you will succeed and you will get it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. COLLINS: I think that message, Mr. Speaker, is driven home loud
and clear today. It is through their determination over the last number of years
that it is possible to be sitting in this House today and having this
legislation passed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I spent many years in the labour movement
through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, where this issue was certainly a focal point
of discussion and a cause that we worked for. During my time as an executive
member with the Steelworkers' Union in Labrador West, both as an executive
member president and staff representative, we dealt with this issue on a number
of occasions. I have had, I guess, situations occur through my involvement in
the union where we had indeed members killed in the seventies. We had three
killed in nine days. The spouses of the people who were killed, through the
1970s and the early 1980s, who later went on to remarry, were discriminated
against. It was not only in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The result here today is
a combination of things that happened across this country, and women were the
driving force in making it possible in each and every province from British
Columbia right to our Province here today. Some provinces have already dealt
with this issue, as my colleague said, and they have since gained the benefit
that they have been entitled to for over twenty years.
Mr. Speaker, one thing I will congratulate the government on - and I have
said it before in this House many times - is that it is never too late to do the
right thing. I think this is a classic example today of doing the right thing.
Albeit, it may be twenty-one years later, but the right thing is finally done.
Government has acknowledged that and I think they deserve to be complimented for
it, because it is an important step for government to change this policy, and it
is very important to the surviving spouses today, that they can get access to
this money to allow them to live with more comfort as they go forward into the
future.
It is a great day and I won't spend much more time on debate, because as
the Government House Leader indicated, we will get through the entire proceeding
on this today, and that is the way this should be done after the long wait.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the minister
and to his government colleagues, that this injustice was a long time being
corrected, and it is great to see it happen. Even today we have many injured
workers in this Province who are having their families and still living in
poverty. There is one other big injustice that needs to be corrected - and I am
looking forward to the day when the minister can stand in this House and
announce that one - and that is stopping the clawback of Canada Pension benefits
to injured workers in this Province. That is forcing many of these injured
workers and their families into poverty levels, and it is through an injury that
they didn't bring on themselves. They deserve to have the benefits both of the
Workers' Compensation and the Canada Pension, because that would still not
balance out the workplace employment benefits they would have received had they
not been injured. Now they are on a no-fault insurance system and they should be
treated with the dignity they deserve. I look forward to the minister rectifying
that situation in the near future.
I don't want to take away from what today is all about. Again, I just want
to congratulate the people who kept this issue on the burner all through the
many, many years. I am sure there were times when they felt like they were
flogging a dead horse or whipping a post. It was like they were getting nobody.
They kept it up and kept it up and kept it up, and finally somebody listened and
introduced the legislation that will make it possible for them to achieve what
they set out to achieve and that they were entitled to achieve so many long
years ago. Congratulations.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to join and echo the sentiments of my colleague in the House of
Assembly today in the passage of Bill 22. It is no doubt a bill that will
provide for fairness and equality for a large group of people in this Province
who should have never had to endure the incidents that they have in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and congratulate today the Minister of
Human Resources and Employment, because I remember a few years in this House of
Assembly listening to that member, when he was an MHA, raise this issue as well,
on behalf of his constituents but also on behalf of others. I want to
acknowledge his contribution to this particular issue and to congratulate him on
bringing it forward today as the minister for that portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we tend to attach dollar values to fairness and
equality in our society. We should not do that, and I think it was evidenced
this year when we saw a Supreme Court ruling in compensation benefits for women
that rested entirely upon a money issue and the affordability of governments. I
know that in the past while there was a great willingness by other governments
and other administrations to address this particular issue and efforts were made
in that direction, it was always held back because of the financial ability to
be able to pay out those sums