Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 2 June 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 40)
2004-06-02
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June 2, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 40
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Under statements by members, we have the following
statements: the hon. Member for Grand Bank, the hon. Member for Port au Port,
the hon. Member for Bonavista North, and the hon. Member for Bonavista South.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lake Academy in Fortune
which has received the Gold Quality Daily Physical Education School Recognition
Award for providing quality programs contributing to healthy growth and
development of young people. The Canadian Association for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance present the Gold School Recognition Award to
schools providing all students with ninety to149 minutes per week of quality
physical education, and for its continued commitment to develop a program with
150 minutes or more per week. The physical education program at Lake Academy is
supervised by the physical education teacher Walt Forsey.
The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation spoke yesterday about recent
statistics which indicate that the health of two-thirds of Canadian children is
threatened by increased obesity rates caused in part by physical inactivity. Mr.
Speaker, we should all be concerned about the negative consequences associated
with physical inactivity. That is why I applaud the teachers, staff, parents and
children at Lake Academy for taking seriously the importance of exercise and
working together to ensure the students at Lake Academy are not included in the
statistics referenced above.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
everyone at Lake Academy on receiving the Gold Quality Daily Physical Education
Recognition Award and setting a fine example for all of us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of members that the
Stephenville Festival of the Arts will run this year from July 16 to August 22
and will feature six presentations. The presentations are: My Way - a tribute to
Frank Sinatra; Domino Heart - a drama that tells the story of people affected by
a heart transplant; The Bible - the complete word of God (Abridged) - it's a
comedy; Dixie Chicks - Ready to Run, for those who enjoy country music; Vive La
Rose - a unique look at the colourful musician: mile Benoit ; and The Gala -
which is near the end of the festival. This night has twenty-six years of
tradition and showcases the talent of the company.
Mr. Speaker, we anticipate an audience of 10,000 this year. It attracts
theatregoers from the Province, Canada and the U.S., and, as well, from other
countries. It makes a substantial contribution to the development of theatre in
the Province. It creates employment and attracts a large number of tourists to
the Province as well.
Mr. Speaker, the festival is a theatrical miracle that gets better each year.
It is New York Theatre surrounded by ocean scenery.
Come visit the Stephenville Festival. Come visit us on July 16 to August 22.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday of this past week, the residents of Carmanville had the unfortunate
experience of watching their school, the Carmanville School Complex, incur major
damage as a result of a fire. The older
section of the school, the
section that
accommodated the high school students, was totally destroyed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the volunteer fire departments that
responded to the call: the five departments from Carmanville, Main Point-Davidsville,
Gander Bay, Musgrave Harbour and Gander. It was the gallant effort of these
volunteers that prevented a serious situation from being much worse.
Many of these volunteer firefighters were on the scene, from just after the
call was received at 8:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the following morning. All to
often, Mr. Speaker, we fail to really recognize and appreciate the dedication
and effort provided by the volunteer fire departments throughout the Province.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the following: the members of the
Carmanville United Church congregation who opened up their church hall and
served coffee and sandwiches throughout the night; the RCMP and others who
helped with the traffic flow and parking; the Pentecostal Church who has made a
building available to accommodate the students to enable them to complete their
school year; and the Carmanville Recreation Committee for providing their
recreation centre for use as an office for the school administrative staff.
Mr. Speaker, I again commend all of the people of Carmanville and surrounding
communities for their excellent display of community spirit and volunteerism. I
look forward to working with them as they prepare for the future education of
their children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Andrea Lodge, a
native of Bonavista, on her recent performance at the provincial music festival.
Andrea was chosen as the piano solo category winner at the festival held in
Corner Brook just recently. At that time, she was also selected to go to the
national music festival in Prince Edward Island in August.
Mr. Speaker, Andrea's success at the provincial competition did not
guarantee her a place at the nationals. Rather, she was selected to move on by
the adjudicators because they felt Andrea met the standard required for such a
competition.
This is certainly a wonderful accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all hon.
members to join me in congratulating Andrea Lodge on her provincial win, and
wish her every success at the national festival.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House this afternoon to inform
hon. members that June 3 to June 12 is National Transportation Week. This year's
all Canadians to a reliable transportation network but at the same time ensuring
that this is done in an innovative manner. This is very much in line with this
government's philosophy on transportation in our Province.
The transportation industry is essential in serving as a necessary link both
geographically as well as economically for Canadians as well as the people of
our Province. It is a vital sector in the provincial economy, providing support
to many industries and sectors in the transportation of their products, services
and people.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works is responsible for
summer and winter maintenance of some 8,990 kilometres of primary and secondary
highways, community access roads, as well as maintaining eight aircraft for air
ambulance and water bomber services and managing twenty-one ferries in marine
operations.
This week highlights the importance of professionals in our roads, marine and
air services divisions in making the lives of Canadians and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians safer and better. Government commends all of them, especially the
transportation professionals in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to understand how the minister could rise in
his seat when yesterday the most isolated riding in this Province, where people
requested to have freight pulled out of Lewisporte, the minister chose not to do
that, and the second most isolated riding, the riding of Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair, the minister, in his Budget, outlined they were going to stop doing
winter maintenance. This does not sit very well with the people in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question the people who provide these services are
professionals and everyone on this side of the House would like to thank them
for the wonderful job they do. Certainly, to the government people who sit over
there and made such bad decisions regarding the North Coast of Labrador and the
riding of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, then I say shame on you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, congratulate the employees who work in the Transportation Department
of the Province and, particularly, those in the Air Ambulance, Mr. Speaker, whom
residents of my area depend on at a time when they need it most, and many times
it means a difference of life and death to our people.
I would like to say to the minister, as well, that it is time for someone to
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
now from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for the last twenty years that
it is has been open for people to travel on, it is in terrible condition most
times. There is no pavement. The paving program has started. I say to the
minister, it is time that the Province get together with the federal government
and come up with a funding arrangement that will see a paving program begin and
pave the road from start to finish as soon as possible.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first question is for the Minister of Government Services and it concerns
the bungled insurance plan and proposal that has been put forward in this House
in the form of Bill 30. The minister stated that the deductible idea came from a
select committee report done a number of years ago. I put it to the minister
that nowhere in that report was a $2,500 deductible ever talked about. The
minister also said that the deductible might have come from a meeting she had
around her board table.
I ask the minister: Could she inform the House who was at such a meeting?
Also - and I will keep asking this question until I, hopefully, will get an
answer - where did the idiotic idea of a deductible come from? Could you inform
the House and the people of this Province, the consumers, where you came up with
this idea?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the select committee in 1998,
and the hon. member across the way was a member of that committee. They
recommended a $15,000 deducible and that would restrict compensation for the
consumers. We have a survey done also with that committee with over 55 per cent
of the people in this Province did not want to restrict compensation by taking
those measures. The deductible is a fair and simple way to put in the
regulations because, the fact of the matter is, it is $2,500 coming off a claim,
but they do not have their rights restricted for compensation. They will receive
the compensation. People who are injured in car accidents should receive
compensation if they are hurt.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not this member who was on the
select committee. I never came into the House until 1999. I suggest she get her
facts right as to who was or was not a part of the committee.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the only reference in that select committee thing was to a
$15,000 deductible, not $2,500; a $15,000 deductible, not $2,500. Again, she has
not given a reason to this House to explain the logic of going with the
deductible, other than I have heard it is simple and it is fair. I have not
heard any explanation beyond why.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of the House the fact that
several large insurance companies are pulling out of the market because of this
botched approach the government has taken. We now have confirmation from
Dominion and Aviva - 35 per cent of the insurance industries - that they are
leaving. There are many problems that will result from this, including the
inability of other companies to fill the gaps, disruption, increased rates for
many drivers and the loss of jobs. The largest local company in the Province
announced this morning they cannot take on the new business, as the Premier had
suggested, and will hurt from lack of competition and capital investment.
Minister, now that you and your government have been put on notice by these
companies that they are closing up shop and moving out, are you prepared to
reconsider this ill-conceived plan? If not, what contingency plan do you have in
place to protect the consumers of this Province and the laid off employees?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the companies have served notice that they are
leaving. They have made a business decision. They are not happy with the bill.
That is their right to make that decision. We have not written those reforms for
the automobile industry. We have written this for the consumer. The consumer has
asked for those reforms and this is what we are debating here today.
I would say that the two companies that the hon. member is talking about,
there are no local jobs here, they are a mainland company and their insurance is
sold by brokers.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister shows her lack of
understanding and knowledge of this industry. These insurance companies may well
be mainland companies but there are brokerage companies in this Province that
have over 1,000 employees in this Province who depend upon this business. I am
not concerned about the livelihood of the mainland insurance companies, I am
concerned about the welfare and the well-being of the 1,000 employees in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, you stood in your place yesterday
when you introduced this bill and you talked about, from your written prepared
script, the great benefit that this Bill 30 would have for those now being
discriminated against, based upon their age, sex or marital status. I am not
sure why you think you are the hero for a twenty-two year old who will continue,
under this bill -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member now to get to his question quickly.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- to have to pay $4,000 to $5,000 a year for basic insurance coverage.
Can the minister tell the House why these people will continue to pay double,
triple, and sometimes more, for insurance when they haven't even had an
accident or a traffic ticket in their life? Why is there nothing in this bill to
protect these people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are going to address that issue in the public
hearings.
The twenty-five year old driver -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS WHALEN: - right now would see an increase of 5 per cent to 6 per cent
in their premiums, if we had put the age in as it stands. Also, the seniors
would have lost some discounts. We have committed, in the public hearings, to
address all of these issues and let the people tell us what is the fair thing
and the right thing they would like us to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My final question for the minister - and this question is no doubt related to
the fact that we find it very difficult, on this side, to accept their
commitments to what they do or don't say, particularly when they tend to write
letters after the fact. Minister, you committed several times, as recently as
yesterday afternoon, to having public hearings, organized through the Public
Utilities Board. Could you give the House and the people of the Province more
details about these public hearings, today, here now, and also would you
undertake to provide us, immediately, with copies of all correspondence,
e-mails, directions and instructions that your department, or government, has,
as of this moment and prior to that, given to the Public Utilities Board about
such public meetings?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this issue by the hon. member has been dealt with
by the past Administration for eight years. There is a lot of information
compiled over it that I have had access to. The closed-claims study will take
place this fall and after the closed-claims study is done we are going to
commission a full public hearing and there will be ample opportunity for
everybody to express their concerns through that public hearing.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended that to be my last question but, again, the
minister did not give an answer and rather than dance around and skirt the
issues, minister - it was simple question. Will you undertake, today, to table
in this House immediately, all correspondence, directions and instructions that
your department or this government has issued to the Public Utilities Board
about the conduct of these public hearings that you continue to refer to? Yes or
No?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member to be upset over this
issue but he has had eight years to do absolutely nothing. They have shelved it.
The same thing was applied here with the company threats. They put that propose
on as soon as they were getting the threat that everybody was going to pull out,
then they shelved it. Is that why they have done nothing? Were they afraid of
the insurance companies? Well, this government is not afraid of insurance
companies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are here for the consumer and -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the consumers of this Province have asked to have
reduced premiums and when those reforms are over they will have reduced
premiums. Also, the fact that we are looking at having achieved more real
savings for them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is a health and safety issue brewing on the
Burin Peninsula, which I understand the Minister of Environment and Conservation
has been personally involved with. That is the placement of a sludge pond in the
Marystown, Burin area. Minister, contrary to the information that is being used
to approve a location for this sludge pond, the area is indeed full of wildlife.
It is used extensively for winter recreation. It is a half kilometre from
cabins, trailers and the beach, and the residents of Winterland road can see it
from their windows.
I am asking the minister why you would proceed with such a development? Given
the representation that I have had, it is obvious that you have not done the
proper consultation. So I am going to ask you if you will in fact put the minds
of the residents at ease and put a stop to the development?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have no personal involvement in this particular proposal but
the proposal is before my department, and my department will do due diligence to
this proposal, as we will with any proposal that comes before my department. It
goes through the environmental assessment process. That is the normal procedure.
I am not going to use political interference to stand in front of any process.
Our department will do due diligence to any process that comes before the
department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Minister, all I ask is that you, in fact, do due diligence to
this because the representation that I have had clearly points out that what has
happened to date shows that the facts have not been presented. In fact, from
what I understand, is that it is on a go-forward basis. If there is an
application before you, there has not been an application gone to the Town of
Marystown in which boundaries the location is, in fact, located. So, what I am
asking is that if it has come to you, that you adhere to whatever regulations
you have to, to make sure that all the facts are approved and understood before
you approve it.
On a different matter, Mr. Speaker, and a question -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is generally accepted that when a supplementary question is asked it
should flow from the previous question. In this particular matter, the
questioner cannot change gears halfway through and then do a lengthy commentary
and then go to a new question. I would the member, if she is going to ask a
supplementary, it should be germane to the original question.
MS FOOTE: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask if the minister is aware whether or not the Town of
Marystown has been engaged in this development at this point in time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the Marystown Town Council.
I am the Minister of Environment and Conservation. The proposal is before my
department. We will assess the proposal based on its environmental merits.
Whether or not it passes environmental assessment is yet to be determined. If it
does pass environmental assessment, the political battles between the Town of
Marystown and the Town of Burin will have to be solved on the Burin Peninsula.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador
Affairs.
I am sure that I will get straight answers from him, unlike from his Premier,
and I am pretty sure that he will do it without using the personal attacks.
Minister, in 2001, you said that government should not permit the sale of
all, substantially all, or even a little part of, the assets of FPI,
particularly the marketing arm of this company. Minister, will you stand and
give that commitment in this House today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just indicated, I did make those
comments back in 2001, I believe it was. Mr. Speaker, I still believe that. Any
suggestion as to what FPI may or may not be doing is purely speculative at this
point. We have had discussions with FPI and we have asked a lot of questions to
which we hope we will get answers in the very near future, at which time we will
determine our next action in line and consistent with the FPI Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talks about speculation. Back in 2001 you were speculating, but
you asked me to ensure that we would not sell those assets. I just asked you
again; you did not respond. All I want you to do is stand and say that you will
not permit the sale of the marketing division of FPI.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I did provide an answer to the question. I said I agreed with
the statement that I made back then. I said it then, and I agree with it today.
Mr. Speaker, as for what FPI may or may not be doing, he knows as well as
everybody else who is informed about the Securities Commission, and laws
relating to that, that there cannot be a discussion about that publicly until
there is a decision made by FPI. Once FPI does whatever they decide to do, then
we will do whatever we determine is appropriate to do in the best interests of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the seafood industry in Newfoundland
& Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Until that time, Mr. Speaker, I can only give the same
answer. We are aware that FPI have some ideas about what they might do with
their company. We have had discussions, we have asked a lot of questions, and
when those answers are provided we will determine our next course of action.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take it your answer is that you will not permit the sale of the marketing
arms. Thank you very much, I say to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, we have legislation before this House today that would establish
an auction system for shrimp. This is the minister's second attempt since
January to do this. In light of the fact that no fishermen, no processor in the
Province, want to buy into this system, why are you legislating it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member knows, the first attempt on the institution of an auction was
pulled back by me because there was an agreement presented to me by the industry
on a different approach. As the member knows, that approach went down the toilet
some time in early April when the FFAW failed to accept the arbitrator's
decision. We moved on for about a month where nothing happened. We decided at
that time to reinstate some type of an auction in the shrimp fishery. What is
before the House today, and what will be debated later today, Mr. Speaker, is
enabling legislation. It is not legislation that will legislate an auction. It
is not legislation that will legislate away collective bargaining. It is
something that will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to a
conditional licence to implement an auction. That auction can be mandatory or it
can be optional. At this time, with the engagement we have had with the
industry, we are looking at an optional auction. It will not be dictated to the
people. As for the assertion that no harvesters or processors are interested,
there are many harvesters and processors who are interested in engaging in this
process, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate
& Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The more the people opposite talk, the more you know that they contradict
themselves, because it is my understanding that up until around 10 o'clock
this morning this was not an optional auction system, and I have talked to
processors and harvesters all around the Province as late as 9 o'clock this
morning. It was not optional then, so you changed it this morning.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under this new auction system - and
what you told the Estimates Committee in this very House - a harvester would be
forced to sell to the highest bidder and not to a plant of his choice.
Under the legislation, a harvester who is a member of the co-op, a
member-owner of a co-op, will not be permitted to sell his shrimp to the plant
of his choice if somebody else offers him as little as one-tenth of one cent per
pound more.
I ask the minister: How can your leader, the Premier, say that we have to be
careful in interfering with a private company like FPI; yet, you can force a
fisherman, an independent businessman, against his will, to sell his shrimp to a
particular fish plant?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously the member needs to educate himself on what optional means and what
auction means. When I talk to the people in the fishing industry -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member had asked me what we had
been proposing to the processors and to the harvesters, he would have found out
that what he heard, as late as nine o'clock this morning, is indeed false. He
should know, and the industry knows, that what we discussed with them, about two
weeks ago, was an auction whereby fisherman could elect to sell, under an
negotiated price reached through a collective agreement, through binding
arbitration or whatever format the industry decides to use - they can use that
option or, Mr. Speaker, they can opt to fish under an auction.
Yes, he is right, once they decide to fish under an auction, whoever the
highest bidder is, that is who gets the fish. That is how an auction works too,
Mr. Speaker. Optional works in that you decide whether you will fish under a
collective agreement or you will fish under an auction, and auction means you
sell to the highest bidder.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador sold to Myles-Leger
Ltd. a number of properties comprising the old General premises, some of which
are significant heritage buildings. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of
conditions attached to that, a number of which they have been in default for
more than a year-and-a-half, with the right of the government at that time to
take the buildings back.
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that Myles-Leger is apparently insolvent and
before the court looking for protection, will the minister act quickly to regain
those properties immediately so that others who may be interested in developing
them can have access to them, and prevent endangering them being swallowed up in
the potential insolvency or bankruptcy of Myles-Leger?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for his
question.
Yes, the Province has moved quickly and, I think, efficiently and
effectively, to ensure that the court is aware of the Province's interest in
those properties, under the original conveyance, and also under a mortgage that
is attached to the properties. We were in court this morning to make the court
aware that the Province has an interest. A permanent receiver has now been
established by the court and the Province will follow the process - and the hon.
gentleman knows there are some legal matters that have to be taken care of here
- but we will follow the process of making sure, through the court process, that
the receiver is aware of our interest and that we will have the ability to act
on that interest.
We are also aware that there are some other legitimate business interests in
the property, and we are following up on those matters, so that if and when we
do act, we have a kind of a fallback position, somebody else interested in the
property.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Labour, Human Resources and Employment,
and Responsible for the Status of Women, and it concerns previous workers for
the Baie Verte asbestos mines.
I want to tell the minister that workers in these mines are suffering
greatly. They have been exposed to asbestos at a rate of 14,000 times the normal
rate that most of us are exposed to, and it has caused cancers. It is causing
cancers today and will in the future because of the latency period that is
connected with this disease. I want to ask the minister if she will agree to
have a full-scale medical study conducted on former workers of the Baie Verte
asbestos mine?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue with
regards to workplace health and safety, which is quite a priority for the
commission. We launched our WorkSafe Campaign last week.
It is my understanding that in 2002 a medical expert was commissioned to do a
study on asbestos and from that study the Federation of Labour employers and the
union developed a go-forward basis regarding compensation for people in the
mining industry dealing with asbestos. It is also my understanding that there
remains some concerns about the workers from the Baie Verte area and whether or
not the scope of the study that was commissioned in 2002 actually addressed some
of the needs that the hon. member is talking about.
What I would like to do is have a look at the study that was commissioned and
the scope of that study and, as well, look at the issues that are coming forth
with regard to the workers from the Baie Verte area. I would like to see if
further study is needed and if it would be within the scope of the commission to
do that type of study. At this point in time I would like to say that I am
willing and open to consultation to have a look at the issue to see if these
issues do remain outstanding and if we can address them.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador
West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The commission that the minister is referring to in 2002, I say to the
minister, was one where the commission hired an expert who they knew was going
to rule in their favour because he works for the asbestos industry in Quebec,
and his reports and his findings are subject to review by medical journals. That
did not cut the ice. There are 108 cases before the Workers' Compensation, I
say to the minister, cancer related illnesses, of which they have only accepted
thirty-two. All attempts to get justice for the workers' families, workers who
have passed away and for future cases, is being frustrated by the attitude and
by the policies that have been adopted by the Workers' Compensation. The only
way around this, I say to the minister, is to have a study conducted that would
do a proper medical audit to determine the extent to which workers were affected
and thereby eligible for claims.
Again, I ask the minister, will she be more precise and give us a guarantee
that the workers of Baie Verte, the former workers and their families, will have
a medical audit preformed that they deserve?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say to the hon. member is
that the issues for workers in Baie Verte and workers anywhere in this Province
are certainly a priority. What I will continue to say is that I want to look at
the former report, the scope of it, and did it address the issues that were
meant to be developed. If I felt there was some bias in that report, which did
not work fairly for the workers of Baie Verte, that I will look into having a
further study done. But, at this time, I do want to go back and have a look at
the report, the scope of the report, how it was commissioned and the issues that
you have raised. If I feel that there is some unfairness to that process, I will
expect a further review.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is it true that some managers for health
care boards were called into St. John's yesterday, only to be informed that
boards, such as the one in Burin, Bonavista, Clarenville, Carbonear and St. John's,
will now be rolled into one gigantic health board?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I would like to say that the health care boards are autonomous
organizations. With regard to the reorganization of the health care boards, I
have told the hon. members in this House before -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS E. MARSHALL: - that there has been no decision whatsoever made with
regard to the amalgamation or otherwise of the health care boards in this
Province. There has been no decision made at all. I am informing the hon. House
of that and when I do have some information to relay to the members in this
House, I will do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has also come to my attention that public health outreach services are
being removed from certain board areas in the Province. Outreach offices are
being closed and those people requiring public health services will now have to
travel to their nearest health care centre. This is another case, minister, of
people having to go where the service is and not government bringing the service
to the people, especially in rural areas of the Province.
I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: How many areas in this Province will
see their public health outreach services withdrawn?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated to the hon. member, there has been no decision made whatsoever
with regard to the amalgamation of boards. With regard to outreach services, I
am not aware of any changes in those outreach services. There was an issue with
regard -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS E. MARSHALL: - to services in Grand Falls with regard to mental health
services. I understand that the board was contemplating some changes. They had
made an announcement that there would be some downgrading of services, which was
questioned by myself given that this government has put an additional $1 million
of additional funding into mental health services, and I understand that the
board has now reissued a press release clarifying that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was on public health
services, not mental health services. I am aware that offices are closed and
that services have been withdrawn. So, the minister may want to check with her
officials.
Mr. Speaker, people of the Province are sickened with the thoughts of what
will evolve from a public health review that is being undertaken by that
government. I say to the minister, she should take advice from the Member for
St. Barbe, who stood in the House yesterday with a petition from the people in
his district to try and stop the closure of clinics in his area.
I ask the minister today if she can put some of these fears to rest and
confirm that there will be no further withdrawal of services, no clinic closures
in rural areas, and no downgrading of services being offered at health care
centres in the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government is committed to improving health care services, not to
degrading health care services in this Province. With regard to the members
question on public health, public health has almost been eradicated under the
members opposite in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: As I indicated, this government is going back to repair
the damage that was done by the members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for a thirty second question and a thirty second answer.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, do not talk about what the previous
Administration - we built hospitals and you are closing them. Listen, you wait
until I ask you the question before you jump on your feet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member now has time for a fifteen second question.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, last week I stood in this House and I asked the
Minister of Health, what was her criteria in choosing the location of
amalgamating hospital boards? Now, today, I am asking you the same question. We
already know that Central-West is offering you free space, free accommodation
and they can roll the two boards into one. Are you going to refuse that? What
criteria are you going to use in making your decision?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for the same question that she asked me last week
because I will give her the same answer. When I have a decision made, I will
inform the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
During Question Period today we had a circumstance where we had a member who
asked a supplementary question that the Chair felt was not germane to the main
question. As a general rule, supplementary questions should be very brief,
should not require any explanatory commentary and should be very direct and
should require one, carefully constructed sentence. Brevity is of the essence,
particularly as it applies to supplementary questions. We have been very
fortunate in this session thus far, before today, to have had 628 questions
asked and 628 responses given, which is a record for this House given the number
of days that we have been sitting.
I also remind members that when they are giving their questions, we should
try to keep the time limit down to around forty to fifty seconds. Some exchanges
today were longer than that, and some were yesterday.
I ask members for their co-operation. The essence of Question Period is to
have a rapid exchange and to do so as quickly as we can, given the constraints
of the time, the thirty minutes that we have available.
Presenting reports by standing and select committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the
Department of Education.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table, for all hon. members, thirteen
reports from agencies reporting to the Department of Education, namely, our
eleven school boards: the Labrador School Board; the Northern Peninsula/Labrador
South School Board; Corner Brook/Deer Lake/St. Barbe School Board; Cormack Trail
School Board; the Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board; the
Lewisporte/Gander School Board; Burin School Board; Vista School Board; Avalon
West School Board; Avalon East School Board; and Le Conseil scolaire
francophone.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table the Provincial Information and
Library Resources Board Report and the Newfoundland and Labrador Education
Investment Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Reports
for the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, as well as
reports from Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North
Atlantic.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, and
myself, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the
Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I am tabling the Annual Report for the Department of Finance for the
fiscal year April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. This report has been prepared under
my direction. It is tabled in accordance with governments commitment to greater
accountability and transparency.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister, in presenting his
report, as he did yesterday in presenting the Treasury Board Secretariat Report,
he is presenting a report for the period ending March 31, 2003, more than a year
ago. He signs the report and the report, he says, is prepared under his
direction.
I wonder how this minister has a year-old report, it is prepared under his
direction, for events that took place six months before they were elected? Mr.
Speaker, they are presented here. The Treasury Board Secretariat Report - I
assume the same letter is at the beginning. Perhaps the minister can explain how
he can present a report that is for events that took place before he was there.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raises an interesting point. In
politics sometimes, I say to him, there are cruel ironies, and one of them is
the fact that we, as a new government, have to present reports by the old
government. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, they failed to
present them. We have to. We do not take much solace in all of that, but we do
take our obligations very seriously, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. There is a point of explanation and
clarification, but there is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. member, I have indicated that it was prepared under my direction
because -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has already ruled on that point of order. Commentary has to come
before the ruling, not after.
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, for your information, the 2002-2003
Annual Report for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports? Notices of motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour &
Employment.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety and
Compensation Act, Bill 33.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, Bill
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 Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents on the Burin
Peninsula, particularly those who live in the Marystown-Burin area. It has to do
with the idea of a sludge pond being created in the Marystown-Burin area.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in Question Period, there is a lot of concern
being expressed. In fact, there is a concerned citizens' committee that has
been put in place. While I am hearing from residents on the Burin Peninsula,
particular in the area of Burin and Marystown, that border area, they are
extremely concerned that there has been no public consultation taken place. The
time lines associated with this development are such that they are giving very
little time for anyone to voice an opinion. We are talking June 4 in terms of
the time frame of actually getting some representation made on behalf of the
residents.
For anyone to suggest that this is an area where wildlife will not be
impacted, or residents will be not be impacted, clearly shows that the work has
not been done. Now, I have been told today that the proponent, in fact, withdrew
their proposal but, from the minister's response, he indicated that the
proposal is still before him and under active consideration. So, I understand
from the minister it has not been withdrawn.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS FOOTE: Okay.
Then it is obviously of very serious concern. I had hoped, in fact, that the
proposal had been withdrawn, but I am being told now by the minister that it has
not been withdrawn, that the proponent is on a go-forward basis as of this
moment, as far as the minister knows.
So, here we are in an area where we have schools. We have a recreation area.
We have a walking trail. In fact, there has been federal money gone into a
walking trail within close proximity to the location where it is being proposed
to put the sludge pond. We also know that there has been more money applied for
through ACOA. I understand, in fact, that the proponent may be looking for
federal money to help with this particular initiative. So, it would seem that
the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing if, in fact, the
federal government is being asked to, on one hand, approve something for
recreational purposes within that area and, on the other hand, then approve what
is a sludge pond for the same area.
There are residents who live within close proximity. They have expressed
their concerns to me. They have expressed their concerns to other colleagues in
the House of Assembly, and I appreciate that. I think we all have to stand and
bring their concerns forward, speak on their behalf, make sure that this
proposal is looked at in the way that it will ensure that everything is taken
into consideration. We have health care facilities in that area. We have
restaurants in that area. The school bus depot was in that area, so a lot of
school children live in the area. Again, you have a beach not too far away. You
have cabins. You have trailers. All of this within the area of where the
proponent is proposing to put a sludge pond.
The residents are telling me that they did not know about this until recently
when they became aware of it because someone started to ask some questions. It
was only then that it became a public issue which, of course, is cause for
concern as well, Mr. Speaker. Because, when you are going to initiate this type
of activity, it is important that everybody have a chance to have a say,
especially if they are going to be impacted by whatever level, whether it is
noise or odour or whatever that will come as a result of having the sludge pond
there. I am also told that, of course, the intent is not to cover the sludge
pond and that when people are walking in the area, of course, it could be very
dangerous for them as well. Any seepage, again, is an issue for the residents in
the area.
I am told that when they got together as a concerned citizens' committee, I
think about seventy of them turned up at this meeting and learned for the first
time exactly what was involved. Of course, as the word spread that this is, in
fact, a very active proposal, then they all became concerned and started to do
some consulting on their own, asking if others had heard about this, and what
their views were on it. I can tell you, there is a lot of concern in the
Marystown-Burin area.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Just to clue up, if I may, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS FOOTE: I am also told - and this is why I mention it to the minister -
that when the Mayor of Marystown was asked whether or not they had approved this
proposal, because it is within in the boundaries of Marystown, I am told that,
in fact, the town has not even received an application to consider this
proposal.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is regrettable and unfortunate that I have to rise in the House again
today to present this petition on behalf of the people of my district, Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the Labrador Marine Services, a decision that government
should not have made to move marine services to Lewisporte. Indeed, they should
not have done that, Mr. Speaker, because it was in the best interests of the
people of the Province and the service to the people of Labrador, to have
maintained the service of the Sir Robert Bond in Cartwright and Happy
Valley-Goose Bay and not in Lewisporte.
You know, what is even more unfortunate about this entire situation, Mr.
Speaker, is that the people in Northern Labrador had only one request of the
government opposite. That was, that they have their own designated freight
vessel that would distribute freight from a location of their preference to
Northern Labrador. You know what, Mr. Speaker? One of the most isolated, most
remote areas of our Province will not get what they want, despite the fact that
money will be spent out of the Labrador Fund. They will not get what they want.
That is rather unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what is unfortunate about
it? It is because the Minister of Transportation and Works was more concerned
with meeting his own obligations and his own commitments to his own district and
not looking out for the best interests and the betterment of all the people in
Labrador who depend upon this service. That is what is unfortunate about this,
Mr. Speaker.
The people of Northen Labrador will not get their freight boat operating
directly from Lewisporte to Nain with their goods and services. No, they will
not, and the people of my district will not get the ferry service between
Cartwright and Goose Bay that they so desperately lobbied for and wanted. It all
will be done, and they will not get the service simply because the minister had
to meet his own obligation; and his own obligation was this: that the ferry boat
be put in Lewisporte and that the jobs be created in his own district and that
the money from the Labrador Transportation Fund be used to make it happen.
Now, that is a crime, it is an injustice that is being done to people in
Labrador. It is unfair that their voices are not being heard by that government
and not being heard by the minister. Mr. Speaker, they have had little or no
representation on this issue, as far as I can see, from other members opposite.
Therefore, the Minister of Transportation and Works has done just what he
thought he needed to do to suit his own needs.
Mr. Speaker, this is no joking matter here, this is a very serious, very
important matter. We are only days away from having a marine service implemented
in Labrador. It is a marine service that has been devised and created by the
government opposite and is not being done in the best interests of the people of
Labrador, and that is not fair.
Mr. Speaker, in a matter of days monies will be spent belonging to
communities in Labrador -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my petition on this
very important matter?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS JONES: Thank you very much.
It is only a matter of days and these vessels will go into service.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one request that I make of the government opposite
today, and that is to put the Sir Robert Bond on the ferry service
between Cartwright and Goose Bay permanently for this season, and put the
freight boat for Northern Labrador, the Trans Gulf , operating out of
Lewisporte to the North Coast. They will save, Mr. Speaker, anywhere from
$500,000 to $600,000 this year of money belonging to Labrador communities by
doing that, and they will honour the request that has been made by the Labrador
people.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's leave has been withdrawn.
The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland
and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:
The Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS the undersigned residents realize that Government is in the process
of combining the Central East and Central West Hospital Institutional Boards and
Community Health Central; and
WHEREAS the Central West Board has proven itself to be efficient and prudent
in its spending;
WHEREFORE your petitioners are hereby asking government to consider locating
the Board's administrative offices in Grand Falls-Windsor and call on our area
elected representatives in Cabinet, the hon. Paul Shelley, the hon. Tom Rideout,
myself, Opposition MHA Roger Grimes, and MHA Anna Thistle, to lobby on our
behalf.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I fully support the request of the people of Central
Newfoundland, which is Grand Falls-Windsor, and also that the people of Central
Newfoundland really lobbied the government in the last little while to have this
decision considered.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has been saying that I haven't
been supporting and making my views known to the public, but I say to the Member
for Grand Falls-Buchans, that I have been and I have done what the people in my
district have asked me to do. I presented a petition today. I am very pleased
and honoured to have to do that for the residents in my district and the Grand
Falls-Windsor area, Mr. Speaker.
We realize that Grand Falls-Windsor is a location of choice of many
specialists and health professionals. We realize that the groups in Central
Newfoundland supporting this, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups, have
done many things at a great cost to get a point across to the minister and to
government that this is the place. If there is a change, that it should be
located in Grand Falls-Windsor.
I say, too, Mr. Speaker, that my role as a Member for Grand Falls-Windsor
area - which is my district, Windsor-Springdale - is a little different than the
members in Opposition. I have an opportunity from time to time in caucus
meetings and dealing with the minister, and other ministers and Cabinet
ministers, of presenting the cases of the people in Central Newfoundland. I have
done that. I have lobbied hard in the last while to make sure that what decision
is made, is made based on the criteria set out by the people of Central
Newfoundland, who really believe that the location should be in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that unlike the members in Opposition who have to lobby
in a different way, they use tactics in lobbying that we used to use when we
were in the Opposition, but now on the government side, as the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans knows -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. HUNTER: Just one moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.
MR. HUNTER: My lobbying is very important and is done in a different
manner than it would be done by them.
I say, Mr. Speaker, no decisions have been made. Soon we will have decisions
made, and hopefully it will be done in the favour of the residents of Grand
Falls-Windsor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, today, I am standing representing the people of Grand Falls-Buchans
and of Central Newfoundland and Labrador in their plight of trying to get the
consolidation of health care boards located in Grand Falls-Windsor.
If I have shamed the Member for Windsor-Springdale into getting on his feet
for the first time in this House, I have been successful. I want to say, if he
is doing his lobbying in his own caucus - if you are lobbying in your own caucus
for the cancer clinic, you have been unsuccessful. If you are lobbying for the
consolidation of school boards, you have been unsuccessful. If you are going to
start lobbying, which you should have been doing weeks and weeks and weeks ago
on the consolidation of health boards, I hope you will have more success because
I tell you, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor deserve it. The Central West
Health Care Board deserves it. They are in the middle of the district -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Never you mind the questions I asked the minister. I have
gotten no answers from that minister, and I have to make it known here.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I do not wish to take away from the member' time, but when we are dealing
with petitions, Standing Order 92 reads, "Every Member offering a petition
to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties
from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material
allegations it contains." Then it mentioned the time limit.
I would ask the member if she could confine herself to the prayer of petition
in general terms.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And, of Course, I will lay this information on the table. Of course the
Member for Windsor-Springdale espoused his opinion very loosely, but I will
stick to the rules, as you have indicated.
What is quite clear, the Central West Health Care Board has a very valid
case. Why should they go out at their expense and the Chamber of Commerce
expense and take out an ad to prove to the world, to prove to this government,
who never listens - they are making decisions on a whim when they say they are
going to make evidence-based decisions.
We seen yesterday how the Minister of Education squirmed in his seat when he
was asked to defend the decision they made on the school board situation. Here
we have the Central West Health Care Board, with the best record within the
entire government of fiscal and operational success, right in the middle of Baie
Verte to Eastport district. They have the provisions to accommodate the two
consolidated boards at no cost to government, no renovation, no rental money to
be paid out. They have the best record of recruitment and retention of
specialists. Why can't this Minister of Health and Community Services stand on
her feet and give me the criteria that government will use to make that
decision? Why can't we have some fairness here in this House? We cannot get
any answers from this new government. That is the reason why we are frustrated
here, we are standing and trying to speak for our constituents, the people that
put us here. We cannot get an answer. All you want to do is tear down what we
have put together for the people of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS THISTLE: Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The last two petitions that we have heard I do believe contains some
infringements on Standing Order 92. Members have taken time to comment on things
that really, in the Chair's opinion, were not germane to the petition that was
presented. I mention that for the last two petitions.
I ask members, again, to contain themselves to the statements that are made
in petitions, the prayer of the petition and to comment on the allegations or
the prayers that are there, and to represent the wishes of the people who signed
the petition as contained in the prayers. Sometimes we do take advantage of
petitions to say things across the House that probably are not very germane and
I would ask members for their co-operation in that regard.
The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Marystown and Burin
area, in line with the petition that was presented by the hon. Member for Grand
Bank.
In particular, part of the petition reads: This area is not a suitable
location for a sewage treatment facility because it is too close to the Burpen
school bus depot, elementary and junior high schools, the Burin Peninsula
hospital and homes and businesses in the area.
Mr. Speaker, I became aware of this issue over the past week with a number of
phone calls, e-mails and letters pertaining to this particular issue. By far,
the greater number of the calls are against the establishment of this sludge
treatment facility. Over the past two weeks, it appears that the word has gotten
around about this facility. The media release came out, I believe it was, on May
7. However, as things have progressed the topic has become, certainly, a
contentious issue to a point where a public meeting was held and a formalized
petition of protest was organized and presented here today. I have met with and
discussed this matter with the minister and, as he has already pointed out, it
is proceeding through its normal channels and, hopefully, there will be a
resolution to it.
Mr. Speaker, the residents within the immediate area are certainly worried
about the possible implications. As the Member for Grand Bank has alluded to,
this area does hold wildlife and, because of its adjacency to this number of
facilities, they are certainly opposed to it. I do anticipate more calls,
e-mails and letters over the next few days, and I would like the residents to
know that I will work on their behalf to see a resolution to this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition with a list of names from the community of
Cartwright, from the community of Nain, and from the community of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, it is on the auditorium that is so badly needed
in the Upper Lake Melville area.
Right now, students all across Labrador do not have the opportunity to travel
to the Upper Lake Melville area to do different festivals. I just saw the Member
for Lake Melville talking with the Minister of Education and I know that the
Member for Lake Melville is dedicated to the program. I would say to the
Minister of Education that such a facility is essential to the children in
Labrador, and I say to the Minister of Education, there are three things that
are about to happen: one, is that very shortly this hon. House is going to close
for a summer break; two, that the construction season is very short in Labrador;
three, and probably most important of all, is that in the next few weeks the
school season is going to close, and students all across Labrador again will
have to walk away from their school in every community knowing there is no
commitment for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area where so many of
our students take so much pride in going. To know that the school season is
about to close and that government has not made a commitment to the students in
Labrador, certainly is a drawback to the education program all across Labrador.
I would say to the Minister of Education that this building is essential, is
vital, and they need it. We need an auditorium built in the Upper Lake Melville
area to help promote our young people, to promote their studies, their culture,
their heritage, Mr. Speaker, and it is very important to them. I say to the
minister again, go back and talk to your colleagues in Cabinet and tell them of
the importance, of the magnitude, of this essential piece of structure that the
children in Labrador so rightfully deserve. I would suggest that he talk to the
Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and that he talk
to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for
Labrador Affairs, because, as I said before, I know the Member for Lake Melville
is dedicated to this and so is every student in all of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the Minister of Education to reconsider, please,
the shortness of the year. Again, school is closing and students all across
Labrador are going to walk out of their classrooms knowing that there is no plan
in place for them to go into an auditorium. Mr. Speaker, if it is not started
this year then we are looking at two years before these children are given the
opportunity to have another term to perform - a place that students in every
other part of the Province, I guess, take for granted.
I say to the Minister of Education, please -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. ANDERSEN: Ten seconds, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. ANDERSEN: I say to the Minister of Education, please, on behalf of
the children in Labrador, reconsider and give them this essential piece of
structure that they need to complete their education.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to present on behalf of the people in Rocky Harbour and
Norris Point. The prayer reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland
and Labrador, in legislative session convened: The petition of the undersigned
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS a fully licensed recycling depot does not exist within Gros Morne
National Park and surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS the expense involved in transporting recyclables to Deer Lake results
in many recyclables being burned at a local dump site, contributing to an
already overburdened waste management site and many community health issues;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge government to take action to make the
recycling depot at Rocky Harbour a fully licensed recycling facility.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have, on behalf of the people of the Gros Morne area, brought
the concerns to the minister and, of those two concerns that I highlight, one
was certainly the health concern which is right across the Province, from having
those slow burning dump sites, having smoke smothering our communities when we
have certain winds. Those concerns were certainly expressed, as we have all
across this Province. It has been an ongoing concern.
The other point that I had made in pleading with the minister to take a
second look at the recycling depot in Rocky Harbour was the fact that Rocky
Harbour, in Gros Morne, has been certainly a leader in this Province when it
comes to recycling and picking up new habits and new ways of moving into this
new century, Mr. Speaker. A good example of that, that I highlighted, was that
just last week the minister, himself, had presented an award to Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador, when Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador had hosted
the Canadian Adventure Tourism Industry conference in Rocky Harbour. It was a
green event. It was the first time since this group has been formed, Mr.
Speaker, and a lasting legacy from this was a Trash-ed, a solid waste education
program targeted at elementary school children. This program will be delivered
by children and Gros Morne staff this season. It is a first in this Province,
Mr. Speaker, from what I understand. I have gone and encouraged the minister to
take a second look at this particular depot to see if we cannot continue on
being a leader in this Province when it comes to recycling and moving ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider certain bills.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for
the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain
bills.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair, for the House
to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on certain bills?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill,
An Act to
Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25)
CHAIR: Bill 25, "An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters
Act." (Bill 25)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words on the
Professional Fish Harvesters Act. I know that these are important amendments to
that legislation and I will note that the session that we had late last night,
some time after 10:30 or 11 o'clock, this bill was introduced at second
reading - but it was not introduced. It went through at second reading and the
Minister of Fisheries did not introduce the bill, so I am wondering today
whether he is prepared to tell us a little bit about why this legislation is
being brought in and why it is needed. I know the television was not on last
night, so the people watching would have had the TV cut off 10 o'clock or
thereabouts and did not hear the fact that it went through second reading. I
know the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board has played a
significant role in the development of a sense of professionalism amongst fish
harvesters and trying to create a very positive view of fish harvesters in the
Province.
I know that years ago, Mr. Chairman, it was a great debate. This was kind of
before the fishermen's union. You know, being a fisherman in Newfoundland and
Labrador was kind of like the job of last resort. If you could not get a real
job, you would go in the fishing boat. That was the attitude that a lot of
people had towards the fishermen and fish harvesters in this Province, but that
has changed an awful lot in the last number of years. We compared it - years
ago, I remember comparing it to Norway and Iceland, where the job of a fisherman
would be regarded very highly, that to be a fisherman was a great thing. Well,
it is becoming a great thing again today. I suppose all anyone needs to do is
look to the fact that a fisherman such as Lester Petten, whose funeral is being
held today in Port de Grave, is regarded as a substantial, successful,
remarkable man, a fisherman from this Province, one of many who made a great
reputation as being a fisherman, a person with great ability and had great
success. We all mourn his passing, and I do not want to turn this into a eulogy
but he is an example of the kind of people who we have seen coming from the
fishing industry showing a great ability and great willingness to work hard to
improve the fishery and caring about the Province in the future.
We have developed a sense in this Province, Mr. Chairman, of a fish
harvester, the fishermen and women, as being professionals. That is the
intention of the Fish Harvesters Board, to recognize that there are certain
skills that go with being a fisherman, that recognize that there is a
certification process, that recognition can be conferred on people, and with
that would go certain access to the programs and benefits. Now, we have had some
controversy. Very little progress is made without controversy, and I know in
this particular area there has been some controversy. There have been a few
growing pains in establishing the criteria and the role of the board. There have
been court cases, one in particular, that recognized or discovered that some of
the rules were not adequate to do the kind of things that were intended in the
beginning. We are happy to see that some changes are being made here to
accommodate that.
I would ask the Minister of Fisheries, since it is his legislation, if he
would give us a little outline of the kind of changes that are necessary to be
made, and why they are necessary, so that we can consider the clauses adequately
and ensure ourselves that this legislation meets the need for which it is
brought forward, and that in the future the Professional Fish Harvesters Board
will be able to operate in a more satisfactory manner and hopefully avoid the
kind of controversy and problems that there have been in the past.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister
Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just will give a few explanatory comments on why we are bringing forward
Bill 25 right now,
An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.
Mr. Chairman, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has indicated, this is
one of many steps down the road towards professionalization of our fish
harvesters in the Province - an initiative that was widely supported by those in
the industry over the past probably close to fifteen, or probably over fifteen,
years, actually, since I heard it first, the term and the concept of
professionalization.
Mr. Chairman, what we are endeavoring to do in this bill today is to address
a number of issues flowing out of Judge Orsborn's - I guess that is how you
say it - ruling last year, about a year ago I guess it was, where one fish
harvester in particular - maybe there were a couple of them who were involved -
challenged the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board's ability to
do some of the things that they were doing - or authority, I should say - to do
some of the things they were doing.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the challenge was to the Certification Board's
authority to certify fish harvesters based on economic dependency criteria.
Number two was the Certification Board's ability - or authority, again, I
should say - to discipline fish harvesters based on the Code of Ethics. Then
there were a couple of other issues that were more or less housekeeping issues,
Mr. Chairman, that this act deals with.
Mr. Chairman, specifically, the act will be amended so that the Professional
Fish Harvesters Certification Board will be able to certify fish harvesters
based on the economic dependency criteria. The reason for that is that in any
other - this is unique to the fishing industry. Most other professional
organizations, in other sectors of our economy, don't have that type of
criterion. It is unique here, and the reason for it is that the vast majority of
those in the industry have requested it. While other professions have a fairly
substantial cost associated with education, formal education, institutional
education, in order to be able to practice in that profession, the fishing
industry has little in the way of those requirements. There are some, certainly,
if you want to become the captain of a boat or need engineering expertise for
some of the vessels that we run in our fishery. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the
fishing industry thought that an economic dependancy criterion that they use for
the grandfathering part of this, at 75 per cent, was appropriate. All criterion
related to ongoing certification of fish harvesters, Mr. Chairman, will be
subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as the
criteria is developed. Mr. Chairman, in the act, we are giving authority for the
board to implement such criteria, or to make decisions based on a criteria that
will be approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
As well, Mr. Chairman, we want to address, in this, the issues related to how
disciplinary action might be handled by the certification board, specifically as
it relates to a disciplinary board. Previously, as I understood it, there was
some dispute about the certification board's authority to enact disciplinary
action. Judge Orsborne certainly found that the board was not authorized to do
that. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody has acknowledged that there needs to be,
and there will be, in the context of the Professional Fish Harvesters Act, a
disciplinary board that will deal with those issues.
Mr. Chairman, the other item, as I recall - and I just have to check the note
here now - the other one, and it is Clause 5, is related to the decision of the
disciplinary board, or of the appeal board, I should say. The decision of the
appeal board most apply. In this Act, under its previous rendition, the decision
of the appeal board was only applicable to the appellant. Under this, Mr.
Chairman, it is binding on both the certification board and the appellant. Mr.
Chairman, that, in essence, is why this bill is before the House today. Those
are, probably, the three major issues that flow out of this bill.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is widely supported by the industry.
The board is comprised of fifteen members, who are appointed by the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, based on recommendations from various organizations
and agencies, who are, in some way, directly or indirectly, affiliated with the
fishing industry. As I said, Mr. Chairman, the Professional Fish Harvesters
Certification Board and the Professional Fish Harvesters Act is widely supported
by the industry and by the organizations around that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments. If there are other
questions, I will endeavour to answer them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to rise and have a few words on Bill 25 today, because when I was
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I had an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board in the
Province. These were certainly - this bill contains some of the things that they
brought forward at that time, some amendments that they would have liked to have
seen in legislation coming before the House in the spring sitting. I have to
say, I am pleased that the minister has put forward the amendments in Bill 25
because it was certainly important to the association and to members of the
association within the Province.
Mr. Chairman, I guess a lot of the amendments that we are seeing today in the
bill arose out of a court challenge that was launched in the Province against
the Professional Fish Harvesters association with regard to their criteria for
economic activity. There was a ruling from the courts and it was important that
the proper amendments were made to protect the Professional Fish Harvesters in
Newfoundland and Labrador, because people who have followed this particular
board will know that the whole purpose and intent of the act, when it first came
to the House of Assembly back some years ago, was to offer up a
professionalization for fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador so that they too
could have some protection, some direction within their career and occupational
choices that they made.
Mr. Chairman, that was the initial purpose. So, that they could be a
professional group, just like we see with nurses, like we see with teachers,
like we see with home care workers out there now trying to establish a
professional organization to represent home care workers in the Province. We
have seen this with any number of occupational fields, so that was the original
intent. Since then, what we have seen from this group is a great deal of
development work and education work that has been done within the fishing
industry profession.
I know from my experiences, I live in a fishing district and have a lot of
people who work in the industry, a lot of fisherpeople who are on the water. One
of the things that I have seen come out of this particular organization is the
number of safety programs that are being offered to fishermen today, and
fisherwomen. Mr. Chairman, almost on a regular basis we have courses going on in
small rural communities all over this Province that are teaching people in the
fishing industry what they need to know with regard to navigational aids, what
they need to know for safety and protection of their fleet on the water, and all
of these kinds of things. I know a great deal of people who have taken these
courses and have found them to be very rewarding for the occupation that they
are in.
The Professional Fish Harvesters association has done a lot of good work in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They have certainly established themselves as a very
credible, professional organization that brings forward, not just the views and
perspectives of people in the fishing industry, but also offers up the
opportunity for training, for education, for advancement within the industry
itself. So the changes that are being brought forward in this legislation are
good and are needed and have been asked for by the Professional Fish Harvesters
association. As I said earlier, they are coming out of a court challenge that
was launched in the Province in which we had a verdict on back last summer. What
this will do is tighten up the legislation to ensure that they can carry on and
carry forward as a professional organization and do exactly what they were
intended to do.
Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with Bill 25, and I will certainly be
supporting the minister's amendments that he has brought forward.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a few quite words on Bill 25 that the minister has put before the floor
today. It is my understanding that it deals with the Professional Fish
Harvesters Board. If I am not mistaken, it was the late Walter Carter who
originally, I think, brought that board about under a piece of legislation in
this House. It happened back, I think, in the early years of the moratorium. The
reason that he did it is because every other profession that we go into has -
you have to exhibit a certain number of skills and we thought that fishermen
have those skills, so why wouldn't they be treated the same way as everybody
else, for example?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: I say to my colleague across the floor, if it was Mr. Efford,
the work was started and done by the late Walter Carter. We have a professional
certification board, for example, for nurses. We have a professional
certification board for teachers and doctors and everybody else, but we did not
have one for -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: Well, I know that the work was done because I worked with the
late minister at the time. We felt that where every other professional had a
certification board that we needed one for fishermen as well. The fishery today
is not like it was 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago, when anyone who wanted
to go fishing could go fishing and thought that they were equipped to go
fishing. We decided that it would be nice to have a professional harvesting
board to certify fishermen at different levels, depending on their skills, and
set forward a program whereby an individual could acquire those skills to move
from Level I, II to III to become a professional fish harvester. I have no
problem with it. I understand that there were some fishermen in the Province who
were opposed to this board for a number of reasons - and they took it to court -
and obviously their concerns were not felt to be significant by the judge and he
ruled against them. The legislation that is put forward to the House today is
just going to make some minor changes to the act to see that things like that
will not happen again. I will be voting for this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
Should clauses 1 to 7 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Clauses 1 to 7 are carried.
On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows:
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The enacting clause is carried.
On motion, the enacting clause carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The title is carried.
On motion title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 25,
An Act to Amend The Professional Fish
Harvesters Act, carried without amendment?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Bill 25 is carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, Order 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill,
An Act
To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 27)
CHAIR: Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act."
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hesitate to repeat the speech that I made last night but I do want to say
that the speech that I made last night was made at around 11:15 p.m or 11:30
p.m. or thereabouts. It did not get on TV and, given the family-friendly hours
that the people opposite ran on last year, I do not know if my family was home
watching it at 10:00 p.m. or 10:10 p.m. when the lights went off, when the TV
cameras went off, but it was something that did come up last night. What I said
then, I will just say it briefly again, was that this legislation talks about
the provincial offences. What it does is, it imposes penalties for late payment
of fines. Now, the fines that we are talking about here could be as low as $10
or $15, for a parking ticket or anything under the Provincial Offences Act, any
kind of fine is involved here, but it increases late penalties on fines. You
could have a fine of $10 and if it was not paid within thirty days, or the date
on the ticket or whatever other regulation applies, all of a sudden you have to
pay an extra $6. So, a $10 fine becomes a $16 fine. If your fine is more than
$100, the penalty is $12. Mr. Chairman, what I said in terms of my concern about
this legislation is that this is not involved in doing anything other than
penalizing people who cannot afford to pay their fines in a timely manner. If
somebody is fined $100 for failure to wear a seatbelt, or someone has a ticket
for some provincial offence and they don't happen to have the $100, what this
government is saying is, if you don't have the $100 we are going to charge you
$112. That is what they are saying.
If somebody refused to pay and wasn't going to pay and all of that, maybe
you could tack on court costs or something like that, but merely by waiting or
being unable to pay within thirty days, which may be what the court says if you
go to court, you get a fine of $100 or thirty days to pay - sometimes they say,
in default of payment you get one day or two days or a week in jail. Sometimes
that is the penalty. This government is just imposing this fee as another way of
collecting money, and the money they are collecting is from the people who are
least able to afford to pay it.
These are fines, and we all recognize that, Mr. Chairman, these are fines,
these are penalties, for breaking the law, but we are talking about provincial
offences here, we are talking about matters that have small fines. We are not
talking about criminal matters, we are not talking about criminal offences that
require significant deterrents and all of that. Mr. Chairman, we do have a lot
of people in this Province who don't have the money to pay fines if they
happen to incur them very quickly. If somebody is rich and has lots of money,
all they do is simply write a cheque, write a cheque to the court on the way out
the door. If you don't have any money, Mr. Chairman, this government is going
to charge you an extra $12 on a $100 fine, which, if this were interest it would
be up in the criminal rates of interest, up in 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per
cent. If you took $100 and said, okay, if you don't pay within thirty days we
are going to give you an extra $12 fine, that would be the equivalent of
charging 12 per cent interest for thirty days. That is an interest rate of 144
per cent, which is way above what is called the criminal interest rate under the
Criminal Code.
Mr. Chairman, I find that offensive and I think that it is really a punitive
measure. All it is going to do is put more money in the coffers of this
government from ordinary people and, in particular, from people who cannot
afford to pay their fines in a timely way.
That is what I have to say about this bill, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to
this type of legislation. It is punitive, it is unnecessary, it is regressive,
and it hurts the people who can least afford to pay the kind of fines that we
are talking about here, even if they are within the $50 or $100 or $150 range.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
The enacting clause is carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: The title is carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 27,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences
Act, carried without amendment?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Bill 27 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 26)
CHAIR: Bill 26,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act.
Shall clauses 1 to 8 carry?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pass a few comments on this act here this afternoon because, Mr.
Chairman, it is, as was indicated last night, and quite rightly, by members
opposite, this is a substantial piece - although it is not very thick - of
legislation and it can have a significant impact on the fishery of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing here is to amend the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act to enable an auction to take place in the fishery in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is essentially a reinstatement in the act of
enabling legislation that it contained prior to 2000. At the time, in 2000, the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act was amended to remove the ability to
have an auction in the fishery and to institute, permanently, Final Offer
Selection as a form of arbitration in collective bargaining.
As we know, while that was probably an appropriate thing to do at the time,
we find ourselves, over the past number of years - increasingly so, as we see
problems in markets and changes in resource availability and those types of
things - we have seen where Final Offer Selection arbitration has not worked at
all to the end that we had all hoped it would back in 1998, 1999, and 2000. I
think we really saw the wheels starting to come off Final Offer Selection
probably in 2001; 2002 was a challenge; 2003 there were problems; and, again,
this spring we saw problems again related to Final Offer Selection arbitration.
What we are proposing here, Mr. Chairman, is to enable the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture to require, as a condition of licence, that fish be
bought or sold through an auction in the Province. There are two pieces to that
enabling piece. What we envisage, Mr. Chairman, is that this could work in
tandem with the collective bargaining regime that we currently have, or it could
work in the absence of the collective bargaining regime that we presently have.
As many people know, Mr. Chairman, we have, over the past number of months,
had some fairly extensive discussions with the industry on the possibility of
implementing an auction in the shrimp fishery. We had embarked down that road
back in February, pulled back off it in March because there was an agreement
between the parts of the industry on a different approach. That approach went
down the drain, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, back about April 9, as I
recall. The fishery tied up - or did not untie, I suppose, is probably a better
way of putting it - for about a month to five weeks, and only untied when I
announced again that we would embark upon implementation of an auction for the
shrimp fishery some time in June. Certainly, our target is to have it
operational by June 24, when the current price
schedule runs out.
What we would propose, Mr. Chairman, and what we have proposed to the
industry, is that we would see an optional auction take place where the
industry, the processors and the fishermen's union, would negotiate a price
schedule that would apply if people so desired to fish under that arrangement.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there would be an arrangement where people would, if they so
desired, be able to fish under an auction as opposed to the collective
agreement.
That is what we propose for this season, Mr. Chairman. This legislation
enables us to do that. We have had quite a number of discussions with the
fishing industry on this. Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure members
opposite will allude to this later when they speak, it has not been received
with open arms. Mr. Chairman, that is to be expected. Whenever you are talking
about significant change in any industry, this is what we are confronted with,
opposition and whatever.
Mr. Chairman, I just want, in my first comments here - I am sure there will
be other opportunities for me to comment here, because I am sure there will be
questions from the other side - to say briefly here now that an auction system
is not new to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been
used in the past. In had been used in the late 1980s, when the Middle Distance
Fleet was on the go, and the Resource Short Plant Program, and it worked very
effectively, Mr. Chairman, in a very high volume fishery with quite a number of
boats and a great availability of product. At that time, Mr. Chairman -
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: The Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, I am sure, will
have ample opportunity to pass her comments here this afternoon. If she has a
question -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: - and there was market demand for product, but there was, at
that time, a fishery that was in excess of - for groundfish, for cod in
Newfoundland and Labrador, probably up around 300,000 plus tons of cod
available. Prices were, at that time, in the order of twenty-five to forty cents
a pound, which is not radically different from what we see in shrimp. The amount
of cod available in the world was not radically different from what we see in
shrimp. The amount of cod that was available in the Province was about three
times what we see in shrimp in the present day.
Mr. Chairman, we saw at that time where prices increased to the middle
distance fleet, who sold under this system, and the quality of the product
actually improved tremendously under this system. That is what we hope to be
able to achieve here. Can I stand here today or on any day on this issue and
guarantee that this is going to solve the problems that we have in the shrimp
industry? No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot. Nor can anybody else propose something
that will do the same.
As well, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of reports over the past seven or
eight years that had recommended a pilot project on an auction in the Province,
and that is essentially what you could call this. An optional pilot project in
shrimp for this season. Mr. Chairman, we do intend to do optional because we
want to do a gradual - move down this road gradually. We do not want to jump in
over our heads. We want to see if this thing can work. I see no reason why it
would not in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only major
fisheries jurisdiction in the world, to my knowledge, that does not have some
form of an auction operating in it. We are the only place in the world where
collective bargaining sets the prices for fish.
So, Mr. Chairman, those are my initial comments. Before I sit down, I will
inform the House that we propose that
section 35(4) of the act be amended from
what we have proposed in Bill 26, and the Table has been presented with this, as
I understand it. I think members have been presented with it also. It is not
inconsistent with the theme and thrust of what we proposed initially anyway. It
just further clarifies what we intended to do. As 35(4) says: when an auction is
in place there would not be the opportunity for a strike or a lockout.
Mr. Chairman, our intension there was not to take away the right to strike or
the right to lockout from the industry and the union. What we wanted to do is,
where there is a compulsory auction - obviously, where there is a compulsory
auction you cannot have a strike or a lockout. You have to be able to make
individual decisions, whether you are a processor or a harvester. So, that is
what is proposed there. In a compulsory auction or where the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture requires that the sale of fish, through an auction,
that there will be no right to strike or lockout. Under the system that we are
proposing for this season, which is an optional auction, we would propose that
there would still be the ability of the fleet to strike and the processing
sector to lockout. Thereby enabling them to achieve a collective agreement, a
collectively agreed to price
schedule on the one hand, that harvesters can fish
under and processors can buy under and an auction on the other hand that both
sides can choose, or choose not to engage in.
With those notes, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude now. I am sure there will be
other questions and I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.
AN HON. MEMBER: You have moved the amendment.
MR. TAYLOR: I am not sure - do I have to - I move that Bill 26 -
AN HON. MEMBER: You don't need to.
MR. TAYLOR: No, I don't need to. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today, and I certainly do want to speak to Bill 26,
An Act To Amend
The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, because I have been sitting here
in this House of Assembly for - this is my ninth year. I was Minister of
Fisheries for two-and-a-half years and I have never seen a bill that has come
before this House concerning the fishery that has been as important as this one,
and we have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns.
I would like to tell the minister upfront that what I am about to say is no
reflection on him as an individual, and I certainly do not want to make comments
that he would take to be insulting or anything else. It is just that I know the
situation the minister is in. I was there myself. It is a very difficult
industry to try and regulate and be the minister of, and I understand the
situation in which he finds himself everyday. As I told him the other day when
he said that a plant closed in his district for reasons that he could not
control, I said: It is your fault. He said: How can it be my fault? I said:
Well, it will be before 6:00 tonight because you are going to be asked to solve
it.
Mr. Chairman, what I am about to say does not concern the minister. It is not
a personal attack on the minister because I have a fair amount of respect for
him. I have to give you a little history on this. In January the processors and
the harvesters of the Province were sitting down trying to negotiate a price for
shrimp and negotiations were dragging out for quite some time. The minister at
some point in January gave an ultimatum to the processors and the harvesters in
the Province - in fact, all of the fishing industry - that if they did not reach
an agreement on price for shrimp by January 1, he would enforce an agreement
upon them, or legislate an agreement upon them. At that point, the harvesters
and the processors moved away from the table and said: Well, let's sit back
and see what he is going to do.
Then in January or early February he announced that he was going to implement
an auction system. At that time I talked to a number of people in the processing
sector, a number of fishermen and fisherwomen around the Province, and nobody
could understand how this auction system could work. I could speak at great
length here this afternoon on the reasons they said that it could not work.
Anyway, at some time between then and April the minister withdrew the auction
system and said that he was not going to enforce an auction system, or force an
auction system upon the fishing industry, and they went back to negotiating
again. At some point the harvesters and the processors came to another impasse
and the minister said: That's it, I am going to implement - legislate I think
the words were - I am going to legislate an auction system.
Mr. Chairman, I have been talking to people in the industry at great length
since then and I have a number of concerns, especially with a number of clauses
in this, because, as I said to the minister in the Estimates Committee - for
those of you who do not know what the Estimates Committee is, it is something
that we do after the regular hours of the House of Assembly, where we come in
here and it gives me, as the Fisheries critic, an opportunity - me and some of
my colleagues - to question the minister at length about his policies, his
programs and his budget.
We were here, in fact, I think from 7:00 o'clock on one Wednesday night
until 12:30, and we had a very good debate. I must admit, it was enlightening
for both this side and the other side because we exchanged views on a number of
issues, and the auction system came up. Because my constituents, as well as my
colleagues constituents, my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, my
colleague from the Bay of Islands also had a number of concerns about an auction
system because of the negative impact that it may have on some of our
constituents. In that debate I asked the minister if it were legal; if an
auction system were legal. What I mean by that: Could the minister force a
fisherman in this Province to sell to the highest bidder? Now sometimes you
would think that everybody would sell to the highest bidder, but that is not
necessarily the case. I will give you an example.
The fishermen, or some of the fishermen on Fogo Island are part owners of the
Fogo Island Co-op; the fish plants on Fogo Island. They are part owners.
Obviously, they would like to sell to their own plant. It not only benefits them
but it benefits their relatives and the people who live in the communities out
there with them because they are not only selling their fish and making a dollar
off their fish, but they are also employing people in their district, in their
hometowns; their friends and their relatives. They did not like the idea of
having to be forced to sell to the highest bidder because what might happen is
that a fisherman from the Fogo Island Co-op might have a load of shrimp onboard
and he might be headed in. He might be headed down from St. Anthony basin
somewhere with 50,000 tons of shrimp on. He is supposed to hail in and start the
bidding. Well, all it would take was for some other processor in the Province to
offer one one-thousandth of a cent more to that fisherman for his shrimp than
the Fogo Island Co-op could pay, or wanted to pay, and he would be forced - I
asked the minister and he said yes. He would have to sell to the highest bidder.
A fisherman who is part owner of the Co-op on Fogo Island would be forced to
sell, for example, St. Anthony Seafoods, the shrimp plant in St. Anthony, simply
because they offered them one-one-thousandth of a cent more a pound for shrimp.
They did not want to be forced to do that, because one-one-thousandth of a cent
on a pound of shrimp was not worth taking a job off Fogo Island. They did not
like the idea of being forced to do it.
Another thing they did not like, without the auction system, it is common in
the fishing industry today for a fisherman, when he is ready to go out and get
his shrimp or crab, it is common for him to go to the plant where he sells his
product, they ice him up, they give him the shrimp bags, and he goes catching
shrimp and brings it back and lands it at this plant. Well, under this auction
system there is no plant going to do that. There is no plant going to ice up a
fisherman, there is no plant going to give him the bags, because they are not
guaranteed that the shrimp is coming back to that plant. So, there are a number
of problems inherent with a mandatory auction system.
Mr. Chairman, I raised a question today in the House of Assembly, because
when I questioned the minister the other night in the Estimates Committee about
having to sell to the highest bidder, the minister said: Yes, you have to. I
said: Have you had legal advice on this? He said: Yes. I said: Do you have to
change the legislation in order to do it? He said: Yes. I asked him the question
in the House today about the Fogo Island Co Op, only I did not use their names,
and the fishermen having to sell to somebody else, and he said: Oh, no, this is
optional. This is an optional or a voluntary auction.
Well, that is the first time that I have heard of it, and it is the first
time that any of the fishermen and the plant owners, that I know of, have heard
of it. I had the occasion last night to be in the company of a number of
processors and a number of fishermen, because I went to the wake of a well-known
fisherman in this Province, Mr. Lester Petten, and at that, of course, there
were a number - everyone there was related to the fishery. I talked to them all
about this and other issues, and I could not find one person there and I have
not found one person since January who wanted an auction system. It is the first
I heard today, when I stood here in the House and talked about being forced to
sell, and the minister says: Oh, no, never mind that. This is going to be an
optional auction system. Well, I challenge the minister to show me anywhere in
this legislation where it says voluntary or optional.
I also challenge the minister today - maybe he should write down some of
these questions, Minister, because we are going to need the answers to these
before we can vote on this bill. There is no doubt about it. We need the
answers. I think that the people of the Province deserve the answers to these
questions.
Where does it say in this bill that is before the House, that you expect us
to vote on, that was brought in last night not by you but by the Minister of
Labour, because it is her bill, under the law it is a labour issue, where does
it say anywhere in this bill that we are talking about an optional system? Where
does it say anywhere in this bill that we are talking about shrimp? Where does
it say anywhere in this bill that this is a pilot project?
Mister Minister, you just got up and you said, basically - and here are your
words: Basically, all this bill is going to permit us to do is give, outside of
changing the legislation pertaining to strikes and lockouts - I agree with you,
that needs to be changed, and I agree with that part of the bill. The first six
clauses, I think, Mr. Minister, of the bill, I agree, that needs to be done,
because you can't have people who have agreed to a system and then because it
doesn't work in their way they are going to on strike or they are going to be
locked out. That needs to be fixed.
Here is the words you used. You said: Basically all this bill is, is an
optional pilot project for shrimp. Well, there are no optional words in the
bill, there is no pilot project in the bill, and there is no shrimp in the bill.
In our debate today, if you were to put optional pilot project for shrimp, I
would have no trouble voting for that
section of the bill, I would have no
problem whatsoever. In fact, you wouldn't even need to have the legislation
here, I say to the minister, if it were an optional pilot project for shrimp. It
wouldn't need to be there.
What concerns me, Minister - and it is not because it is you because you
might be gone tomorrow and, God help us, the individual there from Goose Bay
behind you might be the Minister of Fisheries. Anything is possible. It is
highly unlikely, but anything is possible. He might come along tomorrow and use
this bill to force an auction system, not only for shrimp but all species,
because if you look under Clause 35.2, this is what is says here, "The
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish an auction system for the
sale of fish." May establish! For the people out there in television land,
when it says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may
establish...", it means that any time he want to do it, he can do it.
Correct me if I am wrong when you get up, but in this particular sentence in
this bill, Clause 35.2, it says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
may establish an auction system for the sale of fish." That is any species.
If you look in the original act, all it says under the definition of fish is
salted fish; anything but. Cured fish, I think the exact words are; anything but
cured fish.
If we pass this bill today, it is nothing for the minister to go out tomorrow
and say, I am implemented an auction system for crab. Minister, you know as well
as I do, that could have serious impacts for the small players in the industry,
the small processors in the industry. You know what I am talking about and I
certainly will get back to that later on today. I am sure that my colleagues
along here want to have a few words. We want these questions answered.
The other thing is, you said today that it was optional, then under your own
amendment that you just brought in, it says: Notwithstanding sections 26, 27 and
28 or another
section of this Act, where the minister requires the sale of a
fish species by auction; where the minister requires it. If we pass that clause,
that means any time or wherever you feel like it, you can bring in an auction
system for any species. That has serious implications.
The other problem I have with it, Minister, and it is no disrespect for you,
but what I have been watching since this House opened - I know it is the first
session of a new government. You have been in power though for seven or eight
months. You have officials in your department, along with every other department
that is in this government, who have been around for years. There are fellows in
your department, working for your department for maybe thirty years. I was going
to say that I can excuse you and your other ministers for the mistakes you have
been making because you are new but that does not -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: I would say that, if your whole department was new, but
unfortunately it is not and you should be getting better advice. The reason I am
saying it is you brought in a bill, or your colleague introduced this bill last
night at 12:30. We have not spoken to it yet in the House of Assembly. This is
my first opportunity to speak to it and already you are amending your own act.
You amended it before you even spoke to it, or you spoke for five minutes and
said: I am bringing in an amendment to my own act.
If you were the only one who had done that in this session of this House,
your first session of the House, you could overlook it, but that is happening
here all the time. We have the Minister of Works - the individual who is
bringing in the insurance bill, what is the name of the department? Because they
keep changing it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Government Services.
MR. REID: Government Services, who is already talking about all the
changes that she is going to have into her bill and her act