Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 4 April 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 19)
2012-04-04
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
4, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 19
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Admit strangers.
The Speaker is very pleased today to welcome to our galleries the provincial
wheelchair curling team that represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012
Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship on March 18-25 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Their members include: their Skip, Joanne MacDonald; their Third, Felix
Green; their Second, Lanie Woodfine; and their Lead, Cecilia Carroll; along with
their Coach, Leslie Anne Walsh.
Welcome to our gallery.
Congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for
the District of Lewisporte, the Member for the District of Humber Valley, the
Member for the District of St. Barbe, the Member for the District of Conception
Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for the District of Terra Nova, and the
Member for the District of Port au Port.
The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to
a wonderful lady in my district, Lucy Ann Rowe. Lucy was born in Joe Batts Arm
on Fogo Island, on October 1, 1910. She is 101 years old.
She currently resides at Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte. I had the pleasure
of meeting Mrs. Rowe this past fall, and I also had the honour of introducing
Mrs. Rowe to our Premier.
She was married to James Oliver Newman, a WWI veteran and together they
raised five children. She also has sixteen grandchildren, thirteen
great-grandchildren, eight great-great-grandchildren and one
great-great-great-grandchild.
Lucy was a devoted member of the Church of England and for many years was a
Sunday school teacher and a church organist. Her hobbies include reading,
crocheting, knitting and she watches no television.
She moved to Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte in her 100 th year.
She takes no medication and she attributes her long life partially to the fact
that she takes two cod liver oil or two seal capsules every day.
Members of this House of Assembly, would you please join with me in
recognizing Mrs. Lucy Rowe and congratulating her on her long life.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend Donna
Giles from Deer Lake, who has been instrumental in bringing autism awareness to
the forefront for school children and residents in the Deer Lake region.
Donna is known locally as an advocate for autism and sits on the Board of
Directors for the Western
Chapter of the Autism Society, Newfoundland and
Labrador. With the diagnosis of her son, Cody, at the age of three, Donna, her
husband and their daughter have learned first-hand the unique challenges of
living with autism.
It is through the eyes of her now twelve-year-old son that Donna has embraced
her role in the awareness campaign and has been the main organizer for many
community events, such as: the annual flag raising for World Autism Day; annual
Autism Awareness Walk; education awareness in local schools; community swims and
other social events; assisted with annual camps for families living with autism.
Mr. Speaker, autism awareness being brought to the forefront by individuals
like Donna has enabled communities like Deer Lake to embrace all residents
regardless of their disability or ability.
Mr. Speaker, April 2 was World Autism Awareness Day. I ask all members in
this hon. House to join with me in commending Donna for her commitment to autism
awareness in the Deer Lake area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize
CURRA, the Community-University Research Alliance based in Norris Point in my
district. CURRA is led by principal investigator Barbara Neis.
CURRA is a five-year research program geared to assist West Coast communities
and organizations in the development of strategies for the recovery of fish
stocks and sustainability of fishery communities.
The mandate of this program is to unite researchers from Memorial University
and Sir Wilfred Grenfell College with stakeholders and community organizations
to collaborate in the training of researchers in community-based research and in
promoting community liaising with researchers. I have seen the tremendous work
that CURRA has done and the benefit this work has been to the researchers and
communities involved.
Part of the CURRA initiative is the Bonne Bay Marine Station, which is a
prized community asset in the area. CURRA will be holding the upcoming
international symposium entitled: Rebuilding Collapsed Fisheries and Threatened
Communities, to be held in Bonne Bay in early October some twenty years after
the cod moratorium. This is a multi-stakeholder event and I encourage all MHAs
to attend this event in my district.
Our fishery is the lifeline of all our rural communities and CURRA and
Memorial University should be commended for addressing the challenges of a
collapsed fishery and for bringing stakeholders together to ensure our fishery
remains a strong part of our future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand in this House to acknowledge an outstanding young man from my
district. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Donovan Taplin, a Level III student at St.
Michael's High on Bell Island who this past week was offered the prestigious
2012 national Loran Award. The nationwide candidate's pool was comprised of
nearly 4,000 applicants.
The scholarship, which includes summer programs and mentorship opportunities,
is valued at up to $75,000. In an announcement made only hours ago, Mr. Speaker,
Donovan has also been awarded the national TD Canada Trust Scholarship valued at
$70,000.
Donovan has been a participant in both the Students on Ice Expeditions to
Antarctica and the Arctic, and is the communications director of the Students on
Ice delegations to the 2012 Earth Summit, which will take place in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil in June.
Donovan has been a very active volunteer on Bell Island with the school's
student council, Tourism Bell Island, the Accordion Idol, Radio Bell Island, and
many other groups. Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of having Donovan as one of
my team members in a fundraising hockey tournament this past fall, and found him
to be an exceptional, well-rounded young man.
I ask all members of this House to congratulate Donovan on his many
accomplishments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate a hockey team on their recent accomplishment,
and while this hockey team is not technically from my district, a good portion
of their fans hail from there. The team of which I speak is, of course, the
Clarenville Caribous.
On April 1, the Caribous beat the Grand Falls Cataracts, winning four games
straight, the series ending 4 games to 1. This was the third Herder championship
in four years, and that is in addition to the team winning the prestigious
national championship, the Allan Cup, in 2011.
As I have heard from you, Mr. Speaker, in a conversation we had just
recently, the Clarenville Caribous have achieved senior hockey supremacy in this
Province.
I would ask all members of this House of Assembly to join with myself and the
Speaker in congratulating the Caribous senior hockey team on another hugely
successful season.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the forty-eight years
of service the Port au Port Economic Development Association has been providing
to its catchment area.
The Port au Port Economic Development Association is a not-for-profit,
community-based volunteer organization that works toward implementing short-term
and long-term economic planning in the region. This is accomplished by
facilitating the identification of local needs, acting as a forum for the
exchange of ideas on how to address these local needs, and the development of
local leadership.
PAPEDA, for instance, co-ordinates and hosts the Port au Port Agricultural
and Craft Fall Fair, a highly successful annual event that showcases local
businesses and farmers' products and services. This year, Mr. Speaker, will mark
its forty-fifth anniversary.
PAPEDA also manages I would say to be one of the most picturesque parks in
all of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Piccadilly Head Regional Park, which is
greatly enjoyed by visitors, tourists, and local residents alike.
Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members of this House to join with me in applauding
the efforts of the Port au Port Economic Development Association for their
coordinated community work that has benefitted the area for almost fifty years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills and
the Minister Responsible for Persons with Disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador
athletes who represented this Province at the 2012 Canadian Wheelchair Curling
Championship, March 18 to March 25, in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Under the guidance of coach Leslie Ann Walsh, team members Joanne MacDonald,
Felix Green, Cecilia Carroll, and Lanie Woodfine are showing what can be
achieved through hard work, dedication, and determination.
With two victories in a national setting, Mr. Speaker, and without one of
their key curlers, Darlene Jackman who unfortunately was unable to attend
the team improved on their previous record at the championship last year.
I would like to especially recognize Skip Joanne MacDonald on her outstanding
performance. Ms MacDonald received the Good Sportsmanship Award at the closing
ceremonies in Thunder Bay, following a vote from all curlers. It is also worth
noting that she was Canada's only female skip at the 2012 championship.
As members of this hon. House may know, Joanne MacDonald is also Chair of the
Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, and
has worked for over twenty-five years as a community advocate and promoter of
equality for individuals with disabilities.
Along with being a member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, an
Officer of the Order of Canada, and establishing national and world records for
athletic ability, as well as being a mentor and role model for a whole
generation of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, she is now committed to
developing a competitive wheelchair curling program in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Team MacDonald for their performance this week, and for their ongoing
accomplishments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy.
Once again, we are here to celebrate the achievements of people from
Newfoundland and Labrador. Congratulations to Joanne, Felix, Cecilia, Lanie,
Darlene, and also their coach, Leslie. It is always a great accomplishment when
you can compete at a national level, but when you can win on a national level it
is even greater, that you know how much hard work and dedication you have put
in.
As Chair of the Advisory Council for People with Disabilities, I am well
aware of Joanne's work over the years for people with disabilities. I have
attended many meetings with Joanne, and I know the work and how much she has
promoted inclusion of people with disabilities across the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. I congratulate her for that, and I
know the hard work and dedication, and I know the rest of the team is also proud
of her.
The biggest accomplishment of this, Mr. Speaker, is not only being the only
female skip, but being recognized by your peers at the tournament as the most
sportsmanlike player. To me, when you are recognized by your peers at a national
tournament, it goes well beyond the curling; it goes beyond the bigger scope of
including people.
Congratulations on that award, because there is no better award than being
recognized by your peers. Congratulations to the team. Keep up the good work,
and who knows, one of these days, you will be bringing home the gold pretty
soon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I congratulate these athletes for the hard work and achievement that comes
with taking
part in a national tournament such as this one. I also say
congratulations to the Chair of the Provincial Advisory Council for the
Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities and her teammates for their dedication,
which has seen their record improve in this tournament.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot overlook the systemic and physical barriers that
people with disabilities still face in this Province. We need to be progressive
in our policies to ensure that people with disabilities can participate in
society and in our workforce to the fullest extent, and that we value the unique
contributions of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Legislature today to inform the public and members
present of the continued success of the Fisheries Technology and New
Opportunities Program.
Mr. Speaker, this is a program that has been ongoing for five years and has
funded a total of 173 projects in support of innovation, marketing, and research
in the fishing industry.
The program, Mr. Speaker, was announced in 2007, with a $6 million funding
allocation, as part of our provincial government's Fishing Industry Renewal
Strategy. Once again, in Budget 2011-2012, the program was extended for an
additional three years with a further commitment of $6.6 million. The program
has generated, Mr. Speaker, $32.8 million in total project value to date, which
continues to grow.
The primary goal of this program is to provide support to the Province's
harvesting and processing sectors, Mr. Speaker, specifically to help diversify
the fishing industry and to increase our overall viability for the future.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have seen many innovative projects and
activities that have come to fruition things, for example, to support the
reduction of by-catch, enhanced safety in the industry, energy efficiency,
fishing gear demonstration, and the introduction of new technology.
Some examples of projects undertaken also include the testing of fishing pot
technology; exploratory fisheries for northern stone crab and whelk; an
e-simulator distance education program for stability management; ongoing
research on the utilization of fish waste as biodiesel; and the recycling of
poly bags to reduce the high volumes of waste disposed in landfills, Mr.
Speaker. As well, this program has assisted with market development and the
promotion of shrimp and other important species.
Mr. Speaker, it is by working together that we will bring about new ideas and
new ways of efficiently operating that will make the fishing industry more
viable and sustainable for the future. The Fisheries Technology and New
Opportunities Program is here to support the fishing industry in becoming more
competitive in the global seafood market.
I am confident that with the continued engagement of our industry, our
fishing and aquaculture sectors together will thrive and play an ever-increasing
role in the Province's rural economy. We are very proud indeed, Mr. Speaker, of
what we have accomplished collectively in this Province, and we look forward to
what the future initiatives will bring.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy.
I must truly say that this is really good news. This, in my view, is one of
the most important mandates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This
is what the department is doing well, and should be doing even more.
It is the role of Opposition to criticize if we need to criticize, but
certainly to support when we see need to support. This is an excellent program,
and I cannot think of a better use for resources of the Province than being
invested in the fishery in this way.
I take particular note of the area where I have researched, dealing with fish
waste for biodiesel. I would certainly hope that the minister would direct some
of the funds further in this particular area, because right now, swimming off
our coast, we have approximately 10 million seals. Ten million seals consume
approximately 1.4 tons per year; that is 14 million tons. The Canadian seafood
industry landed less than 1 million tons. The seals are eating far more than we
are eating.
If the department is already focussing on biodiesel, and we need a seal
management program, then I would really encourage the minister to push this
program even further and to engage the federal government in a manner that we
can reduce the seal population to our mutual benefit.
Mr. Speaker, this is good news today, and I hope to see more of this from the
minister.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Congratulations to the people involved in this worthy program. The future of
our greatest sustainable resource lies in innovation; $6.6 million over three
years is a pittance to a billion-dollar industry. I really want to see more
money invested in this vital area. I would like to see more research around
value-added processing, and I would like the minister to share any studies and
work and data, to date, that have been developed with public money around this
program.
I stress that we have to place more emphasis on innovation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Dominion Bond Rating Service and Standard & Poor's Rating Services have
listed Emera's outlook as negative. Standard & Poor's cited weak cash flows and
have stated there is a one in three chance that they will downgrade the
company's long-term credit rating.
I ask the Premier: How does this negative outlook of Emera's financial
situation affect your agreements with the company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that Emera's credit rating has not been
downgraded, but what has happened here, Standard & Poor's have lowered the
outlook from stable to negative. A lot of this, I understand, Mr. Speaker, deals
with the legislative changes made by the Nova Scotia government that mandate
Emera to produce 15 per cent renewable energy by 2015, and 40 per cent by 2040.
This is why the Maritime Link becomes so important, Mr. Speaker. It allows
them to meet their renewable energy targets and is one of the reasons that they
are not only looking to Quebec for power because they are not looking to sole
source power, they are looking for energy that meets their renewable energy
standards that will affect their credit rating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: I remind the minister, it was weak cash flows that was stated
in the report that I have.
Mr. Speaker, to enter into an agreement we have to be comfortable with our
partners. In this case, we are entering into an agreement with a weakening
partner.
I ask the Premier: Is the fact that Emera is having financial difficulties
why they are not part of the cost overruns on the Labrador Trans-Island Link,
and only 50 per cent of the cost overruns on their own Maritime Link?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources
indicated, Emera's credit ratings have not been downgraded. Their outlook has
been moved from stable down to negative. All that means is that the credit
rating agencies, such as Standard & Poor's and the Dominion Bond Rating Agency,
are going to simply monitor the company to ensure that the company makes changes
in its financial policy to address the concerns that the bond rating agencies
have addressed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Standard & Poor's is the world's pre-eminent cash
rating agency and they have stated that Emera's cash flows are weaker than they
would like to see, given the amount of spending ahead of them.
I ask the Premier: If Emera pulls out of your Muskrat arrangement, does that
mean the 40 per cent export option, as well as the federal loan guarantee, is
gone as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the Dominion Bond Rating
Agency has raised the concerns about the great number of projects that Nova
Scotia is going to undertake in order to move from producing electricity based
on carbon sources to non-carbon sources, such as hydro and wind. That means that
they will be seeking funding to do that, and they will be seeking rate increases
before the Nova Scotia regulator to accomplish that. In terms of the Maritime
Link, Mr. Speaker, Emera will have the guarantee of the federal government and
will borrow at AAA+ ratings.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Emera's financial situation puts them really in a
vulnerable situation. We have heard rumours coming out of Nova Scotia now for
quite some time.
I ask the Premier: There is always the elephant in the room there, and how
would you feel if Hydro-Qubec took out Emera?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there has been no downgrading in the credit
rating. This is merely they are under watch by the bond rating companies. When
they borrow for the Maritime Link, they are going to be borrowing with the
guarantee of the federal government behind it, and that is as good as it gets in
this country, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has confirmed that feasibility level
studies have been completed on Muskrat Falls and isolated Island proposals.
I ask the Premier: Will you now commit to the same level of study on LNG,
natural gas, wind, conservation, and demand-side management? Can we have the
same level of studies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a prospective leader of the Liberal Party stated on a couple of occasions
yesterday, Muskrat Falls is a very good project, Mr. Speaker, and one that Mr.
MacDonald endorses fully.
Mr. Speaker, certain options can be eliminated rather quickly, but what we
have agreed to do, even the options that have been eliminated, we will file a
report on natural gas. We will have a report prepared on wind. We will put it
all, Mr. Speaker, in front of the House of Assembly, along with the Decision
Gate 3 or sanction numbers. There will be a full week of debate in the House of
Assembly, and all of the questions that are being asked, Mr. Speaker, will be
answered. So, what we are doing here now is we are giving them exactly what they
are looking for in terms of the reports and debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will remind the minister that Mr. MacDonald was at our renewal committee
meeting this morning. He is part of our renewal committee, and he has been
there, and he endorses what we are doing, actually. He said we are asking the
right questions. Go look at the report this morning.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has said a study will be
completed on natural gas; however, the Premier is saying that there will only be
a report.
I ask the Premier: What is the difference between a study and a report, and
can you take a report to the bank?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am learning every day in this House that I must be in absolute
however, that is the standard I am being held to, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to Ziff Energy with
regard to wind. When he made his report to me, I asked if he could ask Ziff
Energy to get a report to draw up a report for us, Mr. Speaker, to answer the
questions that have been put forward not only by the members of the Opposition
and the Third Party but by critics in the broader community. As soon as we get
that report, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make it available to everyone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: I would like to remind the Premier that Ziff did not report on
least get your reports right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2011, government announced that
POMAX
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2011, government announced that
POMAX Consulting Incorporated would carry out a feasibility study on expanded
911, E-911 services in Newfoundland and Labrador. That report was due at the end
of March.
What is the status of this report and can you tell the people of this
Province when they can expect 911 services in all regions of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, we continually invest in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The 911 service could be very important to all householders in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to make sure, number one, that if we were to
do it, we have to do it right; number two, we have to do it in a way that is
affordable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is only the end of the month about what, four or five days ago that we
actually received the report. When we fully evaluate that report, well then, we
will start moving it forward from there, but do not move it within twenty-four
hours after receiving the report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government has yet another fishery mess
with the news the lobster industry is at a standstill. It is no coincidence
government is sitting on a large pot of money from the lobster buyout program
where only thirty-nine harvesters accepted offers.
I ask the minister: Is this recent lobster chaos a deliberate attempt to
restructure the industry through the back door rather than paying our lobster
harvesters the money they deserve to exit the industry with dignity?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The information that I have before me is not that the lobster industry is in
a mess. As a matter of fact, the Price Setting Panel has just indicated they
have come to an agreement on the price for this season, first of all, which I
think is very positive. Secondly, with respect to the lobster buyout program,
that is one we are all proud of on this side of this House, because our
government has stepped up to help the industry.
As I have said before to the member opposite, and I repeat it again, this
government stepped away from administering that program. We made a contribution
up to a total of $18 million, but that program is being administered by the
FFAW. I cannot speak for them about the process nor the number of buyouts that
have been accepted to date.
I encourage the member to put his question to the appropriate authorities who
can give him the relevant information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the lobster buyout program is intended to help
harvesters exit the industry and in doing so improve the incomes of those
remaining. The program clearly is not delivering.
I ask the minister: Is it true that over 90 per cent of the money remains
while the lobster industry is in chaos?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I might add, by the way, that I received a report
on crab today and it looks like the crab industry is about to start with a very
positive price.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: I talked a few minutes ago at length about the Fisheries
Technology Program that we are so proud to be a part of, and I hear members
opposite endorse that.
Mr. Speaker, we are about doing what we can to support this industry and
there are some very, very positive things happening. It is disappointing that
day after day you keep hearing negativity from across the House.
I can only repeat as honestly as I can what I just said: This government is
not administering that program, Mr. Speaker. It is being administered
independently through the FFAW.
Questions about the number of applications, the number who have accepted, and
the number who have exited the industry, I cannot answer. It is not part of my
role. It is their role and I encourage them to go in that direction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in our meeting with the Minister of National Defence, Peter
MacKay, he said he would be willing to provide the necessary information
requested by the Province if they chose to do an inquiry into the Burton Winters
tragedy. Yesterday I asked the Premier if she was now prepared to do the inquiry
and, Mr. Speaker, she was waiting to hear back from the minister's office.
I ask her today if she has had a conversation and if she is indeed ready now
to carry out the inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I had a lengthy conversation with Minister MacKay this morning
and I am interested that the Opposition House Leader refers to the meeting "we"
had. There was no we, Mr. Speaker; it was her. The Leader of the Opposition was
not in the meeting, Mr. Speaker, and nowhere in the meeting of all the cry we
have had in this House for an inquiry into how the federal government deployed
their search and rescue infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, not once did she ask
Minister MacKay for a joint inquiry into what happened on January 29 in
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier probably got her information as
confused in this case as she has in every other case that she speaks on, Mr.
Speaker. Give her another day and her story will change again. Mr. Speaker, in
the conversation that I had with the Minister of National Defence and unless
he denies this or lies about it this is exactly what the question was, and
this is exactly what the answer was.
I asked him directly: If the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was to do
an inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy, is there any reason why they would
not co-operate and provide the information that was required by the federal
government? Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Premier to find where I have said
anything different than that.
So I ask the Premier today: Now that you know that they will give the
information, are you prepared to do the inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two points, Mr. Speaker; in Question Period yesterday, time and time and time
again, as Hansard will show, I asked the question whether or not the Minister of
National Defence was saying that the federal government was going to participate
in a joint inquiry. Not once was I corrected, Mr. Speaker not once.
Now, Mr. Speaker, also in quotes in the media today, the Leader of the
Opposition says it is his impression, from what he heard at his meetings in
Ottawa now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he has extra-sensory perception, or
supersonic ears, but he was sat outside Minister MacKay's office while the House
Leader had her meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I had to start correcting everything the Premier said
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: I would not get another thing done; I would be all day long
correcting the misinformation and the confusing information that she continues
to put out there for the public.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: I say to the Premier: I had the meeting with Peter MacKay; that
is a lot more than you do did as the Premier of this Province, I say to you. In
two months you finally made your way to make a phone call.
Let me ask you today, Premier: Are you now prepared to do the inquiry into
the Burton Winters tragedy? Are you now prepared to do it knowing the federal
government will be forthcoming with the information that you will need?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in my first lengthy conversation with
the Minister of National Defence, he committed to providing information. We have
written him a letter asking for that information, Mr. Speaker. The question has
been as to whether or not we would call a joint inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is how the line of questioning started here in
this House, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, and the House Leader,
kept insisting that I had the authority to call a joint inquiry the same as we
did with the Cougar helicopter, Mr. Speaker. She finally gets her meeting with
the Minister of National Defence and does not ask him for a joint inquiry when
the federal government deployment of infrastructure were trying to investigate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Do you know what is really sad, Mr. Speaker? The Premier has
spent more time looking at my Twitter and Facebook and finding out what I am
doing in my meetings than she did into the full Burton Winters tragedy in this
Province. How sad is that, Mr. Speaker?
I have read the log sheets from DND. Mr. Speaker, according to the log sheets
that were obtained from the Department of National Defence, it was twenty-one
hours after the call left Makkovik before the Provincial Emergency Measures
Organization contacted the joint research centre for support. It was eight hours
later when the joint research centre closed the file and another twenty-three
hours had lapsed before the Emergency Measures Organization of the Province
requested air support to do a search in the Makkovik
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to conclude her question.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier today: She has done everything else; have you read the
documentation? Have you read the log sheets and if you have, is that not reason
enough to do an inquiry into this (inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, to hear such false information laid on the
floor of this House of Assembly certainly appals me, to be honest with you, when
I stood in this House and I went through the log in regard to when the call was
received. The first call that came out of Makkovik, the first call that came
into Fire and Emergency Services asking for air support was at 8:19 on Monday
at 8:19 on Monday.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) here.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. O'BRIEN: I don't care, I say to the hon. member, if you were there.
You ask the RCMP when the first call came into Fire and Emergency Services. Get
up on your feet and ask the RCMP when it came. I don't care if you were there.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: I have my log. You are playing politics with a tragedy, I
say to the hon. member. Appalling! At 8:19 - and we made the first call to JRCC
at 9:00 o'clock or so in the morning, and we got a call back at 9:20 that no
assets were available. That is exactly what happened.
If I go to work and put all kinds of hours onto it, fifty-one hours - you are
playing politics with a tragedy in Makkovik, I say to the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Premier and her government were caught off guard by
the PUB's refusal to endorse their Muskrat Falls proposal based on the
information the PUB were supplied with. It appears government did not have a
plan for the possibility of this decision.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Has government discussed a plan with Nalcor
regarding what next steps to take with the Muskrat Falls proposal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what I did not expect from the PUB was a refusal to fulfill the
terms of their mandate. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you call on an organization that
is instituted to serve the people of this Province, who have been given a
mandate, accept a mandate, Mr. Speaker, you expect them to fulfill the mandate.
So, no, I was not prepared; and not I was not prepared for them not to
recommend, Mr. Speaker, I did not know what their recommendation was going to
be, and I was prepared to accept whatever it was. They refused to fulfill their
mandate. That is a reality now that we have to deal with, and as a government,
we have decided how to move forward, and I have shared that information with
Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have to assume from the Premier's response that in actual fact she has not
yet sat down and met with Nalcor to put a plan together. Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked government for independent examinations of all
electricity generating options on the Island. Government has consistently
refused to consider these options which might prove preferable to government's
Muskrat Falls approach to meeting long-term power needs. The Premier has now
promised more reports and information before our debate on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can we be sure that the reports
government has commissioned relate to the specifics related to the Isolated
Island option?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Leader of the Third Party because she says it does
not make it so. I have had any number of meetings let me tell you with Mr.
Martin over the last week, so your information and your statement are incorrect.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of experts review the information with
regard to the development of Muskrat Falls. Every one of those experts, Mr.
Speaker, had sufficient information to come to the conclusion that based on
Decision Gate 2 numbers, Muskrat Falls is the least-cost option and we need the
power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the Premier that yesterday we heard the Minister of Natural
Resources talking about a meeting here and a meeting there and bumping into
somebody somewhere else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: I ask the Premier: What confidence can we have in information
the minister gathers while shopping around for endorsements?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have Navigant, we have Manitoba Hydro, and we have the
consumer advocate and his expert. We have Dr. Wade Locke who sometimes, I admit,
is the second coming from the other side of the House, other times he is the
devil incarnate, so it depends on what day of the week. We have a lot of respect
for Dr. Locke. Mr. Speaker, we had the late Jack Layton. We have Jack Harris, we
Dean MacDonald. How many more (inaudible)?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the PUB is charged with ensuring the lights stay on in the
Province. The PUB has expressed serious concern on Nalcor's design of their HVdc
transmission system which they note, along with Manitoba Hydro, does not meet
industry standards. This is undoubtedly going to also be a serious concern for
Nova Scotia's PUB as they do their review over the next several months.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How will this problem with design
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: affect the deal Nalcor is currently negotiating with Emera
in Nova Scotia?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to remind the Leader of the Third Party that there is a
difference between seeking endorsements and doing due diligence. As a
government, we take steps on our own to ensure the information we are being
provided with is accurate.
Mr. Speaker, what should give the hon. member some solace, although I doubt
it, is that we are engaging Manitoba Hydro International, the very team of
experts hired by the PUB who have been critical of Nalcor to further review
the issues that she talks about. So Manitoba Hydro International, Mr. Speaker,
will review the Decision Gate 3 numbers. They will look at the project, they
will take the work that has been done by the way, which was paid for by the
taxpayers of this Province and they will now use that information, Mr.
Speaker, to make a decision on Decision Gate 3.
All of the issues will be looked at. We are not hiding anything. We want to
get to the bottom of this. The hiring of Manitoba Hydro International is a good
example of this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The New Democratic
Party has been calling for a reduction in small business tax from 4 per cent to
3 per cent. Seven other provinces now have a more competitive business tax, with
the news that Nova Scotia will reduce its rate to 3.5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will Budget 2012 include a reduction in
small business tax to prevent losses in the small business sector?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government has lowered taxes more than
any other government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: We certainly want to put money in people's pockets. We have
lowered our small business tax rate down to 4 per cent. Of course, unlike Nova
Scotia, we have not increased the HST by two points.
So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member to have a nice Easter break and
come back. We will release the Budget and we can have a great discussion at that
time.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, seafood producers claim they will not pay
the price for lobster set by government's pricing panel. They said that it was
too high. This had the potential to send the whole industry into jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, lobster is for the most part shipped live. There is little or no
processing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Will he take
the initiative and begin work on creating a seafood marketing co-op, which will
remove the intermediary, create more price stability, and increase profits for
harvesters?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issue the member opposite raises I have to say that I am not aware that
there are significant challenges in the lobster industry at this point in time.
It is always difficult when there is fear mongering in the House of Assembly. I
am aware that discussions have been had and I am aware that there has been an
agreement between the FFAW and the processors on a base price for lobster that
will see the season open. I say to the member opposite, if that changes and I
would certainly like him to advise me if I am not already aware, but I am not
aware that there are challenges today.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point, and I think I have talked
about it in the House of Assembly before; we are indeed committed to a marketing
council for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was our government who
actually announced several millions of dollars in last year's Budget to do just
that and we are working on that initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation
and Works. Government owns vacant buildings and land across the Province that
could be used for affordable housing. Municipalities and housing groups have
asked the government to make some vacant properties available for affordable
housing without success.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he work with other provincial
government departments to develop a strategy for transferring available land for
the construction of affordable housing?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member opposite, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation, my department; we work with all departments in government. We
manage our assets and we do make available to anyone who wants to come forward
with a good plan, whether it is for affordable housing or whatever we would
certainly partner with them to make what is available that we can make
available, to move forward on any viable project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, the time allocated for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I
give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 18)
Again, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Mr.
Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities. (Bill 17)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a petition.
To this hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly showeth:
WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Paul's, Cow Head,
Sally's Cove or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities in Gros Morne
National Park; and
WHERAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros
Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,
expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous
travelers, hikers and others in the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner
with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne
National Park, and the enclave communities within the park.
As in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition keeps coming from different people who live in the
park, from different towns' people. They are keenly interested in having
improved cellphone service. The importance of cellphone service cannot be
overstated in many areas. There was situation just north of the park within the
last week, less than a week, when a
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Member for St. Barbe has been recognized by the Chair.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, within the last week there was a situation
where a young woman from a town north of the park, on her snowmobile at night,
rolled over the snowmobile and had no way to get home. She was able to contact
the authorities, I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to advise them of
her predicament by cellphone. Unfortunately, the cellphone battery died but at
least she was able to raise the alarm of where she was and that she was in
distress, and search parties set out immediately. Fortunately, she met up with
somebody on her walk back after daylight, after spending all night on the snow
alongside the snowmobile.
Mr. Speaker, that shows the importance of cellphones. These communities are
urging the government to supply cellphone service to their communities for all
of the aforementioned reasons.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits - White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly showeth:
WHEREAS the need for cellular coverage is far reaching in the District of The
Straits - White Bay North; and
WHEREAS there is limited cellphone coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony
Airport to St. Anthony and there is little to no coverage in the communities
surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436, Route 437,
Route 438; and
WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure
their safety and communication abilities; and
WHEREAS the residents of The Straits - White Bay North District feel that the
Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop
incentives to further investments in cellphone coverage in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to
support the residents of The Straits - White Bay North District in their request
to obtain adequate cellular phone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue for quite some time, dealing
with private suppliers and making this issue well-known because cellphone
coverage is something that is quite critical. I have learned that, right now
under the current investment plan, eighteen towers will be going up on the
Avalon Peninsula. That is where the investment will be made, and certainly it
needs to be to deal with capacity issues. Also, we do need to make sure we are
bridging gaps and spots when it comes to dealing with cellular coverage.
There is a mechanism that needs to be in play, because if we are investing in
broadband that is using fibre and the cellular towers also need fibre, then
maybe there is a more cohesive strategy that needs to be put in place by the
Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development to make sure that
cellular and broadband are bridged with these companies. We really do need to
ensure for the safety of our citizens, for education, for health, and so many
other purposes that cellular coverage is made a priority by this government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament Assembled pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. KIRBY: No.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS strikes and lock outs are rare, and on average 97 per cent of
collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and
WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since
1978, in British Columbia since 1993 that is correct and successive
governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and
WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length
and divisiveness of labour disputes; and
WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lock out
is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the
well-being of its residents, as is evident by the recent use of temporary
replacement workers by both Ocean Choice International (OCI) and Vale in
Voisey's Bay;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to
enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a
strike or lockout.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, of course we see the damaging impact of not having this
legislation in the fact that the standoff continues between OCI and the
trawlermen who should be out aboard the Newfoundland Lynx right now,
working, but instead are ashore without their jobs because scab labour is being
used to prevent a reasonable settlement from being reached in that.
I know the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency has said on a
number of occasions now that he is open to the idea. I encourage him to continue
to do his research; I know he mentioned he has read a couple of articles on this
already. So hopefully he continues to study the matter; I am certainly willing
to refer him to some references, should he be lacking in resources or sources in
looking into the matter.
Thank you very much and I hope that members of the House of Assembly will see
fit to hear the plea of these petitioners sooner than later.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, I now call upon the Member
for St. Barbe to introduce the motion that stands on the Order Paper in his
name.
MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS the fishery is the lifeblood of hundreds of communities in our
Province, with both harvesting and processing contributing significantly to
personal incomes and regional economies; and
WHEREAS the shipping out of unprocessed seafood negatively impacts our
people, communities and Province; and
WHEREAS provincial legislation is already in place to restrict the exporting
of our unprocessed fish products; and
WHEREAS there is a growing concern that the community unit will become even
less of a beneficiary of one of our most important renewable resources; and
WHEREAS the government is already on record as stating that our people and
our communities must be the primary beneficiaries of our fish resources; and
WHEREAS there is increasing evidence that other countries are benefiting
greatly from our unprocessed raw seafood products; and
WHEREAS there are warnings that our Province is running out of time to
diversify its economy before the oil revenues run out and we will be left with
insufficient money to pay the bills;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the
provincial government to immediately recommit to the principles of disallowing
the shipping out of unprocessed resources in order to protect regional and
provincial economies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial
government to work with the federal government to adopt the policy that if a
company is unable to process its quota allocation, then they be obligated by law
to offer it to other processing companies at cost and a reasonable profit
margin, as determined by the industry norm; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial
government to adopt the policy that in cases where it is absolutely necessary to
ship out unprocessed fish, to ensure the survival of the industry in the long
term, it must be shipped out for a definite time frame, and the company
exporting unprocessed seafood has to first reapply for the export licence
annually, and secondly, must pay a fee to the Province, as is done in many other
industries, so that our people and our communities continue to benefit from this
natural resource.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the history of the fishery in our Province, we
are suffering from a blessing that we had in bygone years. Historically, we had
huge quantities of fish that we could catch, we could dry, we could salt, and we
could ship out. In the case of lobsters, we canned them; herring, we salted.
When we entered Confederation in 1949, we, the Dominion of Newfoundland, were a
leading seafood processor in the world. We are able to catch fish and catch fish
and catch fish. We had lots of fish; we caught huge volumes, and we sold it at
low prices.
Then, we joined Canada. After we joined Canada, we no longer had
responsibility for the catching side of the seafood equation. That was all
delegated, and some would say relegated, to the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
First, we saw the three-mile limit, Mr. Speaker. I have seen vessels much,
much closer than three miles vessels from foreign nations no more than a half
mile off dragging their gear through our lobster gear, through our herring
nets, through our salmon nets, through our cod traps, literally destroying all
of our equipment, as well as our industry. Then we went to a twelve-mile limit.
Then we went to a 200-mile limit.
In 1992 the cod moratorium came at a cost of 35,000 jobs to this Province. If
you could imagine by comparison, that is 7 per cent of our population. If
Ontario were to lose 7 per cent of its jobs, 7 per cent of its population, they
would lose 1,750,000 jobs. That is what we lost with the cod moratorium. That is
what happened.
Then we had a federal recovery program, and that was completely bungled in my
opinion by the federal government. The federal government thought that throwing
money at a problem would solve the problem. It has not, it did not, and it will
not because we have to be smarter in how we work in the fishery.
Today, we are trying to support 20,000 people on 270,000 metric tons of
landings last year, but that is where we are. Mr. Speaker, old habits die hard.
We still think we need to ship out unprocessed, but we do not. We absolutely do
not need to ship out unprocessed seafood. What we need to do instead is we need
to maximize the value of our landings for our communities. Often I have heard
the cry, particularly in urban areas, generally from the uninformed: What can we
do for rural communities? I say, let them process seafood and there will be very
little unemployment in our rural communities.
Mr. Speaker, recently, within the last week or so - and I am going to table
this document - there was a conference in Bonavista. A leading expert in the
fishery said that for us it is about shipping out. Our processors are too hard
pressed; they have to work in multiple fisheries. They have to buy and ship out
in a hurry and they have to turn over their capital.
An individual, Bob Verge, also referred to last year. He said 300,000 metric
tons - which is pretty close because our provincial statistics say 267,000 were
landed, and 100,000 metric tons of that product was disregarded as waste. He
says there is no place in the world that would do that, and I think I would have
to agree with him. His calculation is that waste had the potential to contribute
$150 million to the provincial fishery, and that is just at the low end. He
says, and many other experts say, that we have to look at getting better value.
We have to work through higher product yields, we have to have more
opportunities to sell fresh. We have to sell and it needs to be food which is
heat ready, not eat ready, but heat ready so that when you walk into a
supermarket and you can see the package, the package is ready to take out and
stick into the microwave and cook it. This is a document I am tabling, Mr.
Speaker.
We have just gone through an argument, or debate or dispute, which is still
ongoing over yellowtail flounder. We have the same situation that we have with
redfish and various species. The intent of this bill is so that, the first step
is nothing is shipped out unprocessed. The second step is that if it is
absolutely necessary to support an industry, that the industry would not
otherwise survive, then the quota holder who is landing that product it could
be yellowtail, it could be herring, it could mackerel, or it could be any
product at all. If that quota holder wishes to ship out anything unprocessed and
says, I cannot make it without being able to ship out unprocessed, then the
first step should be and this was an offer that was made in 2006 by Fishery
Products International, who said: If anybody can take our product and process it
at a dollar, then let them. We will let them do that.
Mr. Speaker, if a quota holder wishes to ship out unprocessed, then that
quota holder should be able to say to the rest of the processors in the
Province: I have this product; it is going to go wherever unprocessed. I will
not say China because there could be other places, but primarily China is a
destination for high volume, low-value product so they can process it and make
money. However, if it has to go to other processors then any of the small
processors can say: Yes, I can take 5 per cent of that or I can take 10 per cent
of that. They should not be permitted to simply take it at cost because that
would be unfair to the quota holder. The quota holder should be able to transfer
whatever amount that smaller processor needs for their plant, and at whatever is
the recognized industry profit. It could be 10 per cent or 15 per cent. The
industry will know. They will know by species and they will know by time of year
and market.
If we are in a situation whereby there are no takers, if there is no plant in
this Province that will take that product at cost plus some profit margin, then
the would-be exporter of unprocessed I will say, for want of a better term,
the larger player - if they are permitted on an annual basis to apply to the
Province to export whatever that amount is because an industry must have this to
stay alive. It could be the harvesters who need it, but just to keep the
industry alive for that year. It is an annual application; however, a fee must
be paid to the Province. The Minister of Finance will probably like that. A fee
is paid to the Province because it is a common property resource. It belongs to
the people of Canada and we are the people of Canada, even if we are the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. We would not expect to ship out any other resource
unprocessed and without a royalty. So, if the quota holder wishes to ship out
unprocessed, then they must pay a royalty to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to our general revenues, so we can use those royalties, ideally to go
back into the fishery, but not necessarily. It simply would reflect the
contribution of the people of the Province, of their resource to that operator,
because they cannot take something for nothing. They cannot take logs without
stumpage, and they cannot take minerals without some sort of a royalty, so why
should they take fish without a royalty?
Mr. Speaker, it is a relatively simple bill, I suppose; however, it would
pretty much revolutionize exporting and processing, because if the smaller
processors who many of them are struggling, many of them say: I just cannot
get the product. There are processors in my district and I know they are in
other places who last year may have done turbot for five or six or seven
weeks; at the end of the turbot they were able to get a couple hundred thousand
pounds of herring, and they could process that. That added three or four or five
weeks work to a very small plant. That means in that community, no money went
for community enhancement projects last year. In that community, of the money
that came to my district, none of it went to community enhancement projects.
Late last year I approved over $400,000 for community enhancement projects
for one district. I understand the value of community enhancement projects, but
the recovery to the Province and to the people is so small for that $400,000
what we get from it. If we had more of our seafood being processed in this
Province and while I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the approval
on the community enhancement projects, it would be much better if we were
accepting very little or none, or maybe our royalties would be going back into
the provincial treasury to support the rest of the Province. Essentially, that
is the thrust of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege for me to get up and speak here today. Mr. Speaker, I
served as the Minister of Fisheries for, I suppose it was, about 23 months or
so. I have to say, as challenging as it is, it was indeed a privilege to serve
there. I commend the present minister; he is doing a fantastic job there. Anyone
who knows anything about the fisheries portfolio or the fishery in itself knows
the challenge of it. One fellow out in my community made it quite clear to me,
he said: I do not know if God himself came down if he could find a solution to
the fishery. It seems we have 520,000-or-so people, and I think there are about
250,000 different opinions as to how you find what the solution is in the
fishery.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not profess to be a fisher person, but I will say
that I have spent a fair bit of time on the water. If there are some fellows who
are watching from the community that I live in, they will attest to that, even
prior to the moratorium when we hauled cod traps. I try to make it a point every
year, even into last season, that I spend a day out on crab pots with the
fishermen out in my district.
When we speak to these types of things in the House here it is like a
gentleman told me; he had never fished, he had been a teacher; he was making
some suggestions to a gentleman in his community who he called Uncle Tom. He was
going on and on with the suggestions. Uncle Tom's comment to him was, he said:
My son, how much salt water is after slapping you in the face? He had to say to
Uncle Tom, he did not think there was any salt water that had slapped him in the
face. Uncle Tom said: My son, I think the best thing for you to do is be quiet
about it.
I think, in some cases, if you are not knowledgeable in the field, then you
need to step back a little and take a look at it. The thing being presented to
us today and I listened to the hon. member, and I have to ask the question: I
wonder how much salt water has slapped his face, or how much he has been into
the processing sector, because what he has just outlined his words seemed to
point that this is very simple, that if you do all of this you will have
everything straightened out and you will save all of the communities in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, and that people will do fine. I would say to the hon.
member: It is not that simple, Mr. Speaker it really is not that simple.
I would ask him to consider one thing. The provincial government is only one
player in this. We have the federal government, we have a very strong union in
the FFAW, and we have the processing sector. It always seems to fall on the
shoulders of government. We can go back and we can look at the reports that were
written over and over. There was the Dunne report; there was the Vardy report;
there was the Cashin report; there was the summit on the fisheries; there have
been consultations up your yin-yang. Mr. Speaker, it seems that you want to find
a solution; the solution seems to be, let's convene a meeting, let's write a
report, and that should do it. We know that is not the way to find a solution.
What we are talking about today, the member is talking about the minimum
processing requirements. While there are parts of his private member's motion
that would have some merit, there are too many things that need to be looked at
and resolved. To think that it is a simple matter I can tell you, and anybody
who has been involved with the fisheries will tell you, it is never going to be
that simple.
I think the member referenced some of it today, that through the program the
minister was talking about, and has talked about previously, our FTNOP program
while that is a $6 million investment, what is leveraged from that through the
industry triples the revenue that goes into research.
I can think about one organization, one plant that looked at attempting a
project around lobster, so they did some processing, but it had to be eventually
taken outside of the Province and sold. The member talked about having it ready
for market. That is one of the problems we have in the Province, Mr. Speaker;
the market that we have for fresh fish either goes down to the Eastern Seaboard
of the United States or goes west out to Ontario and Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the
reality of today's fishery and he talked about when we entered in 1949; I
would advise him, if he gets an opportunity sometime, to go to one of the
seafood shows. As soon as you step on the floor of one of those seafood shows,
you recognize how small a player we are, in fact, in that whole global picture.
We are now competing with jurisdictions all over the world who have marketing
expertise well in hand, a promotion like nothing else, and we are competing in
that world.
Also, what we are taking a look at, Mr. Speaker, is the customer is very,
very different. At one point, and I can speak to this, at a fish plant in
Marystown, it was filleted, quick frozen, sent to the market. The reality of now
is some of our larger markets want the fish whole.
There was a point, and I can remember seeing the big tumblers in the
Marystown fish plant where they would scale those redfish, then they would then
take it to a hand filleting, and then it would be sent off to market. The
reality of it now is and the FFAW will acknowledge that the economic benefit
to processing that redfish now and filleting it in this Province is not there.
It just simply is not there; therefore, the redfish goes out whole to other
markets around the world.
Mr. Speaker, the whole dynamic of the fishery has changed. It has changed
tremendously. We have the opportunity to make a difference; we have the
opportunity to make a difference in the Province. It goes back to a point that
the minister recently made and the Premier has made. If we are going to make
advances in this industry in the Province, it means that the individual groups
have to park their agendas; they have to come together and work collectively.
If there is one thing that I saw we always look to Ottawa for some of the
things that we need, but we never get there, the reason being we fight amongst
ourselves in the Province. We never seem to pull it all together whereby we can
take the argument to others as a unified group. It always seems to be that there
is internal turmoil within the fishery in the Province and we never really get
down to the grassroots of what it is that we need to do.
Let us speak then a little to the harvesting sector. In 2011, the landed
value in this industry was $568 million; that is up 21.3 per cent. If we look at
our resources and look at how those things have changed, the key fish product in
the Province right now is crab. If the member talks to the moratorium and
previous, we know what the king of fish was; it was cod. In fact, when fishermen
put out their nets and they got crab, the crab was a bloody nuisance; it snarled
up and tangled up nets. Now it is the fish that they primarily make their living
on. Last year, I believe it was up $2.15. The price this year seems to be
particularly good at this point. We know there is some resource cut, but the
situation has changed, Mr. Speaker.
The other thing that is happening is - shrimp is another valuable fish, so
our fishery has changed. It has gone a complete 180 degree turn, if you want to
put it that way, because we have moved from the cod and those types of fish to a
shellfish, a crab, a shrimp fishery.
One of the things I will say to the member, and it goes back to the FTNOP
program, is sea urchins. Well, most of us would call them ose eggs; and we know
why they were called that - because of the thorns. If you get them in your
fingers, Mr. Speaker, a few days and you will know why they were called what
they were called.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are now moving into these species that were not
harvested before. A reality in the sea urchin industry is that, to bring the
price up, the product had to be shipped out of the Province. Yellowtails: the
study done by Deloitte in Marystown showed that the economics of doing it as it
was traditionally done was not there.
Herring: in the spring of the year, I am willing to bet that the Fisheries
Minister, coming up pretty soon, will be asked for an exemption to ship out
herring; the reason being that, in the Maritimes, they will use it for bait for
their lobster pots. They, in all likelihood, will be granted that exemption
because it increases the demand for herring. As such, who reaps the reward? The
harvesters.
So, if I go back to the member's motion, I have to say to him: the industry
has to be a key player in this. I would suggest to him that maybe he thinks his
proposal might be unique. I can guarantee you, if we are going to get it to a
stage where it warrants merit or gets any further, then there is a lot of heavy
lifting that has to be done before some of this would become a reality. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, some of it I do not think will ever become a reality because of the
challenges that are faced.
Still, we have to give credit to the industry, because the industry is always
looking for those opportunities. That is why we have the FTNOP program. There
are always research projects being carried out so that we can look at
opportunities to utilize these underutilized species, so that we look at better
ways that we can use the product that we presently have, and that means
investing in the technology.
Our program is exactly to support those types of initiatives. I am sure that
the minister, as we are as a government, is always open to the opportunities of
any industry partner that would come in to us, to take a look at what needs to
be done, and we are only more than welcome to take a look at any of those
proposals. Because what it means is the harvesting side of it provides for the
plant side of it, and that means jobs in many of our rural communities.
I will say, Mr. Speaker I know my time is getting down I will say that I
still and truly do believe that the fishing industry in this Province will be
the sustainer of many of our rural communities. While that fishery is changing,
there is no doubt about it and demographics point to that we will see, Mr.
Speaker, that the fishery will be the provider into the future.
Mr. Speaker, as the former minister, I recognize the issue that is before us
in this private member's motion. It is about minimum processing requirements,
Mr. Speaker, and I am going to propose an amendment, as follows:
That the private member's resolution currently before the House be amended
by:
(1) replacing the third recital clause with the words, "AND
WHEREAS this
government already applies the most progressive minimum processing legislation
in the country to ensure our people are the primary beneficiaries of our fish
resources;"
(2) by deleting the second, fourth, sixth, and seventh recital clauses;
(3) by deleting in the second resolution clause the words, "a policy that if
a company is unable to process its quota allocation, then they be obligated by
law to offer it to other processing companies at cost and a reasonable profit
margin (as determined by the industry norm);"
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. JACKMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to finish his motion?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. JACKMAN: - and substituting in their place, the words: "a policy that
will ensure all adjacent fish resources not only quotas held by processing
companies are harvested for the benefit of the Province, and companies owning
enterprise allocations should provide the provincial government with a plan
disclosing their intended best use of these public resources so that our people
and our communities continue to benefit;" and,
(4) by deleting in the third resolution clause, all the words after
"necessary", and substituting in their place the words, "to provide exemptions
from the Province's minimum processing requirement, they be provided for a
defined time period and subject to periodic review".
This is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a brief recess to consider the motion,
to consider whether or not it is in order, and to give members of the Opposition
an opportunity to review the amendment as well.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
The Speaker rules the amendment is in order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure to stand today and to speak to the motion put
forward by my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has
listened to my colleague, they know he is very passionate about the fishing
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Like a lot of us who grew up in outport Newfoundland and Labrador and grew up
around the fishery, it is very difficult to watch what is happening today.
Oftentimes we watch, Mr. Speaker, without having the ability to change the
situation as it often exists. Certainly, once you grow up in the outport, you
grow up in the fishing industry it is never far from your thought, from your
mind and away from your aspiration to do something to make it better, to make it
work for the people who depend upon it. My colleague, the Member for St. Barbe,
has never been shy about putting forward his ideals around the fishing industry
in this Province and what he sees that could be done to improve it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a little while today on this motion. What my
colleague has done today is he has made recommendations of some very specific
initiatives that he is asking the provincial government to look at and implement
within the fishing industry. The reason he is asking for those particular
initiatives, not saying that this is going to be the full solution to fixing all
of our problems but no doubt it is something that is different, it is a
different approach, it is looking at things in a different way. It is taking a
situation like we are seeing with Ocean Choice International today and how their
plants are being impacted and people's lives are being impacted, and
transforming that into what might be a solution, what might work. That is what
he is proposing today to the government opposite.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen to make amendments here
that are completely eradicating the ideas and the options that he has put
forward. We can only hope that the amendments which they propose are broader, it
is looking at the industry from a large, broad perspective. We can only hope
their objective in doing that is so they can study these initiatives put forward
by the Member for St. Barbe and see if they are indeed plausible and can work in
stabilizing and sustaining the industry in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we live in hope when it comes to the fishery. Basically,
what I am saying is that hopefully the government's idealism will not be
regressive but certainly be progressive in looking at some of these initiatives
that the Member for St. Barbe has put forward.
Mr. Speaker, we have 110 processing plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. In
my own district, I have seven or eight processing facilities processing
everything from crab, shrimp, whelk, groundfish; all kinds of groundfish,
turbot, scallop, cod, capelin, herring and everything. Pretty well any species
that we are taking out of the water today we are processing it in the district,
except for probably some newer species. We have tried sea urchin. We have tried
some other things but it has not really been the best fit for our area to date.
We do not do a lot in that particular spectrum, but any wild fish that is coming
out of the water in Labrador, I would think right now, is being processed
somewhere within my district.
We have never had an issue with shipping out. It has never been an issue for
us. I guess the reason for that, one is the remoteness of the Labrador Coast,
but the other reason is because of the company that we have that predominately
controls or runs the processing sector, and that is the Labrador Fishermen's
Union Shrimp Company, which is a co-operative built company. It is owned by the
shareholders, who are fisher people themselves, and they have an invested
interest in the communities. Their interest goes beyond the fishery and goes
beyond, Mr. Speaker, the processing facility or a quota, but it really reaches
into the heart of the community in sustaining the populations of people who are
there. That has been their motto in the fishing industry. It has always been,
how do we capitalize on this gift that we have, this gift of raw material, this
gift of sea product, and how do we capitalize on that to best service the people
that we represent? They have done a magnificent job. If there is ever a model
for the co-operative movement, as I said to the minister of industry one day
when he rose on a statement, this would indeed be the model that I would see
that would definitely be available in the fishing industry.
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company
focus on employing people onshore and sustaining communities, but they employ
people offshore. I know a lot of people in this Province take exception to the
offshore fishing industry; I am not one of them. I have a lot of people in my
district who work in the offshore fishery. I have people in my family who work
in the offshore fishing industry. I have people that I know who work their
forty, fifty hours a week in processing factories onboard these ships the same
as they do on land. Mr. Speaker, do I have any problem with that? Absolutely
not, but there are certain aspects of it that we can improve, there is
absolutely no doubt about it. Do I think we should be giving product like that
to offshore factory freezers and trawlers to process for foreign countries that
employ labour from outside of our own country and outside of our own Province?
Absolutely not. I think when these quotas are available and they can most
economically be harvested and processed at sea, creating jobs for our own
people, there is nothing wrong with doing that either.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I have some issue with where a lot of these
boats are landing. I think that is where I am seeing the biggest loss of revenue
in the fishing industry today for our Province with regard to some of these
offshore fleets. For example, a lot of the shrimp fleet in my district and
these quotas are owned by Torngat Fisheries, they are owned by the Labrador
Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, they are owned by the NunatuKavut Government,
they are owned by the Nunatsiavut Government, they are owned by the Innu Nation,
and all of these quotas are fished offshore. Their people work on the boats.
They work in the fish plants onboard those boats. They process at sea, but, Mr.
Speaker, when they land, they are landing in Nova Scotia. They are not landing
in Labrador. They are not landing in Newfoundland, and that is a huge loss of
revenue for the Province. I think that is one way that we can redirect business
in the fishery of the offshore to the onshore today, if we were to look at that
concept.
I say that because I know, Mr. Speaker, when these vessels are offloading in
Nova Scotia, tractor-trailers are lined up for a mile up the road to take that
product off the boat and start delivering it into the US markets. We could have
those tractor-trailers lined up, Mr. Speaker, in Bay Roberts. We could have them
lined up in St. Anthony.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!
MS JONES: We could have them lined up in Cartwright and they could be
taking that product to market. In addition, they are purchasing their goods. The
retail sales alone would be a tremendous investment. They are loading up for
sea; they are going for thirty days. They are feeding 150 crew members during
that period of time. There is a lot of value in the industry that we are losing
simply because of where some of these vessels are docking to offload their
quotas, and we need to be able to change that. It will not create the jobs in
the plants that we are looking for but it will create other jobs onshore in
those same communities, in those same regions in rural areas of the Province.
These are jobs that people are qualified to do and people would enjoy doing, and
so that provides a vital option to them.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we have seen tremendous turmoil in the
fishing industry. I would like to quote a former Minister of Fisheries who used
to be in the House of Assembly, the former Member for the District of St.
Anthony area, when he said that we have too few fish for the number of people
that we have in the industry. There is absolutely no truer statement that was
ever made in terms of saying we have more fisher people, we have more boats than
we actually have raw material. Today, we are seeing it where we have more
processing facilities than we actually have raw material.
When we seen the plants shut down in Port Union, Mr. Speaker, and in
Jackson's Arm in the last year and two years, it was absolutely devastating to
watch; to watch the shrimp fishery, which is the modern day fishery of
Newfoundland and Labrador, to watch those plants close that were employing 150
and 200 people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in Jackson's Arm I had family members who
were working in that plant, so I was very intimately aware of the kind of
production and the contributions they were making to that area. That was hard to
see, those hundreds of people every day having to look for work somewhere else
with the doors boarded up to their fish processing facility.
Mr. Speaker, I guess what the reality really was, is that when you do not
have the resource to make it viable any longer, there are not a lot of options
left. That is the sad reality of what we are dealing with in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is nice to get up and make all the motherhood statements about, we
have to keep this open and keep that open, and keep this going and keep that
going. Well, the fishing industry is not unlike any other industry, you have to
have a source of material. That source of material is what will really drive the
jobs in the Province and drive the revenues that we can see from this particular
industry.
That is why when we hear of companies that want to take fish products out of
the Province it is always very concerning for us. We know there are species like
lobster, for example, that yes, is going to have to be shipped out unprocessed.
I do not know; maybe years ago we had lobster plants in the Province that were
doing some processing, but certainly not in recent years. Not in the times I was
in as the Minister of Fisheries, or in recent years, have we seen that. Lobster
is very much one of those species that is not processed here and that is sent
out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: The minister tells me there is one processing facility in
Codroy Valley, okay, in the Member for St. George's Stephenville East's
district.
So, Mr. Speaker, outside of that, I would not think we would have much
processing of lobster done in the Province. There is always going to be times
when we are going to have to look at whether we need to make exemptions or
whether we do not. There is capacity to process ground fish in this Province and
much of the shellfish that is caught here. As a result of that, there is no
reason why it should go out.
I know the minister had to take a very tough stand this year. I know his job
is not easy. I was in his job and I do not envy him, not one day of any year, or
any week in the fishing industry in this Province. It has to be one of the
hardest industries to try to manage, simply because you have a union that is
incohesive; in the union today we have three or four different fragments where
they do not agree. The vessel owners are all in fleet sizes. They do not even
agree with themselves. Then you have plant workers who cannot agree with people
who are in the fleet.
I will give you an example. In my own district, we just saw an 11 per cent
cut in the crab quota in two days. Well, guess what? The fishermen in my
district recommended
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: to DFO that they make that cut. The fishermen recommended to
DFO that they make that 11 per cent cut in the crab fishery. You do not see that
very often. These are fishermen who are conservationists. They are on the ocean
every day. They know what the raw material is. They know the state of the
resource. They know that if they want to protect it for the future, they have to
make tough decisions today.
So, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes you are going to see that, but the plant workers
are obviously going to be upset by this because it means that their employment
hours and their employment weeks are going to be cut back. So you have a union
today who is representing everyone and they are completely fragmented in terms
of their thinking and their thought in terms of where the industry should go.
That is not healthy either.
In addition to that, you have the processing sector, in which none of them
very seldom get along. There are about three or four organizations out there
now. One organization represents these eight or ten processors and another one
represents these eight or ten processors. You have the big guys putting the
squeeze on the little guys. The story goes on and on.
Then you have the disconnect between the governments. The Province and the
federal government have never really been on the one page when it comes to
managing this particular industry. We have even asked for royal commissions into
the fishing industry in this Province because of the un-co-operation of the
federal government, which controls the quotas, and by that very fact controls
most of what happens in this industry in the Province today.
Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of cohesion within the industry as a whole
amongst all of the stakeholders who are involved, being the person in charge of
the fisheries in this Province is no easy task. I certainly know that and
understand it.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, we cannot ignore that the fishing industry is
one of the mainstays for the people of this Province; it is the mainstay of
rural communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador. We all have a
responsibility to look for solutions that are the right solutions and the right
fit in the midst of the tough decisions that are being made in the industry
today.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can have those kinds of ideas put forward and
adopted in the Province so that we can protect and sustain the industry for
future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to stand and speak to this private member's motion today and
specifically to speak to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert in the fishery, but I will say
that my late grandfather introduced me to the fishing industry about twenty-five
years ago. At that time, I was eleven years old. He would take me up to the
wharf in Ochre Pit Cove, where I got my first job. My first job was actually in
the fishery; I was sorting capelin.
I remember the very early mornings because, of course, they would go on the
water in the dark so that they would be in at first daylight for landing. He
would have me up 4:00 o'clock every morning. I would have to sleep at his house;
fortunately, it was next door to my mom and dad's. I would have sleep there
because it was pretty disruptive getting up that hour in the day. Also my mother
could not really tolerate the smell, so I stayed with him. A lot of people would
know my late granddad because he was known as one of the best around to skin a
seal. It was amazing to watch him even sharpen the knife to start the process,
Mr. Speaker.
I started out there at eleven years old, sorting capelin. I remember my first
two nights going home, going to sleep, and seeing the mounds of capelin on the
tables. You just could not get that image out of your mind in your sleep.
I was not there too long when I got promoted. I then went on to record the
number of vats of capelin that other people would sort. Mr. Speaker, when the
opportunity arose, I would beg whatever fishermen were on the wharf to let me go
out with them because I absolutely love cod tongues. Whenever they would let me
and I remember Tom Mullaly, Art Peach, and the Rogers boys I would beg them
to let me go and I would cut out the tongues on the way in. People would be on
the wharf and they would want to buy the tongues and there was no way I was
parting with my tongues. If anybody wants to get on my good side, all you have
to do is feed me a meal of cod tongues and we will get along just great.
That was my introduction to the fishery. Then at fourteen years old I started
work in the fish plant in Old Perlican. I worked there for a couple of summers.
My job there was scrubbing crab; of course, you would scrub the backs of the
crabs so it is all nice and shiny and clean for the market.
I have a real great appreciation for the people who work in the plants,
because it was very, very long hours standing on cement floors in cold water.
This would coincide around the time of final exams in high school, and I
remember just coming home from the plant, showering, and going right to write my
final exam in the gymnasium. Even while I did shower, people still complained
about the smell, because as you know, it is really hard to get rid of the smell
of crab. I did that for several summers and it was a great experience; it was
twelve-hour days, seven days a week. When you got your cheque on Friday, it was
absolutely amazing, but you could not get to spend the cheque because when you
were not working, you were sleeping, Mr. Speaker. That was my introduction into
the fishery.
Then I ran, of course, in a fishing district. There are five fish plants in
my district that employ over 1,070 plant workers, all in rural Newfoundland. I
had the opportunity then to have some tours at the local fish plants. We have
Green Seafoods of Winterton; they process snow crab, all species of groundfish,
lump fish, mussels, and all species of pelagics and whelk. I remember going
there in 2003 for a tour of the plant. While I was there with the cameras and
everybody in tow, the plant owner made me sample sea urchin roe. This is known
in Japan as uni and I was told at the time it was an aphrodisiac. I will never
forget that experience. The taste was something that was definitely an acquired
taste.
I also had the opportunity to tour plants in Old Perlican and Bay de Verde in
my district as well, Mr. Speaker. There is a tremendous amount of processing
that goes in on Trinity Bay de Verde district. I just mentioned Green's; we
also have P. Janes & Sons in Hants Harbour, and they process snow crab, other
crab, all species of groundfish, and lobster. We also have Quinlan Brothers in
Old Perlican and Bay de Verde as well as Quin-Sea Fisheries in Old Perlican.
Pretty much every species is processed with the exception of lobster in
the district, but there is a tremendous amount of secondary processing that goes
on as well. I am sure many of you listening, and people in the House, would be
familiar with the mussels that Green Seafoods produce out of Winterton. They
have mussels in garlic butter a very tasty treat and they have mussels in
natural juices, Mr. Speaker. This company is one of the companies under the
funding program in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture that has received
funding to try and sell more product and open up markets and expand current
markets.
Secondary processing goes on at P. Janes & Sons in Hants Harbour they do
cod au gratin, crab au gratin; I am sure many of you have seen in the grocery
stores P. Janes & Sons fish cakes and fish sticks. As well, Quinlan Brothers in
Bay de Verde do crab au gratin as well, Mr. Speaker certainly one of my
favourites, but not as good as cod tongues, Mr. Speaker.
So, as I said, the majority of harvesters and processors in our Province live
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Plant workers that work in plants live in
about 500 communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and primarily in
rural communities.
As I said, there were 1,070 workers employed at the snow crab plants last
year, just in the fish plants in my district alone, Mr. Speaker. Those 1,070
workers earned a total income of $10 million. That is direct income. That is a
direct impact of the fishing industry in our district. Of course, that $10
million went directly to the workers, but the spinoffs that come from having
such a vibrant fishing industry in my district is unimaginable. I mean, there is
not an empty house to be found in Bay de Verde in the summertime. We have a lot
of people that come from other parts of the Province even as far away as the
Northern Peninsula to come and live in Bay de Verde for the summer to gain
employment. The convenience stores are bustling; Old Perlican gas station is
busy at the best of times, but in the summer, it is a beehive of activity there.
So, the spinoffs are tremendous.
Mr. Speaker, the plants this is a really interesting fact the plants in
my district, they processed 11 per cent of the total seafood produced in the
Province last year, 11 per cent of the entire total, and they produced 24 per
cent of all of the snow crab in the Province last year, Mr. Speaker; so, a
tremendous, important industry to the people of Trinity Bay de Verde. There
would not be a Trinity Bay de Verde if it were not for these plants.
Another interesting point, as I am sure most people know but, being the
Minister for Status of Women, I always try and point out facts about women and
women employment of the five plants in my district, 52 per cent of the
employees that work there are women, Mr. Speaker. So this is an industry where
the majority of workers are women, and that is worthy of note. I have some other
facts that I thought would be interesting for people listening.
Fact number one, Mr. Speaker: in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture,
they have increased their budget, since we have come into power, by
approximately 400 per cent. It speaks volumes to our commitment to the fishing
industry.
Fact two: we continue to invest millions into research and development
programs like the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program which the
minister spoke to today in his Ministerial Statement, and I gave many examples
of two weeks ago here in the House when we were trying to pull teeth to get
members from the Opposition to get up and speak about the fishery.
Fact number three, Mr. Speaker: the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
represents about 30 per cent of the Atlantic fishery; however, we spend more
money on the fishery than all of the other Atlantic Provinces combined.
Fact number four: we are spending approximately $11.75 million annually on
fisheries science research because it is a driver for the future, Mr. Speaker.
We must have an improved understanding of the resource in order to provide
success in the future.
Fact number five: we have initiatives to support our plan for renewing the
fishery in the future. We have $100 million for the Fisheries Loan Guarantees,
$80 million for the MOU marketing guarantees, and we have the $9 million for the
lobster buyout, Mr. Speaker.
Fact number six: we have many, many programs in place to support employees
working in the fishery. We have the Fish Plant Worker Employment Support
Program, the community employment program, and many economic development
initiatives through the Department of IBRD, Mr. Speaker.
Fact number seven I believe I am at now: our commitment to the fishery is
unparallel by far than any other jurisdiction in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Our
commitment is there financially, our commitment is there from our current
Fisheries Minister and previous Fisheries Ministers on this side of the House,
Mr. Speaker, and that is very evident.
Mr. Speaker, my time is going very fast, I see. I would just like to speak to
the amendment. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would like to see every single
product go through secondary processing, not only in the fishery but in all
industries in our Province; but, Mr. Speaker, we also have to live in reality,
and the reality is what the market would dictate.
As I said, we would like everything to be processed here go through
secondary processing. Government, and particularly the minister, is very
stringent when it comes to minimum processing requirements. The minister does
not give exemptions lightly, and there is a very rigorous process that a company
needs to go through to get these exemptions.
Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the other side of the coin, too, because
sometimes exemptions can open up a market or expand on a current, existing
market, which translates into more dollars for harvesters, more employment for
plant workers, and so on. Mr. Speaker, if exemptions are not granted and a
company is not able to find adequate markets for the product when undergoing
minimum processing requirements, the quota may not be fished at all. So,
sometimes it is a matter of shipping out or nothing, Mr. Speaker, and if the
quotas do not get fished, then the harvesting licence may be lost to the
harvester. Certainly, such a situation as this would have a very negative impact
on the Province, have a negative impact on personal incomes, and it would have a
negative impact on regional economies and the spinoff benefits that I spoke to
earlier.
Mr. Speaker, when you talk about minimum processing requirements, as I said,
ideally we would want everything secondary processed here, but it all comes back
to the basic premise of marketing. For anybody who completed a marketing course,
or touched on marketing anywhere along the way, the basic premise of marketing
is that there needs to be a seller, there needs to be a buyer, and the product
has to be available at a location and at a time to facilitate the exchange of
the product, the good, or service. It makes no economic sense to produce a
product for a market that would not buy it, Mr. Speaker.
We heard the Member for St. Barbe here a couple of days ago talk about having
herring in one hand and kippers in the other hand, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes
exemptions are required; because, when you are allowing an exemption for herring
for bait in fresh form, there is more of a market for this product and
harvesters are able to land a larger portion of their quota. If this was not
fished, Mr. Speaker, it would be left in the water and then the chance always
comes that you can lose that quota.
The other thing I heard him say today in his opening remarks is that it would
be great if we could do secondary processing and have products that are
heat-ready. He referred to heat-ready as being products that you could just pop
in the microwave, Mr. Speaker. That is fine and dandy if consumers want the
product in that way, but what if consumers do not want the product that way, Mr.
Speaker? We see in Asia that they want whole fish, or H&G fish with the head on,
and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, it all comes back to marketing, and marketing is so
important.
The only thing that the member opposite said today and not only today, but
probably since we have been in this House that I agree with, is that we need
to maximize value for our rural communities. Mr. Speaker, that is so true, but
at the same time what the member needs to recognize is that maximum value for
our fish resources is not always based on maximum processing. Markets change
over time and there are many things that influence the change in markets, Mr.
Speaker. What the consumer wants, what the dollar is, what the exchange is, and
the cost of processing, competing products that may come into the market, and so
on. It all comes back to a marketing course.
Mr. Speaker, I have about thirty seconds left. I would just like to say the
Premier has stated time and time again that we are absolutely dedicated to the
fishery as we proceed with our new mandate. We need to address the challenges in
the fishery; certainly, the time has never been greater. We need to restructure
this industry both economically and culturally, Mr. Speaker. There are many
challenges in the fishery, as we know, but with the challenges come the
opportunities. We have an aging workforce, and I will not get into the story
that a fisherman in my district
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JOHNSON: Pardon me. Could I have leave, just thirty seconds to clue
up?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the member have leave to finish?
AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JOHNSON: I will not get into the story about the former Minister of
Fisheries who came to my house and we met with some fish people. They talked
about when we talk about the aging workforce, how they talked about the number
of pills they have in their lunch can, Mr. Speaker. It was certainly a startling
comment and realization of what goes on.
As I said, there are many challenges in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, but many
opportunities. We want those who are working in the fishery, for it to be
sustainable, but we also want it to be attractive for youth to come. While there
are challenges in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will get over
these challenges. They are not nearly as great as the challenges with the
renewal of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, so I am confident that we will renew
this fishery if we all work together.
Thank you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the Member for The Straits - White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the private member's motion to
reaffirm principles on disallowing exports of unprocessed seafood.
It is very frustrating, Mr. Speaker, that control of our fishery is not in
our hands, that it is controlled by the federal government. This has been a key
problem since Confederation. Many will consider this a major obstacle in having
a successful fishery like there is in Norway and Iceland because those countries
have the jurisdictional powers over their own stocks. Many lay blame on the
collapse of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador on the mismanagement of the
resource by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a devastating blow
for the Province and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The fishery is the backbone of many of our communities, especially in the
District of The Straits - White Bay North, and many parts of rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. I remember at the age of five when I would go down to the
community plant in Green Island Cove and my mother would be there processing
codfish. After the cod moratorium was implemented, she still was employed at the
community plant but it changed, she was now shucking scallops and we had gone to
shellfish.
At the age of eleven, I remember baiting lobster pots, the traps, and
bringing them out to the boat to the outport with my father. At the ripe age of
thirteen, that is when I went with my dad out fishing, the hook and line for a
small cod quota. With that, when we brought our catch in, I would gut the fish,
separate the britches. This is where we have the head on, gutted. This would be
reprocessed later, and we are seeing a lot of that happen in the Province today.
The private member's motion in principle aims to strengthen the processing
sector in the Province; however, we have to recognize, and as other members have
stated, that this is not always possible. Sometimes the global marketplace
dictates that some fish product must be sold in an unprocessed form.
Most people demand live lobster. This is something that requires limited or
no processing, and disallowing the shipment of unprocessed lobster could have
ramifications to lobster harvesters. This is why today I ask that we look at
setting up marketing and looking at marketing co-ops so we can increase the
revenues for lobster fishermen. I do have concerns. I have concerns with the
current marketplace, that processing based in 2011 numbers for Newfoundland and
Labrador, that the total export -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
United States and China represents the largest value for total export at over
30 per cent and 21.5 per cent, respectively. I would like to point out that the
export value and volume for a species such as yellowtail to the US from Canada
has been in significant decline. Last year, up to 2011, less than 4,000 metric
tons was shipped from Canadian flatfish to the US, and Ocean Choice
International has more than 90 per cent of the Canadian quota.
Canada's flatfish industry does have its challenges. It has been negatively
impacted by the Canadian dollar and depreciation has caused impacts. There are
other factors too that impact a business in being able to ship product and do it
competitively, such as transportation, labour costs, utilities, and insurance.
These are all things that have gone up substantially in the last ten years, but
the price has not. This has placed significant pressure on the industry, it
certainly has, and we have seen that effect in Marystown.
I want to talk a little bit about China, because the former Minister of
Fisheries had talked about the reality is that the market demands sometimes
that we ship product out, export, whether it is head-on gutted. This is the case
because China is demanding it. China has become a more important flatfish
trading partner in the US over the last fifteen years. In 1996, only 18 per cent
of this went to China. In 2010, fifteen years later, 68 per cent of this went to
China. That is a whopping 50 per cent of the marketplace where China has been
shipping to the US. That is a big increase.
Flatfish imported to China in a processed form, a completely processed
package, does have import and value-added taxes at 30 per cent. This is a
barrier. This is why the market is demanding, it is saying: We want head-on
gutted or a whole fish. If that is being put forward, China has an exemption for
product that is imported and reprocessed, whether it is head-on gutted to do
other value-added processing or whole. It is exempt from any type of tax, so
it is very, very lucrative for a processor to be going into China. China has
imported over 2.2 million metric tons of seafood in 2009. Most of that is
reprocessed into fillets, into fishmeal, and into other filet products.
Reprocessing to avoid tariffs, this is what companies are doing. It increases
the profits of corporations and to the shareholders. Certainly, we cannot blame
the shareholders and the corporations for wanting increased profits. This is the
goal of a corporation, to provide maximum benefits to its shareholders, not
necessarily the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We cannot blame the Chinese marketplace for putting in such protectionist
measures to enhance the value-added or secondary-sector processing. Chinese
seafood processing plants exist primarily to transform these frozen processing.
They are doing hand filleting and they have much cheaper labour. The labour cost
of all of these workers in China is an average of about $385 per month. This is
less than a weekly wage of people employed in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we
look at the member's motion, where there is increasing evidence that other
countries are benefiting greatly from our unprocessed, raw seafood products, we
only have to look to China to see that this is certainly true. This is something
that the former Minister of Fisheries in his amendment had asked to delete,
which raises a lot of questions to me.
I would like to speak to that part, because no one can really blame China for
what they are doing, but we must put ourselves first. We really do. Our
communities and our people must get first consideration. We have to be proactive
when it comes to value-added and secondary processing. In 2010, we had over 100
processing facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador owned by close to sixty
companies, but four of those and the member opposite had just basically
mentioned them four of those top processing forms account for 60 per cent of
the seafood processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are four types that are the main: snow crab, shrimp, ground fish, and
pelagics. They account for 85 per cent of the secondary processing in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, the other 15 per cent, I say, is an opportunity
for us, an opportunity for growth, and that is where we can get into
under-utilized species. We have to ensure that there is more value added
happening in the Province, and we have to take a more creative approach when it
comes to developing processing.
There are certainly ideas, and we have seen I have seen in my own district
the devastation of looking at trying to manage a fishery when you have high
fixed costs and you have fish plants. There are a number of them that are closed
down, from Green Island Brook, to Green Island Cove, to Pines Cove, to Sandy
Cove, Savage Cove, Flower's Cove, and Bear Cove. We have to look that these have
closed. In Englee they have closed.
There is an opportunity to look at maybe getting more creative when it comes
to the fishery. We have on the offshore factory freezers. They are providing
employment on the offshore and doing the processing there. Why are we not
looking at maybe exploring the option of a more mobile fish plant, where there
are not these huge fixed costs and incredible environmental concerns that may
come up, as we are seeing in Englee?
We could look at having a mobile fish plant where we have some people in the
community who are skilled, who could be, as the fish harvester is coming in,
offloading. That the fish is being processed, harvested, reprocessed there, that
there is a crew who is cleaning up the station and then it is being shipped and
trucked to its location. It can be strategic; it can be a good geographic thing
if it is done right. Right now we are seeing raw material being put in trucks
and being shipped ten, twelve, fourteen hours. These are things where you could
have spillage on highways, travelling over gravel roads. These are things that
could be looked at. We need to look at other business programs and employment
training grants, some competitive taxation measures to implement incentives to
get into more secondary processing.
We must ensure that the measures in place benefit the people of the Province
so they get maximum benefits, not necessarily just the corporations. I am
certainly not against corporations doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are scenarios where there are small independent operators that are
under-licensed. They are asking for multi-species licences to purchase to have
more product, and some of