Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 9 December 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 55)
2004-12-09
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 9, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 55
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we would like to welcome thirty-nine Level II students from
Botwood Collegiate, in the wonderful District of Exploits. Their visit is a
joint project of their school and the Botwood Boys and Girls Club. They are
accompanied by their chaperons Perry Chippett, Gloria Cooper, and Gloria Evans.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
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 Trinity North; the hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of
Grand Falls-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the District of
Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate a large group of volunteers in Clarenville for
taking the initiative to organize the first ever Newfoundland and Labrador
Masters Games.
Mr. Speaker, this March, the first two weekends in March of this year, from
Friday, March 4, to Sunday, March 6, and from Friday, March 11, to Sunday, March
13, Clarenville will be playing host to the first ever Newfoundland and Labrador
Masters Games.
These are a set of games that are modeled after the winter and summer games,
for those residents of the Province who are over the age of forty-five. So, Mr.
Speaker, there are many members of this House who have aspired to be new
athletes, and now can have a chance to relive their youth and, once again, lace
on the skates or tie on the skis and to participate in the first ever Masters
Games in Clarenville.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous initiative undertaken by a group of
volunteers who have put a tremendous amount of work into this in the last couple
of months, particularly, getting themselves organized for March, and we expect
to have over 500 participants in each of those weekends, some 1,000 participants
over two weekends, converging on Clarenville, all of whom will be over the age
of forty-five, so there will be lots of Absorbine Jr. and Ben Gay sold for the
following weeks beyond that. I ask any members of this House who fall into that
category of forty-five and over, to get ready and start conditioning themselves.
Mr. Speaker, this is another good example, I think, of how my community has
recognized that growing older is not necessarily a time to slow down. This is an
example of an initiative that fosters healthy aging, and I commend that group of
volunteers for undertaking what we hope to be a start of something that will
continue well into the future.
I say to my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, that he should undertake this
as a departmental initiative and to enshrine this just like we now have the
summer and winter games, but look at our aging population staying active.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished
constituent of mine who passed away on September 19 of this year.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Calvin Buglar began his working career at the Harbour Breton
cottage hospital but soon moved to the Harbour Breton fish plant where he worked
for thirty-eight years until his sudden death at the age of fifty-eight.
Calvin served with the executive of the local union at the plant and, for a
number of years, was the local union president. During his career, he was also
responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Committee at the plant. At
the time of his death, he was the chief engineer and maintenance manager for the
Harbour Breton facility.
Mr. Speaker, it was well known that Calvin took his job very seriously and
was always present, ensuring the successful operation of the plant.
Some years ago, Calvin was an active member of the Bay d'Espoir-Fortune Bay
Integrated School Board. He also played a vital role in the municipal politics
of Harbour Breton, serving on council from 1977 to 1992 and, during this time,
was mayor of the community for five years. Mr. Speaker, Calvin was the mayor as
we successfully acquired a new arena for Harbour Breton, the first for the
region.
Mr. Speaker, I knew Calvin personally for many years as a friend and as an
individual who dedicated much of his time to the growth and success of his
community.
I ask all members of the House to join me in extending condolences to his
wife Dorothy and their four children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a resident of Grand Falls-Windsor who
has accomplished something that no other Newfoundlander or Labradorian has ever
done before.
Mr. Scott Critch, who attended a certification camp in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in
October of this year, has now become the first internationally sanctioned
basketball referee from Newfoundland and Labrador. Just being invited to attend
this camp is considered to be a great honour. Certification is the ultimate
reward.
A regular referee at Memorial University Seahawks basketball games, you may
now be able to find Critch refereeing anywhere on this continent or overseas.
You may even see Mr. Critch going shoulder to shoulder with some of the NBA's
greats in the future.
Mr. Speaker, residents of Grand Falls-Windsor have watched Scott Critch grow
as an official from local league games to provincial competitions, to Varsity
games, and now to the world stage, and we are all so very proud of him.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Scott Critch on his recent graduation to the field of
international competition, and extend best wishes for his continued success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional young lady who has
recently been awarded an academic prize for exceptional performance.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-one-year-old Anna Robinson from Harbour Grace is the 2005
Rhodes Scholar elect for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, Anna will begin her studies at the prestigious
by this Rhodes Scholarship.
Anna is presently in the final year of an honours degree program for
Neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax. Mr. Speaker, Anna hopes to
continue her education until she meets her final goal of studying medicine and
becoming a doctor.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Ann Colbourne of the Rhodes Trust in Newfoundland and
Labrador described Anna as: notable for her quiet campus leadership and diverse
interests, including singing with the Dalhousie Choral Group, hosting her own
student campus radio show, and playing intramural basketball along with numerous
other community activities.
The second of four children, Anna is the daughter of Maureen and George
Robinson of Harbour Grace. Also, Mr. Speaker, Anna graduated first in her class
at Carbonear Collegiate.
Mr. Speaker, the Rhodes Scholarship has been awarded in Newfoundland and
Labrador since 1904 and Miss Robinson is the ninety-seventh Newfoundlander to
win this award.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Anna Robinson of Harbour Grace on being 2005s recipient of a
Rhodes Scholarship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and as many members are aware, that
an Act To Amend The Labour
Standards Act, Bill 38, has been passed here in the House of Assembly, making
Compassionate Care Leave available to workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This amendment to the Labour Standards Legislation will ensure workers in our
Province have the ability to deal with important family issues and crises
without having to worry about job protection. Compassionate Care Leave will give
employees the time they need to care for a terminally ill family member without
interfering with their employment status.
Mr. Speaker, under Bill 38, employees can take up to eight weeks away from
work to care for a family member who faces a significant risk of death within
approximately a six-month period.
Employees whose workplaces are regulated by the Labour Standards Act and who
take Compassionate Care Leave will be entitled to the same protections that now
exist under legislation for maternity and parental leave. Employees cannot be
disciplined, demoted or dismissed for taking Compassionate Care Leave.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, an employee has the right to be reinstated in the
same or comparable position when returning to work and two or more employees can
share the eight weeks of leave to care for the same family member. Employees who
are eligible to receive Employment Insurance benefits may claim those benefits
for up to six weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this change is significant for the women in our
workforce who represent 43 per cent of our full-time workers and 69 per cent of
our part-time workers. Traditionally, women spend more time than men with child
and family care responsibilities and balancing home and work life can be a
difficult challenge. It is my hope that the benefits and job protection provided
with Compassionate Care Leave will have a positive impact on women and improve
their attachment to the workforce.
Mr. Speaker, officials of the Labour Relations Agency consulted with
business, labour and health stakeholders on this issue. I am very pleased to
report that I will support the implementation of Compassionate Care Leave.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her ministerial
statement and to say that yes, it was indeed an honour to be sitting in the
House when
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 38, was brought before
this House just last week. A great piece of legislation that was brought forth,
and a tremendous amount of work done by the former Administration. When it came
before this House all members concurred with it and agreed unanimously that this
piece of bill would get through the House of Assembly.
I am also pleased to say that, no doubt about it, the people of this Province
will be pleased with this legislation now knowing that they do not have the
concerns about their employment status when they stay at home to care for
terminally and gravely ill members of the family. I also agree with the
minister, the tremendous positive impact this will have on the women within our
workforce.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this government must be running short on good
news stories. Here we are - debated a piece of legislation on December 2 and
December 3, and here we are -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. BUTLER: No, it is not a bad news story, sir, but there cannot be too
many good news stories when we have to bring legislation forward in a
ministerial statement just six or seven days after it was passed here in the
House.
I say, Mr. Speaker, if this is the new approach of this government, I cannot
imagine how desperate they are to come up with a good news story.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. I am pleased
today to rise and say a few words about Bill 38, because Bill 38 had its
beginnings in the Parliament of Canada by a motion proposed by Peter Stoffer of
the NDP to make amendments to the EI act that would allow for this very thing to
take place. So, I am very proud to say that. I am proud to see that we have
finally passed legislation that we called for last spring, so as to make the
proper amendments and pass the proper legislation so that women, generally in
our society, would not have to pay a price by taking leave for compassionate
care. I say women, because as the minister indicated, it is mostly -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. COLLINS: As the minister herself indicated, it is mostly female
workers who are affected by this, and I am glad to see that this bill is finally
being passed.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers. Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Derrick Rowe of FPI has publicly acknowledged that he has two masters. In
his words in the public media: My Board of Directors and the government. Both
masters, Mr. Speaker. The board seeking to maximize profits for the shareholders
and the government have agreed to close Harbour Breton outright and let Fortune
choose its own way to die.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who stated
yesterday outside the Legislature that the Bonavista plant is old and will have
to replaced or eventually have the operations moved to Port Union; his words,
outside the Legislature yesterday. What discussions has the minister had with
FPI regarding Bonavista's uncertain future?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can say without any fear of contradiction that I have had the
same discussion with the people at FPI about Bonavista and Port Union as I have
had with the Fishermen's Union and the representatives of the plant local on
the future of Bonavista and Port Union. It is well-known, Mr. Speaker, for
probably about ten years now, that FPI has been considering either a new
facility in Bonavista or a movement to Port Union.
Mr. Speaker, the discussions that I have had with FPI and with the people at
the plant local in Bonavista are that FPI is going to continue to operate
Bonavista. A large part of what happens in Bonavista is going to depend on what
happens with crab quotas; as I suspect, Mr. Speaker, will be the case with many
crab plants around this Province. That is the discussion. That has been
well-known for ten years. It was well-known when they were in government, it
continues to be well-known in Bonavista amongst the plant workers, amongst
everybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this same minister promised, and these again are his own words:
There would be no layoffs at FPI plants unless they were negotiated between the
company and the union; his words. Is the minister now saying, Mr. Speaker, that
the union has negotiated and agreed to layoffs in Harbour Breton and Fortune?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition and some of the members of his party have on
occasion over the past three weeks referenced a press release that was put out
in 2002, I believe it was - 2001 or 2002. Now that press release was put out in
the context of a change in the operations in Harbour Breton - proposed changes
in Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we
suggested that the FFAW and FPI, I suggested, that they should take the same
approach that they took in Port aux Choix when FPI made the decision to tear
down their old plant and build a new state-of-the-art shrimp plant at the time.
I said at that time that any changes in the workforce in those operations should
be done and achieved through a negotiation, Mr. Speaker. That is what I said at
that time. That is what I say again now.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where foreign-sourced cod has
gone in price through the roof, and there have been substantial changes in world
marketplace. That, Mr. Speaker, is having an impact on all parts of our seafood
industry in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see him now changing his words -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see him now changing his words,
because they were not the words he spoke in that press release.
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the President of the Fisheries Union, the
President of FFAW, Mr. Earle McCurdy, sat in the meeting ten days ago with the
minister, the Premier, and Mr. Derrick Rowe of FPI, when Fortune's future was
discussed, and that Mr. McCurdy said nothing.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has always contended -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Leader of the Opposition now if he could get to his question
immediately.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has always contended that if you say nothing, you agree.
I ask the minister, knowing that government is one of Mr. Rowe's two
masters, what did you and the Premier say to Mr. Rowe about the Fortune plant
future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is careless with the
truth again today. I said last week, in this House of Assembly, that we did meet
with -
MR. REID: Stand up for the people you represent!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would you mind gagging the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo, so I can answer the question that the Leader of the
Opposition asked?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: If he does not want to hear the answer, I can easily sit
down, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair asks for all members to be co-operative with each other - the
people who are asking the questions, also the people who are on the government
side, and the ministers who are responding.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador
Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There are still members who are shouting across the floor of the House. The
Chair has asked members for their co-operation, and I would ask them to respect
the authority of the Chair in that regard.
The Chair again asks the minister to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, we met, as the Leader of the Opposition said, about ten days
ago. We were informed, at that time, in the presence of all -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, will you please gag those people so I can answer
the questions that are being asked of me?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation.
For a few more seconds, the Chair will recognize the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, ten days ago we did meet with Derrick Rowe, Graham
Roome, Earle McCurdy, myself and the Premier, in the Premier's boardroom. We
were informed of the options that were presented by FPI to the FFAW and the
plant workers at Fortune at that time. We had a discussion about the challenges
that the fishing industry is facing here as a result of the increasing cost of
raw material being sourced overseas, from Norway and Russia, to be produced here
in our Province. At that time, I have to say, we had a very frank discussion
about it. I never, ever, said that Mr. McCurdy agreed or disagreed with it. I
never said that he stayed quiet and, as such, agreed with what was being said.
He can answer for himself on this, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his answer.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, which is the verbatim record of what was said here
yesterday, his words were: It was not challenged by Mr. McCurdy.
Mr. Speaker, my next question is this -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: My next question is this - and, again, I understand that
members opposite would like for us to be gagged, but we were elected to speak
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to do it, Mr.
Speaker, as long as we have breath!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: As long as we can stand here - it is a democracy, Mr.
Speaker. They might be gagged in their caucus. We are not going to be gagged, I
can tell you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation, where members on
all sides of the House show mutual respect in a parliamentary forum for each
other.
I again pass the speaking to the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an important issue with respect to a closure in Harbour Breton, choose
your way to die in Fortune, and a government doing nothing about it.
Mr. Speaker, the federal MP, Mr. Bill Matthews, for the communities of
Harbour Breton and Fortune, has said publicly that the minister and the Premier
are sitting idly by and allowing the utter destruction of the FPI Act. Mr.
Matthews, the federal MP, is fighting for community-based quotas in his meetings
with the federal Minister of Fisheries.
Again, I ask the minister: Will this government put their full support behind
Mr. Mathews' request, as the MP, or are they just going to let the company
keep the quota and do what they like with it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, our primary concern has been and always will
be that the quotas associated with any fish company in this Province, and any
fish that has been caught by vessels, by fishermen, by plant workers of this
Province continues to remain in this Province. That is our first and primary
concern, Mr. Speaker.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again that we will be working
with the people of Harbour Breton - I said this when I was in Harbour Breton a
couple of days ago - we will work with the people of Harbour Breton to try to
identify a way forward for them. If, as a result of that piece of work with an
IAS committee and what have you - if, as a result of a piece of that work - at
the end of the day it is determined that quotas and quota acquisition is a piece
of the solution, then we will support the people of Harbour Breton in that.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what I said last week. It is what I said the day before
yesterday in Harbour Breton, and I say it again today. Mr. Speaker, that was
what we did in Arnold's Cove when the time came and the chips were down. We
came through for the people, unlike some other members did previously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This final question is for the minister. Mr. Speaker, outside the
Legislature, this minister has gone further and suggested no only for FPI but
for the fishery generally in Newfoundland and Labrador - and these again are his
exact words: The solution lies in a lesser number of plants running for a longer
period of time.
Now that he has publicly admitted the real agenda of this government with
respect to the fishery and rural Newfoundland and Labrador, can he tell us: What
does it mean? What does that mean, if that is the position of the government,
for communities like Englee, Anchor Point, Black Duck Cove, La Scie and Triton,
just to name a few, Mr. Speaker? Is the government, I ask him, going to continue
to side with the big business fish processors and let the fish plant workers and
their communities disappear?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I admit freely that I said those words outside of the House
of Assembly, and I have said them for the last four years since I got into
political life, and I said it before I got into political life.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a strong processing sector and a strong
seafood industry in this Province, then we need to have strong processing
operations that run for a longer period of time. The alternative, Mr. Speaker,
is to accept what the previous administration did for the past twelve to fifteen
years, to allow the processing workers in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to try and
live on less than $10,000 a year in earned income. That, Mr. Speaker, is what
their legacy for the seafood industry in this Province has been, and that legacy
also translates into about 25 per cent of the people in the processing sector
relying on make-work projects to get by.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: That must be according to Danny, and you are going right along
with him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Russ Carrigan of FPI said yesterday, in a press
release, that neither of the two options proposed by the company comes with any
guarantees.
Why then, Minister, don't you support the workforce in Fortune who would
prefer to continue to process fish at Fortune than move to Marystown, knowing
that if there is a shortage of raw material in Marystown the workforce in
Fortune will be the first to go since they cannot carry their seniority with
them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have never said that I was against the maintaining of the
Fortune operation. Never! I have said that there have been two options presented
to the people of Fortune, and it is up to them to decide. If they decide that
they want to continue on in an operation in Fortune that relies solely on
locally sourced cod, Mr. Speaker, that is their decision. If that is the
decision that they make, then that is the decision that I respect and the
decision I will support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Minister, with all due respect, that option, you know, is not
there for the employees of Fortune, for two hundred and twenty-some-odd
employees to work at that plant. As Russ Carrigan said, for them to accept that
option would be like driving off a cliff. Clearly, FPI is not giving them that
option. I am asking you to stand up to FPI and exercise your authority under the
Act.
There are over seventy people waiting anxiously to be called back at the fish
plant in Marystown, Minister. There is a real danger that these people may not
even get the number of weeks they need to qualify for EI. Is the Minister aware
that this second option for the workforce in Fortune to go to Marystown is
causing concern among the workers at the fish plant in Marystown?
Minister, you must see that FPI is pitting community against community. What
are you going to do about it, with the authority you have under the FPI Act?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand full-well the challenges that the people in Fortune
and the people in Marystown are confronted with. I understand that fully and I
sympathize with them, but for me to stand up here today and suggest that I have
the authority to keep Fortune open at the level that it has been maintained at
in recent years when it has been operating on foreign source fish, Mr. Speaker,
it would be totally misleading of me and I refuse to do it.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the fish that FPI has in its quota
allocations are being processed in this Province. They have been processed
between Bonavista, Fortune, Marystown, Harbour Breton and other facilities
around the Province, and that is continuing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking me to do is force FPI to continue
operations at the level they were at in recent years, and the only way I can do
that is to force them somehow to procure fish from outside this Province because
we do not have it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Minister, unfortunately you have become part of the challenge
and not the solution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Yesterday in this House you continued to defend the callous
actions of FPI and you are failing to acknowledge they have a moral
responsibility. You are failing to forget that they are a creation of the
taxpayers of this Province to the tune of $252 million. I am asking you now,
Minister, to tell FPI that neither of the options they are proposing are
acceptable to you or the workforce or the government of today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In case the member forgets, the people of this Province and the Government of
decided recently to privatize Petro-Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, it is a private operation. I am not
defending FPI's actions. I will say this: Where were the hon. members opposite
when FPI, during the 1990s, closed down everything else they had in this
Province? Where were their insightful suggestions then, Mr. Speaker? Where was
the authority in the FPI Act to order FPI to maintain 850 people in St. Anthony
when they closed it down in 1992? They did not have it because it was not there.
The authority in the FPI Act was on the 15 per cent ownership (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On September 20 the Premier held a news conference to discuss the secret
Memorandum of Understanding he had signed with the Sino corporation for the
potential development of the Lower Churchill. During this news conference he
also announced a call for Expressions of Interest that invited all potential
components interested in developing the Lower Churchill to express their
intentions to government.
I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, the call for Expressions of Interest
were to have taken place in October, that time has come and past. Can the
minister update the House as to the status of that call for Expressions of
Interest?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says it is a good question, and so
it is, and I will attempt to give a good answer. We had hoped to be able to do
that this morning, but we will be doing it Monday morning.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister might also tell us, now that we
know when they will be issued, will he provide a copy to us when they are issued
or will this also be done in secret?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I caught what my hon.
colleague was saying, he said a copy of it to them. A copy of what? A copy of
the press release? What is it they would like? If I may, if you would not mind
telling me exactly what you are looking for, and I will attempt to do my best to
answer it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The press release issued by the Premier on September 20 this year indicated
that the Calls for Expression would have the details of what exactly the
government wanted. It referenced, as well, criteria that the government would be
grading these submissions by. I am wondering if the minister would reveal to us
when he sends it out to everybody - everybody should know the criteria that the
government is going to grade their proposals by. Will we get a copy of what he
issues on Monday, along with the criteria that the government will use to grade
these proposals vis- B -vis
the Lower Churchill Development?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let me see if I can reveal some of it now. The EOI
process is about taking a world-class, globally classed, potential resource,
putting it out to subscribers across the planet and the globe, many of which the
Premier and myself have met with, in an attempt to secure the best deal
possible. It does not mean dealing only with Quebec, like the former
Administration did. That is what it doesn't mean.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it means that we have a greater
confidence in ourselves and in our resources about what we can do with them than
the former Administration had. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it means this, it means
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what it does mean is that we will be
outlining, in due course - I gave the member an answer. We will be outlining
next week all that will be available with that. Whatever we release publicly
next week will be released to everybody and everyone will know (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is what concerns us, in due course. It is never timely and it is never
open. It always seems to be at their time
schedule and whatever suits them.
Mr. Speaker, it was discussed that one of the parties in the Sino group,
China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation was
under investigation in the United States for possible terrorist links. The
Premier undertook to investigate these allegations and the company. Could the
minister advise if this investigation is complete? If so, what were the findings
and will you make them public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am perplexed, and I do not mind saying I am perplexed. The hon. member says
on the one hand that is the problem, it is never timely and it is never public.
Does anybody recall several weeks ago when we released a televised tape by the
Leader of the Opposition saying there was a deal on the Lower Churchill?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I do not know about them, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea about
them but I do know that he stood right here, as Premier of the Province, and
said there was no deal, while he was ready to go to the people of the Province
with a tape with a signed deal. That is what I do know, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A final supplementary to Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: The minister is very good at deflection, but again, not good
at substantive answers.
Minister, you signed a confidentiality agreement with the Sino group on May
21 of this year. On May 20, in this very House, twenty-four hours before that, I
asked you in Estimates Committee if there were any discussions ongoing about the
Lower Churchill. You advised me at that time, page 182, no. Now, minister,
twenty-four hours later this confidentiality agreement gets signed. Which is it,
minister, were you either part of the negotiations and the discussions that led
to the May 21 agreement or did you unilaterally rubber stamp an agreement that
was done in the Premier's office the next day?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. First of all, there was no
agreement signed with anybody. What was established with the Sino corporation
was a Memorandum of Understanding to share information. That is all it was. No
more, no less.
Mr. Speaker, the Sino corporation first came to the Province when they
knocked on my door, as the Minister of Natural Resources, in January. The reason
why the member has the MOU - do you know why? Because this government released
it. That is why he has it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, let's be clear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: We released everything associated with the Memorandum of
Understanding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: I can answer the question if they would -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask members for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Acting Premier.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Newfoundland and Labrador
Government discriminated against women in the public service, contrary to the
Charter of Rights, by paying them less than their male colleagues, as was
acknowledged by Premier Peckford. It also ruled that the Wells government
discriminated against women public servants by reversing pay equity agreements
Peckford made, but that the legislation was not unconstitutional. Will this
government, on this, the eve of International Day of Human Rights, commit to
honouring the pay equity agreement and reversing the discrimination which took
pay equity from women in our public service?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that the recent
court decision was no moral victory for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990s, a decision was made that
pay equity would not be paid to the women of this Province, based on the fiscal
situation of this Province. Unfortunately, over the last fifteen years there
were no real attempts made to improve that fiscal situation; and, as a result,
those women have never been paid what they were owed and what they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, our fiscal situation right now gives us a debt of $11.5 billion.
That means, for every man, woman and child in this Province, their share is
$22,142. We are not in a better fiscal situation today. We are actually worse
than what were in 1990, but, I will say to the hon. member, that is no excuse
for the fact that women were discriminated against.
I cannot make a commitment -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the supplementary question.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice.
I say to the minister that government is acting very aggressively to collect
student debts, much of which is unmanageable because of high student debt loads.
They do that, Mr. Speaker, without consideration of their personal situation.
This week I had a constituent who, in the 1990s, was forced to drop out of a
private college before she finished her program because she was diagnosed with
MS, and she has doctor's documentation to support that. She now finds herself
confined, unable to work, with two children, and she is being dragged through
the courts by the Justice Department and being sued. I ask the minister: Will
the minister take action to have this lawsuit dropped?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally familiar with the case
that the hon. member has raised, but I will undertake to investigate and report
back to the hon. member in the near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: I appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker, from the minister.
I want to say to the minister, as well, while he is investigating this
situation, will he instruct his officials that in the future they will check out
people's situations, personal situations, before they initiate court action
against them, and if they find that people are disabled and unable to pay -
because, let's face it, Mr. Speaker, since changes to the student loan program
were announced, students are unable to pay, and there is a difference in being
unable to and won't. They are not allowed to declare bankruptcy any more
either.
Will the minister take action, instruct his officials to not pursue lawsuits
and drag people into courts when they have no ability to pay?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this.
Obviously, this is something that we would take very seriously. I will have it
investigated and I will report back to the hon. member as quick as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one brief question and a brief response.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, Western Newfoundland and Labrador had several
snowstorms in recent days. The Department of Transportation and Works, due to
weight constraints, does not salt and sand our roads while using the wing blade
to clear the snow back off the highways. There is a directive from the
department not to make a second run, due to financial restraints, to either salt
and sand the roads or plow the snow with the wing blade down.
Does the minister realize the potential of this Russian roulette? Will the
minister immediately order this practice to stop, and make our roads safe and
snow free?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, the Minister
of Transportation is unavailable at the present time to answer the question. I
am not familiar with the situation that the member asked about. I do recognize
that it is a very serious issue, and I will certainly inform the member that
immediately after Question Period I will endeavor to find out the status of the
situation, have it looked into, and report back to him some time this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing And Special Committees?
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment
to accountability, I hereby submit the 2003-2004 Annual Performance Report for
the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. This report addresses
the department's activities and outcomes from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, I am also advising hon. members that this report includes
information on three external government corporations that reported to the
minister in 2003-2004, namely Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited, Newfoundland Ocean
Enterprises Limited, and the EDGE Evaluation Board. The 2003-2004 Annual Report
of the Business Investment Corporation, a fourth external corporation, was
tabled earlier this year.
Mr. Speaker, I also hereby submit the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Rural
Secretariate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister. I am not sure
whether the minister is finished with her report or not.
MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Department of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment's 2003-2004 Annual Report. In accordance with government's
commitment to accountability and transparency, the report outlines the
activities and achievements for the period from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
The Annual Report for the Social Services Appeal Board is included in this
report as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Labour Relations Agency 2003-2004
Annual Report. In accordance with government's commitment to accountability
and transparency, this report outlines the activities of the former Department
of Labour and the newly created Labour Relations Agency for the period of April
1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
There is a lot of shouting across the Chamber and the Chair is having
difficulty hearing the hon. the minister.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to
accountability, I hereby submit the 2003-2004 annual performance report for the
Women's Policy Office. This report was prepared under my direction and
addresses the division's outcomes from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports.
Notices of Motions.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have several notices of motion to give.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act. (Bill 65)
In the place of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I
give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, No 2. (Bill 60)
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 61)
I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 62).
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,
1991. (Bill 63)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.
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 Occupational Health And Safety
Act. (Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.
Answers To Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I present another petition, this time actually signed by employees of
Riverview Motors in Grand Falls-Windsor and Abitibi waterfront workers in the
Town of Botwood, with respect to Bill 45 and the mandatory trail stickers for
snowmobiles. Again, the petition, as I read into the record yesterday, signed by
another group of people:
WHEREAS the provincial government underwent no public consultation before
bringing these changes to the Legislature; and
WHEREAS the fees that are being enacted by this legislation represents a
taxation of our culture as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS we feel we are being discriminated against by having to pay a fee to
use groomed snowmobile trails that we have been using long before the
Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation started grooming these trails;
WHEREUPON we call upon the provincial government to - not cancel it but -
withdraw the legislation until public consultations have been held.
Again, this one is signed by some twenty different residents of Grand
Falls-Windsor and Botwood who are avid snowmobilers in their own right, who
appreciate groomed trails and hope that there are going to be more of them and
have been actually some of the proponents for more groomed trails, but they feel
there should be more consultation before this type of legislation that mandates
a sticker.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, they do understand that this is a government that
promised the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation and others, the
outdoor rights association, that there would be an Outdoor Bill of Rights so
that things would not be passed over to private interests and also that it is a
government that promised there would not be mandatory fees. There would not be
mandatory user fees. Some of these same people who have signed this petition,
Mr. Speaker, have told me, in my personal conversations with them, that they in
fact voluntarily pay the fee. They are supporters and they voluntarily pay the
fee. They are not saying that the legislation, at some point, does not need to
be but they think there needs to be more time to consult and make sure that some
of the issues that have already been debated in this Legislature get further
consideration before the government goes to full mandatory fees.
Mr. Speaker, I present that petition again on their behalf. They are very
sincere about it and they just hope that the government will allow a little more
time and consider some of the other issues that have been raised because these
are some supporters of the concept but they just hope that the government will
do it right rather than start it and then try to fix some things next year, the
year after or the year after that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the
Province and I will read out the pray:
WHEREAS statistics indicate there is one VLT machine for every 155 adults,
the highest ratio of any province; and
WHEREAS gambling addiction has increased with the availability of VLTs in
restaurants and bars; and
WHEREAS it is estimated that at least 5 per cent of those who gamble, face an
addiction which has led to not only costs to society but tragic consequences in
the lives of those affected; and
WHEREAS government themselves have become addicted to revenues from gambling;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to increase funding for problem gamblers, strictly enforce the existing VLT
regulations, and at the very least remove VLTs from venues frequented by
individuals under nineteen years of age and for the Province to hold a
referendum of banning VLTs in conjunction with municipal elections in 2005.
Mr. Speaker, I was reading an interesting poll yesterday on this very topic.
It was a national poll, but the national poll found the highest support, in the
63 per cent to 65 per cent, in favour of banning these machines in Atlantic
Canada. I understand that there was a vote conducted in New Brunswick, as the
Premier cited the other day, but that vote was very, very close. I think that if
the vote was 49-51 in New Brunswick, then obviously that 65 per cent of
Canadians polled, I would suggest that the majority of people who were in favour
of banning these VLTs probably came from this Province to give the boost to 65
per cent, if New Brunswick was almost 50-50.
I think it is time that government seriously considered the problems and
provided the resources that are available. The machines, if you look at clubs
and bars around this Province, they can apply to the Liquor Licensing Board for
an extra bar licence to create as many as three bars or more in their
establishment. These liquor licences that are given out, to increase from one
bar to two, three, or more, are not based on liquor sales, not at all. It is a
matter of applying and receiving. They are done for one purpose, and one purpose
only, and that is to double, triple and quadruple the number of VLTs that they
can have in their establishment.
These are things that government can control while we are waiting for the
Province to decide whether or not they will support a ban.
I am hopeful, and I hope government will recognize that these machines are
creating a lot of problems in our society - problems that we did not have until
fourteen years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I laughed the other day when I read Hansard, to find out that
the Finance Minister of the day's justification for bringing these into the
Province was that if government did not get in front and bring them in, the
mafia would move in and take over. I think that is a very poor excuse for a
government to justify why they would bring machines of this nature into the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's assigned time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to continue.
MR. COLLINS: I ask government to seriously consider this, because I do
know, from talking to members across, that they have serious problems with this
as well. I hope that they will consider allowing residents of the Province to
have an opportunity, during the municipal elections, to have this placed on the
ballot as a referendum, and abide by the results of the referendum.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the young people in
Labrador, in their request to government for an auditorium in the Upper Lake
Melville area. I present the petition today on behalf of the children from the
community of Cartwright.
Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point again. The children in Labrador
deserve a place where they can gather at different times throughout the year for
festivals of different sorts. We just witnessed, I think, the twenty-ninth
running of the Creative Arts Festival in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, attended by
schools from all across Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this facility is essential to the people in Labrador, and I know
that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said, many times, that
the money was in the account. With the Christmas season so handy, and just
around the corner, I would ask this government if they would, on behalf of the
Member for Lake Melville, make that commitment to the people today. It is
well-deserved, there is no question. It is a facility that children and adults
in other parts of this Province enjoy. The children, in particular, in Labrador,
deserve such a building. I call upon this government, Mr. Speaker, prior to the
Christmas break, to make the announcement to the children in Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district, as
it relates to the marine services of the Sir Robert Bond from Cartwright.
Mr. Speaker, it is because of government's decision last year to relocate the Sir
Robert Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte. Because of that, businesses in
the Labrador region lost up to 40 per cent of their sales in revenue last year.
Also, people felt that the provincial government was spending excess funds from
the Labrador Transportation Initiative to run the Sir Robert Bond out of
Lewisporte, and there were residents in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area who had
trouble acquiring reservations and accommodations due to the reduction in the
number of departures per week of the Sir Robert Bond between Goose Bay
and Cartwright.
Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition felt that the service was
not being utilized to the best interests of the people of the Province. What
they are saying is that: WHEREFORE
be it resolved that the petitioners request
that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reconsider their decision and
reinstate these services for Labrador to the port of Cartwright whereby
increasing the frequency of crossings between Cartwright and Goose Bay to three
trips per week.
Mr. Speaker, when government made that decision last spring, I was totally
opposed to the decision, and so were people in my district. I laid out, before
the House of Assembly at that time, what it would cost to run the Sir Robert
Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte as opposed to doing three trips a week
just from Cartwright to Goose Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the numbers that I received from Memorial University's policy
division, and from other documentation that was in the department, was that it
would cost the government about $1.7 million to run the Sir Robert Bond
last year into Lewisporte, a service that people in my district certainly did
not want to see.
Mr. Speaker, the government did not even nod at the cost of running that
service into Lewisporte, simply because it was going to come out of the Labrador
Transportation Fund anyway, not out of the general revenues of government.
Mr. Speaker, we will see the true account of numbers come budget time this
year, but let me tell you the true account of numbers on the ferry service last
year. In 2003, when the Sir Robert Bond was running between Cartwright
and Goose Bay, three trips a week, they carried a lot more passengers and a lot
more traffic than they did last year between Lewisporte, Cartwright and Goose
Bay. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last year, not only did government reduce the number
of services out of Goose Bay per week by running the ferry into Lewisporte, it
also reduced its own statistics on that service by almost 600 people.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else. Out of the 10,000 people who
travelled on the Sir Robert Bond last year, 70 per cent of them travelled
between Cartwright and Goose Bay, with only 30 per cent of those passengers
using the Lewisporte service.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister of Tourism for
giving me an extra thirty minutes to speak to this petition.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, out of the 10,000 people who used the service
last year -
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Leave has been withdrawn.
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: What are you talking about? I don't know what the member
is talking about. The Speaker has called Orders of the Day, and I am doing my
job to get up and move forward with Orders of the Day. If there is anything
childish about that, then I have a childish job, Mr. Speaker, but I just don't
think so.
Mr. Speaker, the first Order of the Day, I want to move Motion 5, pursuant to
Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and also
Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00
p.m. tonight.
With that, Mr. Speaker, Order 13, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend
The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 57. I believe the hon. the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture will move that bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: We will handle them in the order in which they were
presented. The hon. the Government House Leader has moved, pursuant to Standing
Order 11, the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 9.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader has also moved, pursuant to Standing
Order 11, the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 9, 2004.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
I would ask the hon. the Government House Leader if he could state again the
motion that you wish to introduce, for the benefit of the Speaker who was
listening but has forgotten.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 13, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act,
Bill 57.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57 be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection
Act." (Bill 57)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure this afternoon to speak for a few minutes on Bill 57,
An Act
To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.
This is a piece of work that has been some time in the works, since about
February last. February, 2004, we indicated that we were going to proceed to do
a thorough examination of the Fish Inspection Act, since, in particular, it has
not been reviewed since it was - I do not know about if it has been reviewed,
but it certainly has not been updated since it was brought in, in the 1960s I
guess it was. I think it was 1964, if I am not mistaken. Anyway, it is somewhere
around forty-plus years old and, needless to say, I am getting on towards forty
years old myself now and I am in need of an overhaul myself some days I think.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we indicated publicly back on February 4 that we were
going to have a look at the Fish Inspection Act. Back in 2003 - I guess it was
somewhere around June, 2003, the previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
announced that there was going to be a commissioner appointed - I believe the
Commissioner was appointed in August - to have a look at fish processing licence
policy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Eric Dunne was
appointed - I guess it was in August - to do a review of fish processing policy.
Coming out of that, as everybody knows, there was a fairly comprehensive report.
One of the substantial pieces of the Dunne report was referenced to the Fish
Inspection Act and the need to have a thorough examination of the Fish
Inspection Act with a view to modernizing it because of the change in industry.
We moved from a groundfish industry, when the act was initially proclaimed, to
primarily a shellfish industry today. Even without that type of change,
obviously over the course of moving from the 1960s to the twenty-first Century,
we would have incurred very substantial changes in the way the industry is
carried out anyway. So there was a need for one thing, a housekeeping cleanup of
the Fish Inspection Act, and that is part of what this bill is about.
It was also felt by Mr. Dunne that there was a need for several other
substantial issues to be addressed as it related to government department's
ability to preserve their authority as it related to licencing - their
authority, our authority, what have you - as it related to enforceability of
certain provisions, preservation of our authority to set conditions of licences,
and what have you. There are a substantial number of court challenges, in recent
years in particular. In many of those cases government's view of the situation
has not always prevailed. That has been, in many cases, because the fish
Inspection Act did not provide government with the authority to be able to
uphold the decisions that they had taken. Mr. Speaker, there was a
recommendation - I think it was a very worthwhile recommendation - by Mr. Dunne
for us to do a thorough examination of the Fish Inspection Act and to make some
substantial changes to it.
We moved in the Fish Inspection Act, that is before the House here now, for
debate over the coming hours and days. There is a move that was recommended by
Mr. Dunne. I must say today, because there was some confusion when we debated a
previous bill here, and maybe part of it was my fault - but anyway, whether it
was or was not is irrelevant. Back on February 4 we accepted, in principle, Mr.
Dunne's report. We said that we would implement it in principle, and we are on
course to do that. Obviously, some of what Mr. Dunne recommended, when you get
down to the particular issues and the practicalities of implementing it,
sometimes it presents a challenge to government to be able to implement it to
the letter of the recommendation, so to speak.
In this piece here I think we have done a pretty good job, with the
exception, probably, of one key recommendation, which was that the Fish
Inspection Act - there would be a thorough legislative review conducted on a
yearly basis. We felt that was a bit cumbersome. Instead, we have opted for a
full legislative review every five years. We think that still provides us with
more timeliness than we saw over the past forty years, and will go a long ways
toward addressing the challenges that the industry might be faced with, and
government might be faced with, going forward; but, to go to a yearly review, we
would undoubtedly end up consuming way too much of the government's time and
the industry's time just trying to review legislation as opposed to trying to
manage the industry.
That is one substantial change there, Mr. Speaker. I think that is probably
the biggest one, and probably the only substantial one, from my perspective,
from what I can recall anyway. We have moved, as recommended by Mr. Dunne, from
always pursuing court action against people when there are infractions, to give
the department and the government the authority or the ability to - instead of,
as I said, having to pursue court action, lay charges and pursue court action -
be able to ticket for minor offences, to administer administrative penalties for
defined, more or less, I guess you can say, bookkeeping discrepancies. Failure
to provide reports - for example, production reports - in a timely manner would
result in an administrative penalty as opposed to a charge being laid. If
somebody is failing to handle fish in an appropriate way, maintain adequate
levels of ice in cold storage facilities, and those types of things, then that
would not be an administrative penalty; that would not fall under the
administrative penalty scenario. That would be one where, under the new piece of
legislation, we would be able to ticket for that type of an offence, again, as
opposed to laying a charge and pursing court action.
We think that it works for government and works for industry in that
perspective, so that we still maintain our ability to enforce quality standards,
we still maintain our ability to set the operational guidelines, so to speak, of
the industry, but we do it in a more effective manner - a manner that does not
result in us having to run off to court for every offence that we see. As a
matter of fact, it probably strengthens our hand.
Sometimes, I would suggest that government would, maybe for minor offences,
be reluctant to lay charges in the past under the old act simply because, for
lack of a better way of putting it, the juice is not worth the squeeze. In this
case, we would not have to worry about that type of a scenario. There would not
have to be an evaluation of it from that perspective. Whether that ever took
place, I do not know. I am not suggesting that it did, but it may have or it may
in the future; but, under this scenario, and under the new Fish Inspection Act,
we would be able to ticket for minor offences, such as the ones that I just
referenced, and, as I said, for the failure to comply with reporting processes,
reporting procedures and the like, we could impose administrative penalties and
what have you.
Mr. Speaker, I think the act, as I said, is, in large part - and I am not
saying this to suggest that all this is, is a cleaning up, but I would suggest
that 75 per cent of the content of this bill is cleaning up the act. For
example, there were references in the old Fish Inspection Act to lobster tomali.
I am not sure there is anybody doing much with lobster tomali in Newfoundland
and Labrador today, but I suppose there probably was somebody doing something
with it back pre-1960s. Therefore, hence, it is referenced in the previous act.
Those types of things have been changed. We have changed wording, from
containers to containers or cartons, and those types of things, just to catch
the changing nature of the industry today in 2004 versus the nature of the
industry back in the 1960s.
We have also, Mr. Speaker, proposed in this legislation - and hopefully it
will get passed in due course - some increased authority, I guess you would say,
for government, in that we can now, similar to other resource industries in the
Province.... If you take the forestry industry, for example, here in the
Province, forestry companies - not to nail it down to just pulp and paper or
sawmills or whatever - must provide government with year-to-year plans as to
what their intentions are as it relates to their operations. Then, at the end of
the time period that the plan was provided for, Company X, for example, has to
sort of reconcile their actions against that plan. Mr. Dunne proposed that we
should do the same thing in the fishing industry. Now, we have accepted that
recommendation and the new Act reflects that. Going forward now, fish companies
will have to provide government with their yearly plan in advance of their
licenses being issued. In that yearly plan, some examples of what they would
have to do would be to indicate roughly the volumes of product that they intend
to process, where it is going to come from, where they intend to market that,
the type of workforce, the number of people they would have employed, the
duration of employment that we could anticipate, and the type of pack out that
they would propose to be doing.
We think there is a real value in that for a number of reasons. Number one,
it provides a greater sense of accountability. It forces the processing sector
to identify to government, in exchange for the privilege, some would suggest, of
a processing license - they would have to state their intentions for the coming
year. Purely from government's perspective, it allows us to look at what the
workforce is going to look like in the seafood industry, in the processing
sector in particular, for the coming year. It would allow us to, then, partway
through the season, identify where we are going to have problems as it relates
to work content, employment levels, and what have you, and allow us to do the
appropriate planning to adjust to that. Mr. Speaker, we think it is good from
that perspective.
Also, with a reconciliation of that plan at the end of the season we will be
able to see where companies have lived up to their commitments and where they
haven't. Right now it is very open-ended as to what companies have to do and
don't have to do. They don't have to provide to government their intentions
for processing on a yearly basis. There is value in that. We see value in it in
the forestry sector, for example, and we think there is value in it for the
fishing sector.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we have given ourselves or we have proposed to give
ourselves, I should say, increased authority as it relates to setting minimum
processing requirements. As some people will recall, I know the former minister
will recall, there has been in previous years some outcry from crab plant
workers, in particular, about the labour content, the work content, associated
with processing crab now verus years gone by when there was a higher level of
meat production verus
section production. While we did impose, so to speak, a
conditional licence this year in crab processing that required processors to
process 10 per cent of their output beyond the industrial pack stage - is what
we refer to it as - and there has been some substantial improvement compared to
the previous year. We did not achieve the 10 per cent but we went a long ways
toward that, essentially doubling the post industrial pack production this year
compared to 2003 and 2002.
Mr. Speaker, there was not in the act before a specific reference to
processing requirements - minimum processing requirements, I should say. Now, if
this legislation passes there will be and that will give us greater authority as
it relates to compelling companies to do a minimum amount of processing on
various fish species. We could do it under a conditional licence previously
because government and the minister can set conditions and licences. I do not
know about at will, but there is great latitude available to us. But, right now
we will have that authority vested in the act, if is passes.
Mr. Speaker, I think those are the high points, and of course the purpose of
second reading is to sort of hit the high points of the bill and to deal with
the bill in general. As I said, this act has been in existence for in excess of
forty years without any substantial updating done to it. I know that previous
ministers recognized the need for this action to be taken. Whether they agree
with the course that we have taken or not, I guess we will find out over the
coming hours.
Mr. Speaker, we think that by giving ourselves greater authority as it
relates to setting processing requirements, setting production requirements,
that we have strengthened the authority of government in the regulation of the
fishing industry. We think that that will serve the people of the fishing
industry better going forward. We also think that by laying it out clearly and
concisely in this manner, we will also do some service to the industry in that
they will know what the rules are up-front. The act has been updated now to
reflect 2004 as opposed to the 1960s.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I think I will conclude my opening remarks. I am sure
that once we get into committee there will be an opportunity for questions and
answers back and forth across the floor. I think that this is very much
consistent with the views of the industry, with the views of processing workers
and with what they articulated to Commissioner Eric Dunne when he travelled
around the Province back in the fall of 2003. He met in fifty communities with a
couple of hundred people, I guess, it was that showed up to those meetings.
There has been a fairly extensive consultation that has taken place in the
lead-up to the review of this act.
What we have in front of us, Mr. Speaker, as I said, does two things. It does
a significant amount of housekeeping as related to the act that was brought in
back in the 1960s and it also provides government with greater authority as it
relates to the enforceability of quality standards, the enforceability of
production standards, minimum processing requirements. It gives us the
flexibility to be able to impose administrative penalties, on the one hand, for
minor bookkeeping infractions, so to speak. It gives us the authority to ticket
when there has been an infraction as it relates to quality, for example, on the
head of the wharf or in the holding room of a plant and it still preserves our
ability to lay a charge and take anybody to court for a serious infraction.
As well, I should say, in closing, as it relates to court, there has been
also proposed substantial changes in the way that we handle the court process as
it relates to fines that should be imposed for first, second and third offences.
Mr. Speaker, we think that is also valid, considering that many of those fines
were - the minimum fines were very low compared to the value of the industry
that we see today.
Mr. Speaker, on that note I am going to conclude my remarks. I will be happy
to take any comments and questions on this at a later stage in committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to take an opportunity, just to take a few minutes to speak
at second reading again, reading in principle with respect to Bill 57,
An Act To
Amend The Fish Inspection Act. We will be raising a few specific concerns, Mr.
Speaker, when we get to the committee stage of this bill where we do a more
detailed examination of the clauses, but a couple of general comments I would
like to make in principle with respect to this bill.
Today, again, in listening very closely and intently to the minister as he
introduced the bill, he repeatedly and regularly used the name of Mr. Dunne. I
only mention that because Mr. Dunne's name has been used a lot in this
Legislature in the last little while. What we found out a couple of nights ago,
Mr. Speaker, around about midnight was that Mr. Dunne's name was used in the
last act that we passed, that was sponsored by this Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, inappropriately. In fact, almost to the point that it could be
argued that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and
Labrador probably owes a written and public apology to Mr. Eric Dunne with
respect to misusing his name to try to support initiatives in this House that
had no connection and no relation, whatsoever, to what Mr. Dunne recommended,
even to the point of being confirmed that members from rural fishing-based
districts, like Bonavista North, are quoted in local newspapers in their area
being asked about the fish licensing board: What do you think of this board? Is
this a good thing? They say: Yes, it is a good thing because it is just like Mr.
Dunne recommended. Only to have it disclosed and admitted and acknowledged in
this House that it was not at all like Mr. Dunne recommended, not even similar,
not even like a distant relative, not even like a third or fourth cousin, no
relation.
I believe, Mr. Speaker - now, I heard Mr. Dunne's name, who has a very
reputable name in the fishery, which is why he was asked to do the report, and
why the government, by the way, said in principle that they accepted the report.
Well, we certainly found out that one of the recommendations about an
independent arm's-length licensing board, they sure did not accept and improve
because they made up their own recommendation of setting up an advisory board
that still leaves the power of licensing strictly and solely and totally in the
hands of the minister.
So, I just make that comment, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour it, just
to say that when Mr. Dunne's name has been used and is being used in the
context of this Fish Inspection Act - which is a different issue than issuing
the licence. This is about the Fish Inspection Act which gives the Ministry of
Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and
its employees, on behalf of the government, the right to hold processors
accountable for the business they are conducting. They have already gotten their
licences, so it is not a licensing issue. They are already licensed to operate.
They are already running fish plants. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is this, that
they are running fish plants located in communities like Harbour Breton, or at
least they used to. They are running fish plants based on land in communities
like Fortune, or at least they used to. They are running fish plants in
communities like Bonavista, or as least they used to. These are the powers of
the government vested in them to inspect and hold these particular processors
accountable for their actions when they have been given the right to access and
make profit from a public resource, which is fish, Mr. Speaker.
In principle, again I would suggest that some of the changes that are here
probably are in line with the changes that Mr. Dunne recommended. I hope they
are, unlike the last time. I hope this time they are in line. We are finishing
our checking on that, and we will probably confirm for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, when we discuss it in more detail in Committee,
whether they are or they are not, because the last time, with respect to
licensing, the government pretended that they were in line with the report when,
as I said before, they were not even distantly related.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing is this: Some of these changes to the Fish
Inspection Act - there will not be a lot of work, unfortunately, left to do,
because we had the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, earlier today in
Question Period, stand up and say: I have always believed - as a matter of fact,
he said, I believed even before I got into politics - that there are too many
fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, too many of them.
So he believes there should be fewer, I would say; lesser, he said yesterday.
plants - let me put it that way, so there will not be a dispute over whether it
is fewer or lesser - a smaller number of plants in a smaller number of
communities is something that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for
Newfoundland and Labrador, the right-wing arch Conservative government headed by
a businessman from St. John's, with a person who used to be involved in a
fishing enterprise from rural Newfoundland, standing up now, all of a sudden,
saying: I have always believed, even before I got into politics, that there are
too many fish plants out there.
No wonder he let Harbour Breton close and didn't raise a finger to try to
stop it. No wonder he let Fortune close.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: I tell the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, there
were no FPI plants that closed in a government that I led. That is what the
record will show, no FPI plants that closed in a government that I led, and I
can tell you what we have today.
MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: I can tell you what we have now, as the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture bawls from his seat - a man who, earlier today, wanted us all
gagged, by the way. The House of Assembly, the people's House, where you are
elected to speak out in a free democratic society, the same minister that bawled
out on the record today - not from his seat, but twice with the microphone on,
as a recognized speaker, a minister of a Crown - Mr. Speaker, would you gag
those people?
That is how much respect he has for this House, and now that he is not the
recognized speaker he is over trying to interject. He can get up again; he knows
that. He is going to get up and close this debate at second reading. He is going
to get to speak a dozen times, twenty times, fifty times, at the Committee
stage. He doesn't need to bawl out to me, because I am saying what I feel and
believe. He was quite free today to say: I believe, as a person, and I have
always believed, even before I got into politics, that there are too many fish
plants in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is what he said. Meanwhile, he campaigned for a group who are now the
government that had a Blue Book that said: We have a plan for rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. We will protect the rural communities of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We know how to do it better than the governments there today. We will
not see people leaving the rural communities. We will stop out-migration. We
know how to do it. We already have a plan for it. Just elect us, and let us get
started.
Mr. Speaker, we elected them and they got started alright, and what do we
have today? A year later, not a sign of a plan for rural development. Not a
sign, not a trace, not a speck of it anywhere on the horizon, nothing in sight.
They had a meeting in August month, out in Port Blandford, and they invited some
people, a select group, and they said: Could you help us develop a plan for
rural Newfoundland and Labrador - a year after they said they had a plan - could
you help us develop a plan? Then they said that the plan would then be done some
time this fall.
Well, I would suggest to you that there is no sign of the plan today. Now
they are saying: Oh, we might have to do some more consultation, and we might be
able to come up with a plan maybe some time in the New Year.
I tell you, here is how desperate they are to try to link something to rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. Yesterday, they had the Premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - something
like that - and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, all three of
them, high-powered press conference on regional economic development, going to
save rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Guess what most of the money was for? To
attract foreign students from other countries to Memorial University. That was
it, Mr. Speaker. That was the biggest single expenditure announced yesterday.
That is the rural plan, and that has been going on for a number of years, by
the way, attracting Chinese students, Asian students, other foreign students, to
come here, because they are willing to pay. They are willing to pay for not only
post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker, but they are willing to pay for K to 12
education, and they are willing to pay good money. It is a good initiative, but
yesterday the biggest investment announced by the Premier, the minister who is
supposed to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation, was to attract foreign students from other countries to
study in St. John's and Corner Brook. Now, I tell you, that is going to grow
the economy in Englee, in the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's own
district, where the fish plant did not open this year. It opened before. It
opened when we were the government. It did not open this year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: It did not open this year, and guess what?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members on both sides to be attentive, and we ask members to be
co-operative in a parliamentary setting.
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, who was addressing the
House.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a bit strange - I guess it is a bit of a bad day for them - why they
would be so sensitive to a few general comments I am making in principle about
the Fish Inspection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, as we indicated here, the Fish Inspection
Act -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: The Member for Gander - again, I like it when they speak
because it is very enlightening. He says, the act is about the Fish Inspection
Act, and the Leader of the Opposition is talking about rural Newfoundland. He is
trying to suggest that I am off topic. Well, where do you think they inspect the
fish? In St. John's? There aren't any fish plants in St. John's, I will
have you know. There aren't any fish plants right in the City of Corner Brook.
There aren't any fish plants in Gander. They don't inspect fish in the
middle of Gander. Maybe the member might know that.
MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition might know, he might, but if he knew about the
fishing industry he would know that actually St. John's is one of the largest
ports in the Province for offloading fish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a huge amount of fish actually get inspected at
dockside here. Just a point of clarification. If I took any of his time away, he
can certainly have it afterwards.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The Chair recognizes, again, the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection of the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture. If he was listening, which obviously he wasn't, my
point was, and I said it clearly, that I understand how busy a port the City of
St. John's is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker - and if he wants to stand again,
I will put it to him now to set the record straight. Is there a fish plant,
which is what I said - there is no fish plant, I said, in St. John's - is
there a fish plant in the City of St. John's? I ask him to answer the
question. No answer, Mr. Speaker, because he knows the answer is, there is no
fish plant in the City of St. John's. I was making the point, there is no fish
plant in Gander. I was making the point that the Member for Gander said: Well,
how can you stray from a topic of fish inspection and talk about rural
Newfoundland and Labrador? Where do you think the fish plants are, if they are
not in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker?
Let me continue. The plan to save them - and the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture is sponsoring this bill on fish inspections. Unfortunately, the
problem is this. There are going to be a lot less locations to inspect the fish.
It is inspected when it is landed, so at the ports it will be inspected. There
is inspection done in the boats as it is landed. The problem is this, we have a
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today who, when he got a bit frustrated in
Question Period, began to pontificate about his true beliefs. His true belief,
he said, always, ever since before he got elected, was that he believes there
are too many fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is nodding his head
now, saying: Yes, I said it. Yes, I agree. I want to tell the people the truth.
That is what I believe in.
You have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province now on an
agenda that he will tell us the truth because he wants to tell the truth. He
will tell us the truth sometime about how many plants he actually plans to
shutdown, and there will be no need of fish inspection acts in those plants
because they won't exist. There will not be much fish inspection, I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, next year this time in Harbour Breton. I can pretty well
assure them of that. I can guarantee them there will be very little, if any,
fish inspection going on in Fortune next year this time, Mr. Speaker. He knows
that, and he is nodding his head again because he knows it to be true.
You get to the whole point, Mr. Speaker, but it is too bad we did not have a
Fish Inspection Act of this nature when there were lots of plants. What he
argues is this, Mr. Speaker. He argues: Where were the Liberals when all of
those plants were shutting down in the mid-1990s. Well, the Liberals were the
government, Mr. Speaker, and guess what was happening in the mid-1990s, from
1992 on? There was a moratorium on the fishery.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: Yes, and I do know it is still in place, Mr. Speaker, but the
year before that the quotas were several hundred thousands tons of fish. The
year after, they were practically zero, and the people in the communities knew
that their plants were not going to operate because they had no fish.
Now, the quotas have not reduced. The Minister of Fisheries is saying I am
right. The quotas have not reduced since then. He says I am right. So, why are
they closing now? Not because the quotas went from several hundred thousand down
to a few thousand. They are closing because the companies want to make more
money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: The minister and the Premier want the companies to make more
money, because it is the business approach above all else, Mr. Speaker. Do they
care if the people of Harbour Breton ever work in the fishery again? No, they do
not. Do they really care if the people of Fortune ever work in the fishery and
the plant again? No, they do not, because they believe there are too many plants
anyway.
I say to the Member for Humber Valley, if you believe in your heart and soul,
as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does, that there are too many
plants, you have to honestly look somebody in the eye, in some community, and
say: There is not future for you.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say I believe all of you should work
with what you have always done, and also say you have too many fish plants. You
might be able to twist that around and have it both ways and it might make
sense. It does not make sense to the ordinary person in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It cannot make sense to anybody who steps out of bed on any side of it
in the morning. You would have to be dead for that to make sense to you. It
makes no sense whatsoever.
We have had another true admission and confession, a very startling one, in
this Legislature today, from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who says
there are too many plants. By the way, all of you agree with it. All of you
agree with it because you are in the caucus. You are going to stand up and vote
for whatever he brings forward, as the Minister of Fisheries, so that means you
agree with it. Now, go out in your own district, I say to the Member for Humber
Valley, and tell them which communities that have fish plants today that you
think do not belong there next year, and probably should not have been there
last year. That is the challenge for you.
The Member for St. John's North does not have to worry about that because
he knows the fish plant that was down here on the south side closed over ten
years ago, but there is a whole lot more going to close if you listen to the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Now, back to the Fish Inspection Act, back directly to the Fish Inspection
Act, Mr. Speaker. I made the point about Mr. Dunne's recommendations. I am
willing to believe, this time, that they are not misusing Mr. Dunne's name
like they did the last time, because that was an affront to Mr. Dunne. He is
owed an apology, I believe, with respect to the licensing board, where he
recommended an independent board like the Liquor Commission and they brought in
a piece of legislation which was an advisory board and pretended they were doing
what Mr. Dunne said. I am hoping there is no pretense in this, Mr. Speaker. I am
hoping it is not here.
Just let me give one example, and we will do these, Mr. Speaker, in more
detail in Committee. One example, while I am speaking to this bill in principle,
about the tie-in to the government, I heard several ministers stand up today and
present annual reports. One of them was for Innovation and Trade. Another one
was for Government Services. I think there were two or three tabled today.
AN HON. MEMBER: Women's Policy Office.
MR. GRIMES: Women's Policy Office, two or three reports, and guess what
the script is? They are a very well-scripted group. The script was, in the
spirit of - and here it is, on the front of another bill, by the way, Bill 39,
not passed yet, not even debated in second reading yet, but the minister stood
up today presenting reports and said: In the spirit of transparency and
accountability - because there is
an act before this Legislature called
An Act
To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government
Entities To The People Of The Province. Today, I think we had three ministers
stand up and present annual reports and said: In the spirit of accountability
and transparency, I present this report.
It ties directly to this act, because guess what they are asking the fish
processors to do? They are asking the fish processors - if they listened to
their minister, and I am sure they did listen to him as intently as I did - he
said one of the changes that they are bringing in, he compared it to forestry.
He said, for the first time in history, the fish processors are going to be
asked, by law, to present an annual plan as to what their processing plan is for
the year. So, the law is changing. They do not have to present that to the
government today, by the way, because the law does not require it. So, that is
being touted as a good new initiative. The companies like FPI, by the way, like
Quinlan's, like Daley's, like a whole bunch, all of them, big or small, are
going to have to present an annual plan of how they are going to proceed with
their processing operations for the next year.
I would say to them, if they are serious about enhancing the transparency and
accountability of the government, they would also suggest that the plan not only
be given to the minister and tucked away in an office, but it also be published
in the area where they operate; so that down on the Burin Peninsula, whatever
plan FPI gives with respect to Marystown and Fortune and Burin, that they would
publish it in The Southern Gazette so that everybody in the area would
know what plan they gave the government, what they are planning to do this year.
Now, I tell you what, that is openness and transparency and accountability.
Will we see it? I don't know. I would hope we would. I am going to have a few
comments, too, Mr. Speaker, when we get to second reading, on transparency and
accountability, because I am a firm believer in it. I always was, still am, but
I am not a firm believer like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is, that
we should have fewer fish plants just because they do not make as much money as
they want in any one year and they are not making as big a profit; because the
minister admitted their quotas, by the way, have not gone down. Their quotas
have not gone down. FPI has not closed Harbour Breton because their quota was
They have not closed, not quite closed yet. My description of it is they have
not yet talked the people of Fortune into choosing which way they are going to
die. I do not think I am being to harsh in describing it that way. Some people
say a slow death or a fast death. It is not even that. It is two different
versions of a slowish kind of death. They are going to drag it out a little bit.
If you listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he would argue
that they did the right thing down in Harbour Breton. He just went and told
them. You shouldn't mislead them, you shouldn't lead them on, he said today.
You shouldn't prop them up with make-work projects. You shouldn't say, try
to get a few weeks working in your community where you want to live, where you
want to raise your children, your grandchildren. That is all wrong, he said. You
should just let them die. Give them all a ticket to Alberta. Get them on a plane
as fast as you can. Get them on the ferry.
AN HON. MEMBER: One way.
MR. GRIMES: A one-way ticket. I bet you the government would probably
bring in a program saying you can have a free airline ticket out to Alberta or
we will give you free transport on Marine Atlantic when you are leaving to look
for your job in Alberta or Southern Ontario. Now, if you come back to visit, I
bet they will make you pay for that. They might give you a free one to leave,
and that will be considered a good contribution, the right thing to do, because
if you listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is the future
that he described today.
So, Mr. Speaker, if they link the requirement for an annual plan to
transparency and accountability - I will go a step further, and the people on
the Burin Peninsula will have it in The Gazette , but let me give you last
year's experience. Fishery Products International - and I feel quite free, by
the way, about speaking about them openly in the Legislature because they were
created by this Legislature. I do not feel quite as free speaking about Daleys
or Quinlans because there is no piece of legislation in here that talks about
them. There was no piece of legislation that created the other fish companies in
Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no obligations on them by a special act.
There are obligations under acts like this one, the Fish Inspection Act. There
are obligations on them under acts like the Licencing Act, but there are no
special obligations like there is for FPI.
Last year FPI told the people of Harbour Breton what their annual plan was;
the plan that is now going to be required by law. They told the people of
Harbour Breton what the plan was. It said: We will tell you - because they
usually bring them in around this time of the year, the people from Fortune were
in yesterday. It is around this time of the year that FPI - and I do not
hesitate to speak about FPI, they are a creature of this Legislature. Mr.
Derrick Rowe, the CEO says: I understand and acknowledge publicly that I have
two masters. I have a board of directors that I have to answer to, who wants me
to maximize profit for the shareholders. Never mind the workers, never mind who
owns the fish, just get as much money for us as you can. I am investing my money
in your company and I am hoping to get more back than I put in, and I want you
to make me some money. I do not care how you do it. Usually they do it by having
the fewest possible people work and touch a fish. Don't let people touch it.
Don't let the people of the Province touch a fish.
Their ideal circumstance is the $40 million they put into the factory-freezer
trawlers offshore. Don't even bring it on land, sir. Catch it out there;
fillet it out there; process it out there; freeze it out there and drop it off
wherever you want to sell it. Now whoever is on the boat gets a bit of work, but
who works in Marystown under that scenario? Nobody. Who works in Fortune?
Nobody. Who works in Harbour Breton? Nobody. Now, is Derrick Rowe doing a good
job for one of his masters when he does that? Absolutely! And they carry him
around on their shoulders and they say: Good for you, Mr. Rowe. You made us some
money. You made us more money this year than you made for us last year. We are
proud of you, Mr. Rowe.
Well, it happens that Mr. Rowe says: I have another master. He says: My
second master is the government. Now, they might not want to believe that. They
are trying to run away from that. They do not want to acknowledge that. They
want to wash their hands of that. They want to deny it. Even a federal MP, like
Mr. Matthews, said: They are sitting on their hands allowing the willful, total
destruction of the FPI Act. That is not me, that is a federal Member of
Parliament saying that.
So here is Mr. Rowe out there, who is the CEO of the company, saying - in the
local papers by the way, The Sunday Independent , The Telegram , The
Newfoundland Herald , and anybody else who will write what he says. He said:
I understand that I have two masters, and one of them is the government.
Usually, from the government the person who then acts as the master is either
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture or the Premier, or both.
They were asked in Question Period today: What about it? They said, well they
met with Mr. Rowe ten days ago about Fortune. Ten days ago, Mr. Rowe, the
Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the President of the
Fisheries' Union, Mr. McCurdy, and when asked: What did you discuss? We
discussed FPI's future plans for Fortune. When asked about it yesterday, the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said - he did not say what he said, he did
not say what the Premier said as one of the masters - what the fisheries
president said. He said Mr. McCurdy didn't say anything.
Remember now, remember what our Premier has said about the Atlantic Accord.
He said: I wrote to Mr. Martin, as the Prime Minister, and laid out our plan. He
did not write back. He did not say anything. He did not object, so that meant he
agreed. Then he said: I wrote him again and he did not argue with anything I
said. He did not say anything. He did not object to anything, that means he
agrees.
Today we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What did he say in
that meeting? As one of the masters, because he is not in there as a
subservient, he is not in a begging position. He is in a control position
acknowledged by Mr. Rowe, himself. What did he say? Nothing. He said nothing
about Fortune. So did he just sit there and nod, and say: Oh, yes, put out two
options. Two options were described for Fortune: die slow or die slower. He
said: The president of the fisheries union did not say anything. So, he must
have agreed that that is okay, you just die one way or the other. The minister
did not challenge it, so he must agree. He must agree that it is okay for
Fortune to die, it is just a matter of which way. Today he stood in the House
and said: It is not up to me. They have to pick which way to die. That is what
he answered in this House today - a stunning answer. Nothing I can do about it.
He is saying there is nothing I can do about it and Mr. Rowe is out in the
public saying: I understand that the government is one of my two masters. It is
astonishing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely mind-boggling to see what is happening.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if they link it to openness and
transparency they would have put the plan in the papers as well, but the plan in
Harbour Breton, the annual plan that they are now going to be required to put in
by law, said you will operate for twenty-two weeks. You will operate for
twenty-two weeks in 2004. They did operate for fourteen weeks in the spring.
They shut down temporarily in April, which has been the normal course of
operation, as I understand it, in Harbour Breton for the last few years. Then
they expected they would come back for the remaining eight weeks or so this
fall, September, October and so on, because the company had told them you are
going to operate for twenty-two weeks. In the plan that they will now be
required by law to publish - which then should also, in my view, be in the local
paper; the Coaster , I believe it is, on the Connaigre Peninsula. It
should be published in that paper. But, would it matter if it was published or
not? Because the company halfway through the year said: We changed our mind.
When we get to that in committee stage we will say: okay, they will publish the
plan. They are going to publish the plan - not only FPI now, but all of them are
going to be required to publish a plan - but we will check it further and see
what happens if they change the plan partway through the year, because they had
a plan in Harbour Breton and before the year was over: the plant is closed. They
had a plan in Fortune. Before the year's end, they are being asked to choose
which way to die.
The minister now, scary thought - the minister who, a week ago, said: It is
not up to me. This is how it is changing. This is how the sands are shifting. It
is not a good comparison for a fish story but this is how the water is changing,
I guess, the ripple on the water is changing. A week ago he said: It is not up
to me to talk about the plans of FPI in the Legislature. FPI should talk about
that. I do not work for FPI. Well, he has us fooled. He looks to me like a fella
that I have seen, lots of workers at FPI who used to be proud to wear their FPI
caps, FPI on the front. I have seen lots of them wear it. They used to wear them
with pride. He should have one on. He should have a full suit on. A little badge
here, a little thing saying FPI. I am not allowed to mention people's names
but it would be TT, FPI, TT working for FPI. Probably a communication job, I
would expect, because that is all he has been doing, communicating their
messages. But, in any event, Mr. Speaker, in the those plans we will check and
see if there is some way to help these people because he had an opportunity to
do something about it but chose to sit on his hands and do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour these points here other than to say, there
are some terrible things happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are
linked directly to the Fish Inspection Act, because fish inspection happens when
the fish is landed and while it is being processed. The minister is saying,
there will be less plants to process it in, and I believe that is the right
thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, which means they all believe that. All of
the Conservative Caucus believe that. That is now the government position.
When I mentioned today, what about Englee in his own district, what about
Black Duck Cove that only had a new operator go in there a few years ago - very
close, by the way, and adjacent to places like Port au Choix and Anchor Point.
Does he believe that there are too many plants too close to each other there?
They are processing similar products, by the way. He said: It is going to have
to be rationalized. Last week he said: I don't feel comfortable talking about
FPI. Guess what he did outside the Legislature yesterday? Talked about
Bonavista, which is an FPI operation. Not FPI, it wasn't FPI talking about
Bonavista, it wasn't Derrick Rowe, it wasn't Mr. Carrigan talking about
Bonavista yesterday. Guess who was talking about an uncertain future for
Bonavista yesterday? The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland
and Labrador, who, along with the Premier, believes there are too many fish
plants in this Province.
In the same interview, not even on different days in a different interview,
in the same interview on the same day, in the same five or six minutes before
the tv camera, he was talking about too many plants; can't be sustained; we
have to have fewer plants in the future. He said: Bonavista, by the way, is not
a very good plant. Poor infrastructure, he says. Now, there is a good link. What
are the people of Bonavista supposed to think? People opposite today, when I
mentioned a couple of communities, started to say, but then they stopped:
fearmongering. Well, I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, if there is any
fearmongering about Bonavista, it is being done full bore by the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The Member for Bonavista South is probably shaking in his boots, because the
Member for Bonavista South, by the way, has also heard the minister who he
supports in that Cabinet, who has now articulated a government policy saying: We
have too many plants here. Guess which one he named as an example? Bonavista.
How do you think the Member for Bonavista South and his constituents felt about
that? Guess what? It is probably the first time he heard the minister say that
officially on behalf of the government, right here in the Legislature, recorded
in Hansard. I will bet a lot of money, too, Mr. Speaker, that he will try to
find some way - the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - to wiggle away from
that, to back off from that, because I am sure the Member for Bonavista South is
going to talk to him. He should probably be talking to him, because how do you
think the people in Englee felt? I bet you the Member for St. Barbe is going to
start talking to him, because how does he think the people in Black Duck Cove
felt today when they heard the minister say there are too many plants, boys. How
does he think the people in Anchor Point felt today when they heard him get on?
He was being passionate about it. He wasn't giving a casual answer. He said, I
have always believed it. I believed it even before I got into politics. There
are too many plants out there.
I don't know about Port aux Choix, I don't know about Anchor Point and
Black Duck Cove, but they are all pretty close together and the member knows
that. The Member for St. Barbe knows that. He knows they are all shrimp plants,
and he knows that if the companies like FPI get their way, they would put all of
the shrimp in one plant, just like FPI is going to put all of the groundfish in
Marystown. Then, when they no longer have any use for Marystown, that is gone
and it will all be done at sea. That is the plan for FPI.
Here is the difference, Mr. Speaker, and I will finish here. FPI is a company
that the CEO acknowledges has the government as one of its two masters. He said
it in the public media: I recognize that the government is one of my masters.
You won't hear Mr. Quinlan say that, you won't hear Mr. Daley say that,
because it is not true. They have to live by the general laws of the land. There
is no special act for them, and they would never say that the government is one
of my masters - but Derrick Rowe said it openly and freely.
In the FPI plants, which are now under siege, where the government is one of
the two acknowledged masters, what are they doing about it? Nothing! What are
they going to do about it in the plants that are not owned by FPI, that are not
under any special act of this Legislature? If they are doing nothing with the
ones that they own by being the boss, well, I guess the rest of them can rest
assured they are not going to lift a finger to help Englee, they are not going
to lift a finger in Black Duck Cove, they are not going to lift a finger in La
Scie, and they are not going to lift a finger in Triton. Triton is an FPI
operation, I think, isn't it? It is still an FPI one. Sure, they are not going
to do anything there anyway; that is FPI. That is one that they are one of the
masters of, and they are not going to.... If they want to change operations in
Triton, they know they can do it now anyway; they can do what they like.
Mr. Speaker, I will stop there for now. I do appreciate having had the
opportunity, and I am sure now that the Member for Gander knows why it is
appropriate, when you are debating a bill in principle about fish inspections,
to talk about rural development and the rural survival of communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador generally, because this whole place is here because of
fish. That is why Newfoundland and Labrador was founded in the very first
instance, 500-and-something years ago, on the eastern edge of the North American
Continental, because of fish. It is still the fishery that, by and large,
sustains the greatest part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and you have a
government acknowledging today that they think there are too many fish plants
and that there should be rationalization, and that they are going to let it
happen even in a circumstance where they have some control over the issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are other issues to talk about in the act, and we will
talk about them in more detail when we get into the Committee stage. I do
believe I made the point adequately, as well, that I would hope - I have not
looked through it thoroughly - that where Mr. Dunne is being referenced in this
act, that his name is not being used inappropriately as it was in the last act
that was passed in this Legislature, suggesting that it had something to do with
Mr. Dunne.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill,
Bill 57, at second reading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to speak to Bill 57,
An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection
Act.
It starts off by saying: This bill would amend the Fish Inspection Act to
implement recommendations of the Fish Processing Review Commission, the
"Dunne Report."
What he is basically saying is, he is amending the Fish Inspection Act to
bring it in line with what Mr. Dunne suggested in his report.
If, Mr. Speaker, I knew for a fact that was all he was going to do - bring it
in line with what Mr. Dunne recommended in his report - I would feel a lot
better. I know Mr. Dunne personally, and I know that he has a fair degree of
knowledge of the fishing industry, and I know that he is an honest and honorable
man, but I stood here the other night until close to 1 o'clock talking on
another recommendation that Mr. Dunne made, or it was said that Mr. Dunne made.
The minister rose on a number of occasions, not only in this House but in the
Province, and said that he was implementing an independent licensing board as
recommended by Mr. Dunne, and indeed Mr. Dunne did recommend an independent
licensing board, but that is not what the minister put before the House the
other night. He put before the House the other night, an advisory board that did
not resemble whatsoever what Mr. Dunne recommended in his report.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, for those opposite, they should look
carefully at this piece of legislation, because simply because the minister says
it is what Mr. Dunne is recommending, to use the words of the House Leader over
there, the Government House Leader, to simply say that this is what Mr. Dunne is
recommending does not necessarily mean that is so. Just because the minister
says this is so, does not necessarily mean it is so. The prime example of that
the other night was when he said: I am doing this because Mr. Dunne recommended
it, and it was nothing close to what Mr. Dunne recommended.
Mr. Speaker, the second or the third line says that the bill pertains to
various housekeeping amendments. If you talk about housekeeping amendments, for
the most part, in government, it is just changing a few rules and regulations,
but I suggest to those new members in the House of Assembly, like the Member for
Burin-Placentia West, and like the Member for Humber Valley, and like the Member
for Trinity-Bay de Verde, whenever anybody mentions the Fish Inspection Act -
and I say it to these people because they all represent districts that have a
fishery; even my colleague from Humber Valley has a fish plant in her district,
and a very good fish plant - whenever anybody mentions the Fish Inspection Act,
even to do some housekeeping things, your ears should perk up, and the reason
they should is because anything you do in the fishery in this Province has an
impact and effect on the biggest industry that we have, the most important
industry that we have in this Province. So, I suggest to those new members who
have fisheries and have fish plants in their district, they should pay very
careful attention even to the housekeeping items because you might go back to
your district one of these days and be faced with