Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 11 June 2007 (45th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLV No. 27)
2007-06-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June 11, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 27
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon I would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, Councillor
Anita Hynes and Councillor Doreen Tremblett from the Town of Bishop's Falls.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for
the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of
Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay
South; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, and the hon. the
Member for the District of Labrador West.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be in attendance a week ago in Corner Brook,
where three bright young individuals from Grand Falls-Windsor, members of the
842 Bomber Squadron, were presented with their Silver Duke of Edinburgh Award by
the hon. Ed Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Katie MacKenzie, Kayla Sheppard and Rebecca Sweeney - I might
add, is the granddaughter of our Speaker here in the House of Assembly - have
worked very hard to reach this level of the program. Having already received
their bronze award, requirements for silver involved community service,
participation in expeditions and explorations, the building of a skill or hobby,
as well as physical education. During the ceremony Ed Thorne, who is a leader
with the 842 Bomber Air Cadets, was also presented with a Certificate of
Recognition for his five years service to this organization.
Mr. Speaker, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award is an exciting self-development
program available to young people, designed to equip them with life skills that
will make a difference to themselves, their communities and the world. First
initiated in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1974 by the provincial government, as
a gift to His Royal Highness, Prince Phillip, this program continues to
strengthen the development of its participants.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
extending congratulations to Katie MacKenzie, Kayla Sheppard, Rebecca Sweeney
and Ed Thorne on their accomplishments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Father Linus Coady on the fiftieth
anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 8, I had the privilege of attending the
celebration recognizing the accomplishments of Reverend Father Coady which was
hosted by the Knights of Columbus in Bishop's Falls.
Father Linus Coady was born on April 21, 1932 to Ellen and Mike Coady in
Harbour Grace. He attended Memorial University for one year and in 1951 he moved
to Quebec City and studied theology at Laval University. He was ordained on June
9, 1957 in Harbour Grace by the most Reverend J.M. O'Neil.
Mr. Speaker, Father Coady's first assignment was at the Cathedral of the
Immaculate Conception in Grand Falls from 1957-1959. He then went on the serve
in La Scie, Norris Arm, Harbour Main, Brents Cove, Brigus, and in 1992 he was
transferred to Sacred Heart Parish in Bishop's Falls where he has served to
the present day.
Mr. Speaker, for the past fifty years Father Coady has demonstrated his
faithfulness and passion to his vocation.
I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Father Linus
Coady on his fifty years of dedication as a gentle servant to his vocation and
church.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to extend congratulations to a young Carbonear writer, Jamie
Harnum, a Carbonear Collegiate student who is the recipient of the 2007 Arts and
Letters Award.
Jamie won in the junior category for her short story, Comfort. The Grade 11
honour student, who skipped a year in school, gave a two-minute reading of her
story during the awards presentation at The Rooms.
Mr. Speaker, her award-winning descriptive story focuses on the thoughts of a
seven-year-old boy and his reactions when it appears his mother has gotten
herself into some trouble.
Thirty-four prizes were given out in the junior division of the competition
for entrants twelve to eighteen years of age, and thirty-six prizes were awarded
in the senior division, nearly doubling the awards total from the previous year.
Prizes in both divisions were awarded in literary arts, musical composition
and visual arts. The annual Arts and Letters competition has been recognizing
artists in this Province since 1952.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Jamie Harnum, a Carbonear Collegiate student who is the
recipient of the 2007 Arts and Letters Award.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On May 12, in Conception Bay South, I had the privilege of taking
part in the
three hour challenge - I might add after a significant lobby from my
eight-year-old daughter. This was an event sponsored by the Pride in Your
Community Committee and the Town of Conception Bay South. From 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon an astonishing 7.5 tons of garbage was collected by the residents and
delivered to Robin Hood Bay.
It was promoted as an incentive for local residents to come together to clean
up their homes, schools, parks, and the many public places throughout the town.
A significant number of the people involved were young people and students from
the various schools. Each school's participation was counted and St. Edwards
School in Kelligrews had a remarkable ninety-one students take part. Upper
Gullies Elementary finished second with ninety students and both schools
received new computers for their efforts.
At the rally held at the Conception Bay South stadium after the clean up,
some 1,200 people were treated to free hot dogs, pop, coffee, Timbits and hot
chocolate. There were free t-shirts and hats for each participant, as well as
free run in several big bouncy air toys for the kids. Live entertainment was
provided and a large flat screen TV was drawn for to award one of the lucky
participants.
AN HON. MEMBER: Did you win?
MR. FRENCH: I did not win the TV.
I ask all hon. members -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I only had two.
I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the organizers of
this great event, acknowledge the contribution of the various corporate sponsors
including Tim Horton's, I say to the members across, Home Hardware, Jungle
Jims and many others; and, most importantly, congratulating the hundreds of
school students and youth groups for taking pride in their community and keeping
it clean.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to
Douglas Parsons of Bay Roberts, recipient of the 2007 NLTA Bancroft Award.
The Bancroft Award was established in 1980 to mark the ninetieth anniversary
of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teacher's Association. This award recognizes
outstanding service at the Branch level of the NLTA for the betterment of
education and professionalism for teachers.
Mr. Speaker, a teacher for thirty years, Doug was an active member of the Bay
Roberts Branch for over fifteen years. At various times during this period he
filled the role of treasurer, political action officer and member at large for
the Branch. He also filled the role as strike paymaster for one year and was
school representative for fifteen years of his career.
Doug was a member of the local Education Week Committee for twenty-two years
and he chaired the committee for ten of those years. He was active on the
Retirement Committee and the Social Committee, and spent many years in the
capacity of chair of these committees as well as a member. He was an organizer
of the 100 th Anniversary Committee for activities in Spaniard's Bay
and Bay Roberts, and was an organizer and a participant in the High School Math
League for the Bay Roberts area. He attended ten of the conventions of the NLTA
and had arranged for the upkeep of the NLTA monument in Spaniard's Bay.
Mr. Speaker, Doug as a national winner of the Prime Minister's Award for
Teaching Excellence in 1993 and Doug is currently retired.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Douglas Parsons, recipient of the 2007 NLTA Bancroft Award.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the many individuals who participated in
the Canadian Cancer Society's Fifth Annual Relay for Life event in Labrador
City-Wabush, which took place this past weekend for the twelve-hour period from
Saturday evening until 7:00 o'clock Sunday morning.
In addition to the participants and many volunteers, I would like to
recognize the event's chairperson, Ms Thelma Rickett.
Forty teams participated, including four teams from across the border in
Fermont, Quebec, and each team consisted of twelve to fourteen people. The event
began with eighty cancer survivors participating in a victory lap around the
soccer field where the event was hosted. The victory lap gives survivors an
opportunity to share and celebrate success in their battle against cancer. It
gives hope to people living with cancer, and to their families, and it is a way
to thank everyone who helped them through their battle with cancer.
Surrounding the track, the soccer field, were 1,872 luminaries, bearing the
names of cancer survivors and loved ones who have lost their battle with cancer.
These luminaries provided light and inspiration for participants as they walked
around the track throughout the night.
The single largest fundraiser was Mr. Harold Clark, who raised just under
$4,300, and the largest team amount of $7,100 was raised by Carla's Dream
Team. The total amount raised at the Labrador City-Wabush event was an
exceptional $86,320, certainly the largest amount to date for our area.
Mr. Speaker, the results of this relay could very well add years to the lives
of those who are or who will become affected by cancer, and this is definitely a
commendable act of kindness by those who participate and support the Relay for
Life.
I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing and congratulating all
participants, organizers and volunteers in another successful Relay for Life in
Labrador City-Wabush.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed further, the Chair would like to also
recognize Mr. John Butt, a former member of our House and former member of the
executive.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to announce new enhancements to the
Medical Transportation Assistance Program which will improve access to health
care services to our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there are many individuals and families who incur a significant
financial burden as a result of travel costs to receive medical services.
Through these enhancements, our government will provide increased financial
assistance for eligible residents who pay substantial costs when travelling for
insured medical services such as cancer treatment or surgery. The cost to
implement these changes is approximately $525,000, with a total budget for the
program of $1.7 million.
As we announced in the Northern Strategic Plan, effective May 1, residents of
Labrador will now be reimbursed the first $1,000 for eligible travel expenses
during a twelve-month period, up from $500. Residents of the Island portion of
the Province will also receive a greater level of assistance, with the annual
deductible reduced to $400.
Many more changes will also put more money back into the hands of our
residents of the Province who travel for medical treatment. For example,
government will now cost-share eligible expenditures over $5,000 at an increased
rate of 65 per cent as opposed to the current level of 50 per cent.
Furthermore, effective July 1, 2007, caps on eligible expenses will be
increased for eligible patients and escorts. Registered bus services will also
be considered an eligible expense.
These changes provide more financial assistance to individuals with
substantial travel costs for medical services and improve the overall equity of
the program.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enhancements we are making to the Medical
Transportation Assistance Program, we are also investing in infrastructure with
$67 million designated this year for new and redeveloped health care facilities
across the Province and we are investing medical equipment and new
communications technologies so that residents can benefit from treatment closer
to their home communities.
More detailed information on changes to our Medical Transportation Assistance
Program have been issued in a news release today. I encourage any residents who
use this program, or who may be eligible, to visit the provincial government's
Web site for further information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister, of course, for an advance copy of his statement
today.
When I read it, I was reminded of the fact that, obviously, we still have
lots of people in the Province who have to travel to receive medical services.
We do not expect to have every single medical service close to home, but, Mr.
Speaker, this morning I received a call from a resident in my district of having
to travel to Corner Brook, which was about an hour-and-a-half drive for her,
simply because she could not get an EKG done in her own community. This machine,
which was readily available in days gone by, was out of commission there today.
When I think of that very basic service that she could not receive, I would like
to see somewhere during this program here, that the transportation for her would
somewhat be covered. We see this, of course, with people who have to travel for
lab results as well.
I am also reminded here that the $5,000, or a 65 per cent component of that,
still leaves people paying up to $1,750 out-of-pocket. A few weeks ago I asked
the minister if they would include travel costs to receive treatments like
Avastin. I do not see anywhere in this program where that would include those
types of benefits as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. BALL: Thank you.
I will conclude to say that this program, certainly the enhancements, I am
happy to see that. It will help, but I would like to remind the minister, as
well, that there are still some basic services that the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador are still having to pay out-of-pocket expenses to receive.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Obviously, any help is an improvement but we still have a long way to go
before we have equity, because when one compares somebody who is living next to
a facility or a service to somebody who has to travel, the cost differential is
far from equitable. We have a long way to go in this Province.
Even though it is not included under medical transportation assistance, I,
once again, need to mention the whole thing of the cost of ambulances and the
fact that one can be five minutes away -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MS MICHAEL: By leave, please, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you.
Just to say, once again, that I do think we have to continue to consider
looking at ambulance costs. Somebody can live five minutes away from a hospital,
have to get an ambulance either for an emergency or disability purpose and have
to pay $230 return for the trip. I think that really is unacceptable. We have a
long way to go. I know government is concerned about that but I would like to
see some things move a bit more quickly and certainly the costs around medical
transportation, including ambulances, I think do need to move more quickly.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries why his government rejected the
Barry Group of Companies bid for the purchase of FPI, because it was our
understanding that that bid was for all of the company, including the marketing
and secondary processing division.
I ask the minister: Can he tell us today why his government rejected the
Barry bid proposal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the undertaking
that I gave the hon. Leader of the Opposition on Thursday when he asked a
question relative to that matter and I took it under advisement. The fact of the
matter is, that, no, neither the OCI bid or the Barry bid - and Barry had two
bids, as I explained to the House last week - neither of the Barry bids or the
OCI bid made, as part of their proposal, the acquisition of the marketing arm;
neither one of them.
Now, in terms of why we rejected the Barry bid; after a very careful analysis
it seemed to the Province, after doing our due diligence and after submitting a
list of questions to both sides, OCI and Barry, for their -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.
MR. RIDEOUT: - review and their comment, it was the government's
conclusion, at the end of the day, that the bid that best met the public policy
positions of the government was the one submitted by OCI.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries made it known to the Province that
he had asked for an investigation into the sudden jump -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: - in share prices of FPI. In fact, I think at the time he even
mentioned insider trading.
Can the minister tell us today who he asked to carry out that investigation
and if he can give us an update as to what is happening with that investigation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the request from the
Province, on behalf of the Province, would be made to the superintendent of
securities. That is the process that we took. Where it goes from there, of
course, is the purview of the superintendent of inquiries. I have no further
knowledge, other than passing along the information that it was our - in fact,
it was public knowledge. If you want to go to certain Web sites, you can see
there is a Web site for insider trading. You can tell, yourself, who has traded
what, because it has to be disclosed, and how many shares are sold and all that.
Then we had that from other sources.
That information was passed along to the superintendent of securities with a
request that the appropriate investigations be undertaken. Where it has gone
from there, I have no knowledge.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year FPI purchased the seafood company in Great Britain for $40 million.
The Minister of Fisheries from our Province is on record earlier in this session
as saying that company was probably now worth $80 million.
Can the minister tell us if that company has been sold, and if so, who will
benefit from that $40 million profit?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can confirm to the House and to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the
company has not been sold. However, there are discussions ongoing between FPI
and a company called - hopefully, I am pronouncing it correctly - Glide, I
believe it is, Brokerage, a Netherlands firm anyway, to reach final binding
agreements to sell the company. Based on certain conditions, we have said we
would conditionally approve that sale. One of the conditions, for example, is
that any proceeds from the sale of the company do not go to the shareholders,
they go to pay down debt that the parent company owes, not only the debt for
acquiring the seafood company but company debt in general. The Fortune plant is
a precondition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister to complete his answer.
MR. RIDEOUT: The Fortune plant is a precondition. There has to be an
agreement to transfer out the Fortune plant at an agreed-on price to Cooke
Aquaculture, and also the $3 million for the workers, the worker transition
fund, is a precondition. So, all of these things must be met before the
government will give final approval - if, in fact, it does give final approval -
for the sale of the seafood company to what we understand at the moment to be
European interests.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It appears that there are a lot of preconditions on a lot of things, and the
seafood company, as you just said, has not been sold yet, but today, Mr.
Speaker, we are asked to debate the scrapping of the FPI Act in the House of
Assembly. We are going to be introducing a bill in a half an hour from now to
repeal the FPI Act. We do not know if, for example, the seafood company in Great
Britain is even going to be sold. We do not know any of the final details as to
what this deal entails. We also do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the
board of directors and the shareholders of FPI will even agree to the sale,
because they are not even meeting until August of this year.
Can the minister tell us why the haste to pass that bill this week in the
House of Assembly when there are so many unknowns out there concerning the sale
of FPI?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there isn't any haste with passing the FPI
bill. The fact of the matter is that there is a clause in the bill which says
that the act, even though passed - and this is quite standard in legislation, it
is not something unique or new to this piece of legislation - it will not be
proclaimed until a date when all of this stuff falls into place. Now, if it
never falls into place then the act will never be proclaimed and the FPI Act, as
we know it, with all its numerous amendments going back to when it was first
introduced in the 1980s, will still be the law of the land. It will still be on
the books of the Province and will not be touched unless and until all of the
agreements that are pending here are reached.
Mr. Speaker, the only
schedule here is the parliamentary schedule, and the
parliamentary session will wind up some time over the next week or two or three,
maybe.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. RIDEOUT: Therefore, the bill needs to be dealt with so that if we
need to proclaim it and make it the law of the land we can do it, but we will
only do it if all of the other preconditions are kept.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My final question. The minister has basically indicated today that there are
a lot of unknowns about this deal yet. Yet, we are supposed to sit here and give
it a stamp of approval. We are going to be asked to vote on this deal some time
by the end of this week, with a lot of details unknown to us. What you are
saying is: Trust us. Vote in favour of this, and later on down the road we will
determine whether or not the conditions that you want are met.
We were given this presentation by your own staff. We do not know, for
example, in a week or two or three, or in six months from now, whether or not
these conditions will be met, and we will not have the opportunity to view those
conditions and details before the deal is finalized and FPI is sold. So, why are
we being asked to stand today, or later in this week, and give consent to
something without knowing these details, especially in light of the fact that
the Premier is on record -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. REID: - on numerous occasions saying that we should not vote for
anything until we know all of the details?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition, and the Leader of the
Opposition, when the time comes to vote, can vote as they please. The fact of
the matter is that the commitments and the undertakings that we have sought from
OCI and FPI will be before the House. They are before the public. We have
briefed the Opposition on them. We have briefed the media. We have briefed
everybody. If those commitments are not met, then there will be no deal.
Look, if you do not want Fortune to go ahead, well, then, kill it. If you do
not the worker transition fund to go ahead, we will take it off the Order Paper.
If you do not want the FPI plants to operate and start up in Marystown -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.
MR. RIDEOUT: - to carry on operations under OCI-FPI management in
Bonavista, Catalina, Port au Choix and Triton, well, then, we will shut it all
down.
If that is what the Opposition wants, Mr. Speaker, we can accommodate that,
too, but I suspect that the union and the communities where FPI operate will
have something to say about (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Oscar Howell, Vice-President of Medical
Services with Eastern Health, was quoted on Saturday that Eastern Health will
issue a public statement and provide further details about the review being done
once a more detailed analysis is completed.
Now that the patients and their physicians are being contacted, can the
minister tell us exactly what they are being told if the analysis of the review
is not completed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the individual patients who are being contacted
now, the radiologists have read the exams and they have provided written reports
back to the attending physician. Those reports, very specifically, focus on
individual patient issues. That is the information that is being communicated to
the individual patients. Each individual patient will get the information with
respect to their particular exam.
The information that Dr. Oscar Howell is talking about, in terms of it will
be analysed, is the accumulation of all the evaluations that were done, in terms
of the nature of the kind of errors that may have occurred, a
summary of all of
the X-rays that were read in particular categories and if there were any
conversions and what numbers might have existed, and to what extent there may
have been errors in various types of tests. That is the analysis that has been
done, but the information, clearly, that has been communicated directly to
individual patients is with respect to their individual circumstance, which is
what their physician needs to know -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: - in order to ensure that the appropriate treatment
continues for those individuals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, three times in this House of Assembly the Minister
of Health and Community Services said that the patients affected by the review
of the radiologist's report at the Burin Health Care Centre would be contacted
as each report was reviewed. Obviously, that did not happen. We now know that
they are only being contacted now, their physicians and the patients.
I ask the minister: Did you know the difference, or is this another example
of not being on top of the file and putting out false information?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is too serious an issue, this is too important an issue, not only to the
people of the Burin Peninsula but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No
one in this House is trying to withhold information. Whether it is this issue
with X-rays, or this issue of ER/PR, no one is trying to withhold any
information, I say, Mr. Speaker; not at all. What I shared with the members of
this House -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: - when I shared in response to the member's question last
week or the week before last, I believe it was, as I understood the information
as it was flowing from Eastern Health, as the radiologists were rereading the
exams that information was being communicated back to the treating physicians,
the attending physicians. That attending physician was making contact with the
patients as they were getting the reports. All of the reports were not collected
at the end. Eastern Health did not wait until Friday to start sending the
information back to the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.
The critical thing here I think, Mr. Speaker, is for the member opposite,
once again, to try to fearmonger in this issue is very inappropriate, I say, Mr.
Speaker. As individual physicians get information with respect to their patient,
they will in fact do the appropriate thing, make the contact and treat the
patient.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister has two versions of what
he says in this House. At no time does he ever answer the question. I
specifically asked you several weeks ago in this House whether or not the
patients would be contacted directly as their review was completed and you told
me that they would be. Now that did not happen. You told me on three occasions
in this House that would happen. These people are still living in fear. They are
living under stress because they do not know, and now you are telling me their
physicians are being told. Well, I am anxious for the patients themselves to
find out.
I am wondering now what the percentage of error was. Can you tell me that?
Will the patients affected be told when they will be retested?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important, very important, if you are asking questions you need
to understand the subject matter of which you are asking the questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: Very clearly, there is something very important to recognize
here. If I phoned a patient today and said: By the way, we just rechecked your
X-ray, the results are coming in a few days. What good is that to that patient?
What that patient needs, I say, Mr. Speaker, is the attending physician, who is
armed with the appropriate information, in the best position to treat that
patient, best position to, if necessary, change the treatment as a result of any
changes in diagnosis.
I say, Mr. Speaker, when Eastern Health had their radiologist complete these
exams, those reports were provided to the attending physician. It is the
attending physician who is in a position to take that information with an
accurate diagnosis -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: - and then prescribe, if necessary, appropriate treatment on
a go forward basis. That is what is important, I think, Mr. Speaker, in this
issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not admitting what he
told me in this House of Assembly, that each patient would be contacted directly
once the review was completed. I would expect that once the review was completed
there would be someone who would determine what the results were and how they
would go forward in terms of being retested. That is what patients want to know.
That is what the 4,600 patients who have been retested, or their tests being
looked at, want to know. When are they going to get a chance to be retested?
This is serious stuff.
I ask the minister: What is the status now of the radiologist in question of
the health care centre in Burin?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: With respect to the
preamble, I say, Mr. Speaker, when you
talk about retests, let's visualize this now. An individual may have had an
X-ray on a broken thumb back three months ago. That X-ray now is being reread
and someone says the thumb was not broken, contrary to the initial report. Now,
doing that retest, is that any value, I say? The physician will make that
decision, I say, Mr. Speaker. When the physician gets that test result back,
they will determine whether that test result needs to be done. It is not my
responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the administration of Eastern
Health, but it is the physician, the attending physician, who is in a better
position, more qualified, more competent, to make that determination of whether
or not that individual needs to have the test redone.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the status of the radiologist in question, I say, Mr.
Speaker, that is an issue right now being dealt with by Eastern Health. There is
a mechanism in dealing with privileges of physicians that is governed by the
bylaws of that Health Authority and they are following the methods outlined in
those bylaws and that (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
Minister, as you are well aware, the strike by support staff at Voisey's
Bay mine site has gone past its second month. Tension is at an all-time high and
safety has become a huge issue.
I ask the minister: What are you doing to personally get involved to help
solve this outstanding matter?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, representatives of the
Department of Labour are on the ground with the affected parties. We are
actually in negotiations, as we speak, trying to bring both parties closer
together. We have been discussing that with the parties for the last number of
weeks. We are making some progress, and, as I said, as we currently speak today,
we are in conciliation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, replacement workers have been brought in and,
as a result, the strike at Voisey's Bay mine drags on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ANDERSEN: Most of these replacement workers, Mr. Speaker, are from
outside of the Province, taking away work from those in the Province,
particularly in Labrador, who have waited a long time to secure these good
paying jobs.
I ask the minister, again: What are you going to do to see that this strike
comes to an end sooner rather than later?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as everybody realizes, the parties themselves will have to come
to an agreement on that. We will not be able to impose a settlement on either of
those parties. Both of those parties will be able to come to an agreement. Our
role in this dispute is to try and conciliate, mediate, between both parties. We
have been doing that. We are currently still doing that, and we are making
progress. Hopefully, if the conciliation efforts continue, we will have a
settlement that all parties can agree to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
During the last IOC strike in Labrador City, the Premier stated publicly that
the company should get a quick settlement with its striking workers and work
hard to improve the low employee morale.
Mr. Speaker, the Torngat Services workers on strike at the Voisey's Bay
mine site want salaries, benefits and working conditions similar to that of
other workers on the same site doing the same jobs for different employers.
My question for the Premier is: Is he ready to make a public statement
regarding the unjust treatment of TSI workers striking at Voisey's Bay, and
the need for a quick resolution of their situation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, we are, as I indicated before, involved with
both parties up there trying to come up with a settlement that all parties can
agree to.
There are a number of outstanding issues. We have identified those issues. We
are working with the parties to try and bring them closer together, and the way
to get this dispute settled is to address those issues. That is what our
conciliation team is doing, and we hope to be able to have a settlement sooner
rather than later, as all people wish to have.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, my questions continue to be for the Premier who
did speak out with regard to the IOC strike.
Mr. Premier, it is only fair for bargaining units to meet on an equal footing
with employers. When a company brings in replacement workers, the striking
workers lose the effectiveness of their legal tool, the right to strike.
Companies gain the upper hand because they have no incentive to settle, and
discord and bitterness are the result.
During the current strike at Voisey's Bay, replacement workers have
endangered the safety of other workers - a crisis, as far as I am concerned.
So, my question for the Premier again is: Are you willing to say publicly, on
behalf of this group of striking workers, that you believe the use of
replacement workers is unfair and unacceptable?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have a very positive labour relations climate in this
Province. We have had it because of the fact that we have an employment
relations subcommittee; a strategic partnership between unions, employers and
government.
I have indicated before in this House, and I will restate our position now,
that subcommittee is working towards reviewing all of the labour legislation in
this Province. We are not going to rush into something. We are not going to
force them to do something before it actually gets to the table with them.
The union, the employers and our government officials, as a committee, are
sitting down and reviewing the whole labour relations legislation in this
Province, and when they get to whatever issues they get to and they make
recommendation back to government, we will take those under advisement.
That committee is doing good work. It has done good work in the past, and we
are prepared to let it continue to do the work that it is doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the minister that we have good labour relations in this
Province, and that is why I am so concerned about what is happening in Voisey's
Bay. We now have the tip of an iceberg going on there with regard to replacement
workers.
So, I want to know: Will this government make a public statement that they do
not believe in replacement workers and that all replacement workers should be
removed so that the union and company can negotiate in good faith?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated before, our role here is to try and bring the parties
together. It is not to try and get in there and inflame one side or the other by
making comments about the positions that either side have taken. We are in there
in the conciliation mode. We are identifying the issues that are keeping the
parties apart, and we are trying to bring closure to those issues. That is the
role of the Labour Relations Agency. We are making progress on that. As I
indicated, we are up there today. We are speaking and meeting with both parties,
and we hope to bring this impasse, I guess, to a conclusion very soon.
That is our role. We will continue to pursue that role, and at the end of the
day we will have a settlement.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
Budget 2007 announced $1.4 million to provide insulin pumps and supplies to
children under eighteen diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Individuals affected
have been waiting ever since for news of the availability of this important
management tool.
Can the minister provide, in his response, please, just the date of the
implementation of this program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Janeway Hospital is organizing the
implementation of that. There are now, as I understand it, identifying those
individuals who would benefit from and will be eligible for the pump. As they
identify those names, they will be acquiring the pumps as a mass purchase and
making them available to the individual patients.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Many people are still questioning the date, and we still do not
know, obviously, but while the new pumps will be provided for children trying to
manage their disease, there are still many already using this valuable tool.
Given the fact that those pumps have a limited lifespan - really, it is a
four year warranty on the insulin pump - will the minister commit to paying for
the supplies for the current users of insulin pumps, as well as to help replace
the existing pumps once they are no longer effective?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as we announced in the Budget, we announced the
launch of a new program. We did not announce the launch of a one-time purchase.
We have launched a program that will provide those pumps to a certain segment of
the population. So, if the pump is purchased today and it fails tomorrow, the
child still gets another pump, because it is a program; it is not a one-time
purchase.
With respect to the second piece, those individuals who may have already
acquired the pump in that age group, and some of them may have already done so,
we have committed, because part of the program - there are two pieces to it - is
the acquisition of the pump, and the second piece is the supply associated with
it, the program itself reflects that commitment and the supplies will be
provided to those individuals who may already have the pumps.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: My final question on this matter pertains to what happens when
someone is using an insulin pump, who passes the age of eighteen. This program
will remain in place, according to the press release, up to age eighteen. Can
they expect any help further from this government to pay for these pumps and
supplies, or will they be left to finance their own therapy, on their own, once
they pass the age of eighteen?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This particular program was launched to target a very specific population who
are at the highest risk and could benefit the most from having those pumps. We
did not want to have a situation where people in the Province, who may not have
the financial resources to do it themselves, find themselves not being able to
provide that to their children. So, the scope of the program very clearly
targets that age group under eighteen because we believe that it is critical at
that stage of their lives, in managing the diabetes, that they are able to
actually have access to that pump to ensure that the long-term implications of
having diabetes at a very early age is brought under some control; because,
without that kind of benefit, I say, Mr. Speaker, as children age and as
individuals get older, if they have not been able to manage their diabetes
appropriately at the early age, it leads to further complications down the road.
The target population very clearly was very intentional. It was to target
those under the age of eighteen, because they are the ones who are most
critical, to ensure that we make sure that they get the proper management early
in their lives so as not to lead to many of the chronic, devastating diseases
that many people find themselves living with later on in life.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, again this week we had the President of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils calling on government to
make some immediate changes to the math curriculum. Parents are also telling us
that the actions announced by government earlier this year are not sufficient.
I ask the minister: Is she going to listen to parents and experts in this
area and alter her plan, or does she just intend to ignore the concerns that are
being raised?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard concerns about the math program and,
as a result of hearing the concerns, this year in the Budget we have announced
$11.3 million so we can look at the math curriculum. In doing that, Mr. Speaker,
we are doing a review of the curriculum and there will be some changes
implemented in September of this year. We are also going to be reviewing the
textbooks, professional development, and see what other supports are needed;
but, Mr. Speaker, we have heard there are problems and we have responded with
over $11 million to make those necessary changes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister that the $11
million is wonderful but the concerns that are coming forward from the people of
this Province say that money cannot fix the problems that our students are going
through.
Mr. Speaker, another area where this government is failing to act in a timely
manner is in addressing the needs of students in our school system in allocating
adequate resources to implement the ISSP/Pathways Model.
I ask the minister: When is she going to realize that these students need
adequate resources now and their problems cannot be addressed through vague
political statements of future intentions? When is she going to realize that and
provide the necessary resources for these people?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just like the math curriculum, the ISSP process
was something that we inherited from the former Administration. Mr. Speaker,
there are a number of processes that we have inherited. Even how we allocate the
student assistants, we got from the former Administration.
We have heard there have been years of problems and, Mr. Speaker, we are
committed to reviewing these issues to make sure that the processes in our
education system are more streamlined and certainly more in line with what
parents and students expect from their education system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House
not adjourn tomorrow, Tuesday, June 12, at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.
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 Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to actually give a very serious petition in this House of
Assembly.
I was notified today by the Town of Robert's Arm concerning the health care
crisis at Green Bay South. They sent to my office a petition with 289 signatures
on it. It is concerning the closure of the clinic in Robert's Arm. Two doctors
from Grand Falls-Windsor are about to close the operation there on June 21.
I have the prayer of the petition, but I will give you just the last line:
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to avert the closure of the
Robert's Arm Medical Clinic and ensure that two physicians be immediately
contracted to fill these positions.
We have a very serious issue in Green Bay South, Mr. Speaker. It is the rural
area of Newfoundland and Labrador. This issue concerns 3,500 residents of Green
Bay South, and eight communities: South Brook, Robert's Arm, Port Anson, Miles
Cove, Pilley's Island, Long Island, Triton and Brighton. Right now it is
served by two doctors from Grand Falls-Windsor, and the people of Green Bay
South have been trying to get a meeting with the Central West Health Care
committee. It has not happened. They have a meeting scheduled for after the
clinic actually closes.
We heard Dr. Alteen in the media over the weekend and he was giving an
explanation, saying that the people of Green Bay South should have their clinic.
They are saying that it may not look like the clinic they now have, and it might
be by the use of nurse practitioners and telecommunications and so on, but there
has been no official word from government whether or not two physicians will
remain in the clinic in Robert's Arm, or how the people of Green Bay South
will be looked after.
We do not know what is going to happen to the clinic in Green Bay South. You
cannot afford now to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is getting more
difficult by the day to access services.
The lady who called me today from Robert's Arm told me that one of the
residents out there had a heart attack and, rather than pay the $115, which they
could not afford to pay, the lady took the man in their pickup truck and drove
to Grand Falls - and it was a serious heart attack - in the middle of the night,
because they just did not have the money to look after an ambulance situation.
This is a clinic that operates two days a week, and now there is a threat of
that clinic being closed. The doctors have given actual notice to the people of
Green Bay South that the clinic is closing June 21.
Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. They do not have anything to go on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MS THISTLE: Can I have thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For this issue to come to me - I represent the District of Grand Falls-Buchans,
a neighbouring district - they know and they understand how serious this issue
is. There has been nothing said by government, no official word, that gives them
any comfort that the clinic will not be closed and that there will be a service
for the people of Green Bay South.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I say to government: Put the fears of the people
of Green Bay South aside and do not close this clinic. Give them the service
they need. Thirty-five hundred people cannot be left without doctor services in
that area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to enter a petition here in the House of Assembly
on behalf of certain concerned citizens in the Burgeo & LaPoile area,
actually, in the Port aux Basques and surroundings areas, in the Codroy Valley -
from the Member for Stephenville East. It concerns the use of the parks, and
this fee. I do not know what it is that this government has going with the
businesses in Quebec, but they certainly like to shovel a lot of money that way.
The first concern, of course, that they had was: Why are we, as a Province
and residents, being required to pay $10.60 to a Quebec company to register to
use one of our provincial parks?
Now, the Minister of Environment and Conservation was out last week talking
about our great environment, and the conservation efforts of this government and
so on. Meanwhile, here we are with a $10.60 fee that you have to pay to pick up
the phone to book a reservation - and, by the way, you can only do it for a
week. If you have two weeks' holidays, you cannot get it for two weeks; you
have to call back again and pay another $10.60.
In fact, it even gets a little bit more ridiculous because, if you have made
your reservation and paid your $10.60 and you find out for some reason - it
could be the most valid reason in the world - that you cannot keep your
reservation, and you call back and try to get it changed, they will charge you
for cancelling and then charge you to re-book, another $10.60. Now, that is how
ridiculous this is with this park fee. We are talking about using our
environment and our resources so that the people in this Province can enjoy it.
I thought the polar bear licence was a joke, but this is even a bigger joke
than the polar bear licence. When you foist this kind of fee-grabbing technique
on the people of this Province, it is just absolutely unacceptable.
Even in the Quebec case, for example, somebody said: Well, nobody came
forward in Newfoundland to offer to do the contract.
Well, I guess, it seems like this government, when it comes to fibre optics,
or when it comes to ferries, we can exempt everybody from the Public Tender Act
and internal trade agreements. Yet, when it comes to anything like a park
reservation system - nope, we have to let it go to Quebec. When it comes to
long-term health care facilities - nope, we have to let it go to Quebec.
People are seeing this contradictory approach by government. Why can we say
internal agreements and tendering acts do not apply in some circumstances but,
yet, if it comes to giving $15 million to your buddies, we can find all kinds of
good reasons in the world to exempt it? People are lost with these obvious
contradictions when they see this coming.
The people out there are very concerned. Ten dollars-and-sixty-cents means a
lot to the average person who works on a minimum wage or slightly above a
minimum wage job and they want to take their family to the park for the weekend.
Meanwhile, before they ever leave home they have to pay $10.60, plus when they
get there they have to buy their firewood. You have to pay for your firewood as
well. Of course, God knows what other fees. You have to buy your park fee to get
in. You have to have a sticker to put on your vehicle to even get in. To what
extreme are we going to go?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is a very important issue - just a moment to clue up - and as long
as I can certainly present the concerns of the people of that area on this most
ridiculous, ridiculous tax and fee grab by the people of this Province, I will
continue to do so.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, before moving to government orders I would
like to call Motion 1. I move pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, June 11.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this
House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 5:30 p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Also, Mr. Speaker, again, I move pursuant to Standing Order
11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 10:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this
House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 10:00 p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, second reading of Bill 1,
An Act
Respecting FPI Limited.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1,
An Act Respecting FPI
Limited, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited."
(Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, on behalf of the government, to introduce
second reading of Bill 1,
An Act Respecting FPI Limited.
The essence of the act, Mr. Speaker, I do not think is lost on anybody. The
major purpose of the act, I guess, is in clause 2. Clause 2 states categorically
that the Fishery Products International Act is repealed. There is a provision,
of course, as I indicated in Question Period today, and as I indicated some time
ago, that the act itself will not become law and will not be proclaimed into law
unless and until the Cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is satisfied
that all of the agreements that we have entered into have become final and
binding.
We have entered into non-binding, at this point, definitive agreements with
OCI, which I will talk about in more detail in a minute. We have entered into
similar non-binding agreements with High Liner, which, again, I will talk about
in more detail shortly. We have indicated that there are a number of conditions
precedent to the government proclaiming the FPI Act into law.
So, while those conditions precedent are still outstanding, Mr. Speaker, the
act will not be proclaimed. That means that the act will not become law, it will
continue to be
an act. Once it is proclaimed it becomes the law of the land, but
it will not become the law of the land until the government is ready and the
government ensures that the details of the non-binding agreements become
binding. In terms of OCI, that should happen in the matter - it may even happen
today but it should happen in the matter of a day or so.
In terms of High Liner, of course, they are a publicly traded company and
before their non-binding agreement becomes binding there are provisions inherent
in securities trading and in laws surrounding the Securities Acts and the
trading of securities that have to be adhered to. So, it will take a little
longer, perhaps in terms of the High Liner piece of all of this.
Of course, we have to remember that FPI itself is not a privately held
company. FPI is a publicly traded company. Many of its shares - the majority of
its shares are held by people who are readily identifiable. In addition to the
four or five or half a dozen shareholders who hold significant holdings in FPI,
there are several thousands of other people, probably hundreds of thousands of
other people, who hold smaller blocks of shares and who have rights as
shareholders as well. Their rights have to be protected in law, and they have to
be protected under the Security Exchange Act where FPI trades on the Toronto
Stock Exchange.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is not lost on people that I was the minister back in
the 1980s who introduced the legislation allowing for the return of FPI to the
private sector, with conditions. It was FPI up until - in the mid-1980s, after
the collapse of the groundfish industry, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador
but in Atlantic Canada. FPI was formed from the bankruptcies of several
companies. I am not going to go through all of the history. Everybody knows who
the companies were and where they operated, and so on.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the two levels of government, the
of Nova Scotia, created a Crown corporation. That Crown corporation held the
assets of FPI in this Province and some outside. That Crown corporation held
some assets that had previously been operated by Fishery Products and JC Penney,
the Lake Group, and some that had been operated in partnership with then
National Sea Products, who were actually owned by High Liner. It went across the
industry pretty widely. It was a Crown corporation that was owned, approximately
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and around 12 per cent or so - in round
numbers - by the Bank of Nova Scotia.
That company, after a few years in operation, made a proposal to the
government of the day that would see the company return to the private sector
via a public offering. That was the presentation. That was the vision which was
made to the government of the day, that there be an FPI Act, and that in that
FPI Act there be a restriction on the number of shares any one individual or
group could control. That restriction was set at 15 per cent. That was
incorporated into the act to return FPI to the private sector.
There were other qualifications put in the FPI Act. The majority of directors
had to be resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a provision for
shares to be held by, to be gifted, I guess, really, in essence, to FPI
employees, and there were all of those things that were built into the act, the
act to privatize FPI.
Over the years, from the time of the initial privatization up until last
spring, I guess, that act has been amended by this Legislature several times.
Sometimes the amendments were minimum in terms of interference in the company
and the ability of the company to manage its affairs on behalf of its owners,
the shareholders which owned the company, and sometimes those amendments were
fairly intrusive. For example, the amendments that were approved by the House
last year in terms of the government having to give approval for the sale of
assets held by FPI.
You know, a lot of people in the business community - to put it mildly, there
were pretty raised eyebrows among a lot of people in the business community that
a government in a Province of Canada would go that far, but the government - not
the government, but the House, because there was support on all sides of the
House for that type of an amendment - the House felt that it was in the public
interest that those kinds of restrictions and those kinds of buy-ins be tied to
Fishery Products International in terms of what it could do.
All through the bit and piece, Mr Speaker, it became clear that FPI was a
troubled operation; there was no question about it. A lot of commitments had
been made by the Board of Directors of FPI when they finally succeeded in
ousting Mr Young, and the people who were running it with him, back some time
ago. Those commitments, rightly or wrongly, were never achieved.
Now, depending on who you talk to - if you talk to people involved in the
company, the owners of the company, the board of directors, they have one set of
reasons. If you talk to the people who work for the company, they have another
set of reasons. The bottom line, though, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, is
that there was no longer any trust between the owners of FPI and the workers,
and the communities where FPI operated, that this company could be trusted to
live up to commitments that it had made, or would make, to communities and to
employees. So, with that in mind, there began to evolve, over the last couple of
years, some interest in other people acquiring bits and pieces, some or all, of
Fishery Products International.
We, as a government, were approached just about two years ago now, I guess,
by the Barry Group, saying that they had a piece of paper, they had an
agreement, signed by a major shareholder in FPI and a member of the board of
directors, that under certain conditions and for a certain sum of money they
could acquire the Newfoundland based assets and the quota, the offshore quotas,
from FPI. That process was explored for some weeks. In fact, perhaps it was for
some months.
During the process of that particular option being explored, government was
approached by OCI and said: Look, if this company is for sale, we wouldn't
mind making a bid for its Newfoundland assets.
Of course, our response was: Well, that is between you and FPI. If you want
to make a bid for its assets then, from a government perspective, we have no
impediment. We are not going to put any roadblocks in your way. If FPI is
entertaining bids, perhaps they will entertain one from you as well. We know
that at least one major shareholder of FPI had signed a commitment to the Barry
Group that would see them, for a certain amount of money, acquire certain assets
of FPI.
So, OCI proceeded and they developed a proposal and they made a proposal to
the Board of Directors of FPI for its consideration.
Again, after several weeks which, I guess, just going by memory, dragged into
months, it became apparent that FPI was not prepared to enter into an
arrangement with OCI at that time. I am not talking about the present situation,
now; I am talking about a year or so ago. It became apparent that FPI was not
prepared to enter into an arrangement with OCI. It was apparent that they were
still prepared to carry on with the signed deal with Barry, with the Barry
Group; but, by this point in time, of course, there was a significant ask from
the Treasury, from the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to make
that proposal happen.
After some negotiation between the Province, Barry and FPI, the Province
clearly indicated that it was not prepared - while it was prepared to enter into
arrangements that would see FPI quotas and licences come to the Province, for
offshore fish to come to the Province - we were not prepared to enter into
financial commitments on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador
that would facilitate the proposed arrangement to the extent that those
financial commitments were required. We were not prepared to do it. The ask was,
in our view, too large. It could not, in our view, be justified. The security
that the Province wanted just was not there, in our view, so we sent word to
both Barry and FPI that we were not prepared to bankroll the proposal, that we
were not prepared to get involved in negotiating the financial detail that would
make this proposal work.
The whole thing kind of died, I guess, Mr. Speaker. It went away for several
months. Maybe it went away for a year or so; but, anyway, it went away. In all
of this time, Mr. Speaker, everybody will know that FPI closed down a year
Christmas past, I guess, their only offshore operation left in Marystown. That
has not operated since then. They also announced that they were not about to
reopen Fortune, that did not have any future in the FPI organization; and, of
course, as part of all of this and leading up to all of this, they also
announced that Harbour Breton did not form part of their future plans any more.
They also announced that, because of competition in the international
marketplace, because of the Canadian dollar, because of a whole bunch of other
things in their business arrangements - not the least of all was an expired
union contract and so on - that they had no immediate plans to reactivate their
Newfoundland operations. That led to a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, a lot of
involvement by government.
I remember the minister, the present Minister of Natural Resources, and
myself spending hours hid away, I suppose, cloistered away, in one meeting room
after another around the city with representatives of the management of FPI and
the union trying to find some common ground, trying to find a way in which we
could make something happen positively for the employees of FPI and, hopefully,
get the union and the company to agree to some kind of a labour agreement which
would allow Marystown to reopen and would allow the other plants that FPI
operated in other communities to carry on operations, and which would allow a
future for Fortune. At this point in time, a decision had been made on Harbour
Breton, but certainly Harbour Breton was still part of the discussion as to how
that might be facilitated and how that might be handled.
Well, that went on for quite some time, as everybody knows, Mr. Speaker.
Then, a few months ago now, FPI indicated that they were prepared to entertain,
once again, proposals for the sale of the various assets that they have. Again,
the Province waded in pretty quickly and said: Look, if you are going to do
this, then we are going to use whatever authority we have under the FPI Act to
try to ensure, as best we can, that there is a package deal here, that the
assets are not picked off one by one, piece by piece. There has to be some kind
of a package here that makes sense and we reserve the right, at the end of the
day, after conducting our own evaluation, to determine which, if any, of the
packages that you receive or proposals that you receive, meet the requirements,
the public policy requirements of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well, that went through a process that took months. In the course of that,
Mr. Speaker, we made it known, again, publicly, to anybody who would listen,
that we wanted, from a public policy perspective - the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to exercise some degree of control over the
offshore quotas and licences. We did not want to take the risk of facing a
situation without some guarantees, without some legislative or contractual
requirements that those quotas could disappear from Newfoundland and Labrador;
that fish could be harvested offshore in a factory-freezer trawler perhaps,
frozen at sea, landed somewhere else and shipped, say, for example, to China for
processing. We wanted to have some requirements that fish would be landed for
the long term in Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit the communities that have
historically depended on those quotas and that fish.
Our first thought, Mr. Speaker, was that the Arnold's Cove model was a
given. That was our first thought. What the federal government had agreed to
previously in terms of Arnold's Cove was a template, that this would be the
model on a go-forward basis for anything we would do with FPI. It is on that
basis that we indicated we would only be prepared to give our blessing to the
sale of FPI assets if the quotas and security could be guaranteed to
Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it would be held by a Crown corporation, like
the Arnold's Cove model provides. The Arnold's Cove fish is held by a 100
per cent Crown owned, Newfoundland and Labrador owned Crown corporation. That is
the model. We then leased that to Icewater Seafoods, principally Bruce Wareham,
on a commercial basis. I believe it is a twenty-year term or a twenty-five year
term, but the term is not important. The term is something that could be
negotiated with whoever the operator is, but in the case of Icewater, it was a
twenty-year term. The company then chooses to access that fish, as it did when
High Liner owned it. They can trade some of it, they can harvest it, they can
process it in Arnold's Cove, or they can trade some species that they are not
into for something else, to somebody else, that they can, as a result of that
trade, process in Arnold's Cove.
So, it has worked very well. There has not been, Mr. Speaker, as far as I
know, one complaint lodged with anybody, with the federal government, with the
union, with anybody. There has not been one complaint lodged since the Arnold's
Cove model was put in place. We thought that was an ideal model, on a go-forward
basis, for the privatization of FPI. That the FPI quotas and licences would
reside with the Province, some form of a Crown corporation, and we would then
deal with whoever the successful operators were, assuming that FPI finished up,
closed up business and moved on.
Mr. Speaker, we indicated publicly, and then had that conversation with the
federal minister. We had it with federal officials going right back to November
and December of last year. All the way through the bit and piece, right up to a
few weeks ago, we had that conversation and it was understood by everybody with
whom we spoke, that the Arnold's Cove model was a very doable model. The
Arnold's Cove model was one that created no problems. The Arnold's Cove
model was one that we all knew. The Arnold's Cove model was one that we could
all live with. That was the clear understanding, all the way through, until a
few weeks ago when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided that, out of the
blue, without any warning, he could not live with another Arnold's Cove model.
It had to be something different. His different idea was to put a condition of
licence on the fish and the licences that would be granted to the new FPI, the
successor to FPI.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we quickly pointed out, publicly, to the federal minister
that a condition of licence had done nothing for Burgeo. A condition of licence
did not stop the Burgeo fish that had been historically landed and processed in
Burgeo from going elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. So we made it abundantly clear
that a condition of licence just did not cut it from our perspective. It was not
something we could agree to and we would not sign off on this deal with just a
condition of licence only. Then, of course, the scramble began. There were
quickly called meetings in Ottawa. Flowing from that, the minister made a
commitment that he would explore the legal parameters. That was the
understanding that came out of Ottawa. The minister would explore putting legal
parameters around a condition of licence and that those legal parameters would
be such that it would restrict the licence holder as to what they could do with
the fish, where they could land the fish, and the fact that the fish would have
to be processed here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well it quickly became apparent, within a day or so of the Ottawa meeting,
that those legal parameters would take perhaps weeks or months to negotiate and
would then take further weeks or months to put into legal effect because they
would have to get Cabinet approval in Ottawa, they would have to be gazetted,
there are a whole bunch of things that would have to be done to put those legal
parameters in place.
Then another thought came to mind and we began to explore a new holding
company, a corporation that would be held 51 per cent by OCI, if they were to
conclude the final deal with FPI, and 49 per cent by the Province, and that
company would hold the offshore quota and the licences. If there were a default
by the operator, by OCI, then that quota and those licences would revert to the
Province. Newfoundland would hold 100 per cent of the corporation for a two year
period, and the control of those licences and the quotas would revert to the
Province. The Province would have two years to find a new operator. The Province
would have a right of first refusal to buy the Marystown plant, because that is
where practically all of that offshore quota, with the amount of quota we have
available to us now, is designated and is expected to be processed, and, as a
result of that, we were able to reach an understanding. We were able to sign a
FPI, that this 51/49 per cent Crown corporation was a vehicle that had some
merit and that we were prepared to live with.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the federal government agreed that the minister
had the authority under the present act, the present Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Act, to assign those quotas and those licences for a nine year period,
and the minister agreed that he would do that. That, of course, is eight times
better than what you would get under normal enterprise allocations.
The Arnold's Cove model today, a Crown corporation controlled and owned by
the Province, owns the quota in the sense that we control it. Nobody ever owns
quota. I mean, the federal government got their knickers in a snit because
people were going around talking about owning quotas. Well, John Risley goes
around talking about owning quota, FPI goes around talking about owning quota,
Arnold's Cove goes around talking about owning quota, Bill Barry goes around
talking about owning quota, but in theory nobody owns quota. Quota is owned by
yearly basis. Normally renewed, there is no question about that, normally
renewed year after year. Enterprise allocations have been around now for
something like twenty-five years and, other than cutbacks for conservation
measures, I know of no case where the federal government has taken away
enterprise allocations. So, it is fair to say they are normally renewed but, in
theory, the quota allocation is a yearly quota allocation. It is done by the
minister every year and the minister, in theory, can take them away at the end
of that year if he wants to.
So, under the act the minister has the authority to assign those quotas for
nine years and he has, in fact, agreed to do that, and that is part of the
of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, have signed off on.
We now have a holding company that is 51 per cent held by OCI and 49 per cent
held by the Province, that will have ownership of FPI's offshore quotas for a
period of nine years. If there is default at any time in that nine year period
then 100 per cent of the shares of that holding company revert to the Province,
the Province becomes the sole owner of the corporation, of the holding company,
and the Province has then a two year period to find somebody else to operate
Marystown, to take hold of Marystown, if it wishes, and to dispose of the quotas
to another operator. That, in essence, is the magnitude of the decision
regarding the holding company and the holding of the quotas.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk for a few moments about FPI and its
marketing arm. There are those who say that the FPI marketing arm is the crown
jewel of FPI. I have heard it mentioned here in this House. I have heard it
mentioned outside. The Province believed that it was important for this Province
to retain ownership and control of the FPI marketing arm, and the union - to
give them their due, and to give them their credit, Mr. Speaker - believed, in a
similar fashion, that it was important for the Province, for the FPI marketing
arm to be maintained and held by a Newfoundland and Labrador entity.
The union approached us in that regard as part of the renewal process that we
started a year ago in May under the Premier's leadership. We held two or three
different meetings on that issue alone with the union and with the
representatives of the processors, the Association of Seafood Processors, ASP,
and SPNL, the other independent processors that are not part of - most of them
that are not a part of ASP are into this group called SPNL, Seafood Producers of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ourselves and those two associations and the union met on at least two
occasions to try to determine a way in which the marketing arm of FPI could
continue to be held and controlled by the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Premier proposed a co-operative, of which the union would be a
shareholder and the two associations would be a shareholder. The Premier
proposed that we would finance that co-operative, that we would finance, in
other words, the purchasing of the FPI marketing arm, and once it was purchased
we would turn it over to the industry. When I say industry, I mean the
processing sector and the harvesting sector as represented by the union and the
processors. We would turn it over to the industry to operate.
We did not think it was a place for government to be, in the business of
operating a fish business. We are not experts when it comes to that. We could be
experts in getting the industry in trouble, but we are certainly no experts in
operating and marketing and selling and determining prices and all of that. We
thought that was better managed and done and carried out by the industry itself,
but we offered to facilitate it. We offered to finance it. We offered to make it
possible for the Newfoundland and Labrador industry to purchase and control the
marketing arm of FPI if they wished.
We put it to them and we left it. We gave them some time to think about it.
In fact, I believe we went back twice, to different meetings, to hear their
response. On each occasion, with the exception of the union, the response was
that the Newfoundland and Labrador industry did not want and would not
participate in such an arrangement.
Therefore, that part of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador attaining
the marketing arm of FPI was out unless we wanted to take it and run it
ourselves. You could buy it, I suppose, or you could nationalize it. You could
do a number of things and run it ourselves, but I do not know anybody who was -
nobody that I know of was giving us advice at the time that, that was a
sensible, prudent approach for us to take over the marketing arm of FPI and to
operate it ourselves as a government.
We did offer to facilitate it, to facilitate the purchase, and to hold that
asset in Newfoundland and Labrador to be operated by business people in
Newfoundland and Labrador for the foreseeable future - forever, I suppose, as
long as they wanted to - but that did not happen, despite our best efforts to
make it happen.
So, after that particular idea was disposed of, there was a period of time
when not much happened and then FPI finally called for proposals for its assets.
The disposition of the assets was done in recognition of the Province's desire
that, as best we could, the assets be sold as a package, realizing that it might
not be possible to sell every one of the assets to one particular individual or
a consortium of a number of companies.
For example, I indicated here in the House today that neither of the
proponents from Newfoundland - and there were three proponents from
Newfoundland. Well, I suppose there were four, really. There was OCI, there was
the Barry Group with two proposals, there was the Quinlan Brothers with a
proposal for some of FPI's assets, and there was a group called the management
group, which were made up of senior managers over on O'Leary Avenue who had
made a proposal to acquire some of the assets of FPI. So, there were really four
suitors, four people pursing the assets of FPI. Out of that, once we had an
opportunity to look at each of the proposals, it was our conclusion, as a
government - well, let me backtrack for a second.
FPI set up an independent committee of their board to evaluate the proposals.
After they did their homework they came to government and advised us that in
their opinion two of the proposals met their minimum requirements. They told us
they could live with the Barry proposal or they could live with the OCI
proposal. Either one of those proposals met their minimum requirements. The
management group did not, the Quinlan Brothers proposal did not, and one of the
Barry proposals did not, but OCI and one of the Barry proposals did.
So, we then did our own due diligence. We concluded, after engaging both OCI
and Barry in an extensive dialogue as to what their business plans were, what
they were prepared to put on paper and confirm on paper, what they were prepared
to dismiss as nonsense - which, in some cases, one of the proponents did in fact
tell us that it was none of our business; that some of the questions we
submitted were foolishness and they had no intention of answering them. But, at
the end of the process, when the process was done and analyzed, it was our
conclusion that the proposal that best met the public policy objectives of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was the OCI proposal.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: I will be good for another five minutes or so yet.
So, we came to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal that best met
the public policy objectives of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was
the OCI proposal, and from then on the detailed negotiations began between OCI,
FPI and High Liner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's make it clear what we have here. We do not have
perfection, and I do not know of any government or business group that can
deliver perfection to anybody, but we have, what I believe, is a better
situation on a go-forward basis than we have today. I believe we have hope for
the communities where FPI presently operates, that the uncertainty and the
turmoil and the mistrust of the past is yesterday and that people want to turn
their attention to tomorrow, and whether or not they can depend on an operation
run by somebody who used to be, at one point in their working lives, run and
operated by FPI. I believe that is where the vision of the 2,000 or the 2,500
people who work for FPI is. They want to know that there is some certainty. They
want to know that the troubles of the past are behind them. They want to know
that they can move on. They want to know that they are going to have certainty
in terms of their employment periods in their communities and what it is they
can depend on and what it is they cannot depend on. I believe we have, by and
large, achieved that. As I said, is it perfection? No, it is not. But, in my
view, it is a good deal and one worth supporting and one worth bringing in this
bill to repeal the FPI Act to make it happen.
Now, I have talked about the quota and how that arrangement was arrived at
and how that will rest with a holding company owned by OCI and the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to talk about other things. We made it a
precondition that Fortune be taken care of in this proposal. We had made a
commitment, Mr. Speaker, as a government to Fortune. We could not guarantee
Fortune that there would be an operation after FPI. We could not guarantee them
FPI fish because FPI said we do not have enough fish to operate Fortune from a
wild resource. We could not guarantee any of that. Even if we held a quota, we
could not guarantee any of that.
Fortunately - no pun intended - for Fortune, there was another interest, and
that interest was from Cooke Aquaculture based on an aquaculture operation.
Cooke made it clear from the get-go that Fortune was of interest to them, and
that if they were to operate an aquaculture operation in Placentia Bay and
Fortune Bay, then Fortune was ideally suited to be their processing operation.
So, therefore, we made it a precondition of anything that we would be prepared
to sign off on with FPI, the future of the Fortune plant had to be taken care
of.
FPI started off willing to sell Fortune to Cooke for an outrageous sum of
money. That is all I will say at this point in time, but in our view, and in the
view of Cooke, it was an unreasonably, outrageous ask from the present owners of
FPI for Fortune. Keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the side was blown out of
that plant by an explosion some months ago and FPI got a significant settlement
as a result of that. So, when OCI came on the scene, they indicated to Cooke
that they were prepared to transfer the assets of Fortune on the closing of a
deal from OCI to Cooke. They arrived at a price, which in the view of Cooke and
us was far, far, far less onerous and would give Fortune a chance to succeed
than the demands that had been made by FPI. So, suffice it to say, both Cooke
and OCI agreed on a price and they agreed on a transfer of the Fortune assets to
Cooke.
The Province undertook publicly, through commitments made by the Premier and
reiterated by myself and other ministers, that whatever we have to do from an
infrastructure perspective to make Fortune acceptable to Cooke, we are prepared
to do it. For example, there has to be some relocating of municipal
infrastructure - sewer disposals, for example, if the plant is going to be
suitable for aquaculture purposes. We are prepared to finance that, along with
the town, and make sure it happens. There may have to be some dredging in
Fortune Harbour. That is not quite determined yet, but if it does, we are
prepared to facilitate that piece of infrastructure work and make it happen.
So, from everything I see, Fortune, Mr. Speaker, has a new lease on life.
There is reason for Fortune to be optimistic. There is reason for Fortune to
feel that they now have a long-term sustainable future based on aquaculture,
because Cooke, as we all know, just before Christmas, announced a massive
aquaculture development project on the south coast. A $155 million project,
actually, with $10 million from the Province, $10 million from the Government of
Canada, and about $130 million, $135 million of their own corporate money. So, a
massive, massive aquaculture development that will see a quantum leap in the
amount of fish available for processing in Fortune. Well, starting in another
year or so because in the interim, Cooke also acquired the assets of Northern
Aquaculture Limited and now have fish about ready to be processed anyway. So,
Fortune, it appears, has a good future and one that we are very optimistic
about, as are, I believe from everything I can hear, the people of Fortune.
In terms of the other FPI operations, Mr. Speaker, OCI is committed to
operating all of them at about historic levels: Marystown, Port au Choix,
Triton, Catalina, Bonavista. While I do not want to do too much talking publicly
about seals, and seal related activity, there are some of the OCI operations
that are going to be taken out of, sort of, the groundfish part of the company
and go into ownership by other people who will be into other activity. There
appears to be, from everything we can see, a sound commitment by OCI to operate
near or above historic levels in all of the places, including Marystown, where
FPI has operated in the past. There are penalties if they do not.
Now, there are people who pooh-pooh penalties and say that penalties do not
work. Well, all I can say is: Why, in God's holy name, would anybody offer to
spend tens of millions of dollars to acquire an asset and then spend $5 million
to close it down? I am not a business man or a business person, I understand
that, and I have no expertise to offer when it comes to giving business advice,
but it seems to me to be rather elementary that if you are going to acquire an
asset and spend tens of millions of dollars to operate it, and make commitments
to communities and unions and all of that, that you are not going to find a
quick exit by paying $5 million additional shutting it down - to do what? What
you going to do with the assets that you have acquired? You cannot put turnip
through fish plants. They do not feed on Kentucy Fried Chicken. They feed on
fish.
The people who are behind OCI are not just fly-by-night operators. The
Sullivan brothers and Ches Penny and family are people who have a solid business
connection in the fishery in this Province but also a solid business reputation
in the Province in many, many aspects of business, and are respected in the
communities where they operate. They operate now in Lawn, St. Lawrence,
Carbonear, Jackson's Arm, and in a couple of places in Prince Edward Island.
They have a solid, sterling reputation so people trust them. People, from
everything I know, are welcoming OCI to their communities and looking forward to
them taking up business residence in their communities.
The same can be said for High Liner and Burin. The largest amount of fish
that FPI ever put through Burin is 14.5 million pounds. This year they are
proposing to put through perhaps less than 10 million pounds. Their business
called for 11.5 million pounds of throughput, but we understand from union and
other sources that perhaps less than 10 million is actually planned to go
through there. High Liner has made a commitment of a minimum of 17.5 million
pounds throughput for Burin.
Now, Mr. Speaker, throughput in terms of a secondary processing plant is
where it is. You could put millions of pounds of fish through a primary
processing plant - like, for example, pelagics, mackerel, herring, caplin.
Millions of pounds of that can go through a primary processing plant and you do
not get a lot of person years employment with it because most of it is just
cleaning and freezing and packaging and it is gone, but secondary processing is
a different matter. Every million pounds that you put through a secondary
processing plant sustains and creates employment to hundreds of people.
High Liner has committed to a minimum of 17.5 million pounds of throughput
for Burin. They have committed to a penalty over and above anything that the
Labour Standards Act implies. They have committed to a penalty over and above
the $2.5 million of seven cents a pound if they do not put that amount of fish
through. So, High Liner has put its reputation and its dollars on the line for
Burin and we believe that High Liner - we know High Liner. High Liner is a
company that had a very good reputation in this Province and, when they decided
to get out, got out in a very honourable way by helping Bruce Wareham take over
and finance the takeover of Arnold's Cove. So, High Liner is not a stranger to
Newfoundland and Labrador and we believe High Liner when they tell us and they
signed off on those commitments to the people of Burin.
In
summary, Mr. Speaker, where does it leave us? It leaves us, I believe,
with the basis, if all of this comes together - and let me address that for a
second. None of this will happen unless all of the agreements that I have
outlined are in place to make it happen.
The Memorandum of Understand on fish and quotas is in place. That has been
Labrador, and FPI. That is there. We expect that the non-binding agreement with
OCI will be a binding agreement before the end of this week. We expect that the
non-binding agreement with High Liner will be a binding agreement within another
week or so, and we have the majority owners - the majority shareholders of FPI
have agreed unanimously that they will vote their shares. So, you know, one of
the shareholders cannot back out now, because they have signed this unanimous
agreement saying that they will vote their shares to support this sale.
So, as long as the definitive agreements, the definitively binding
agreements, can be reached between OCI, FPI and High Liner, this deal will
become final, and we have no reason to believe that it will not. On its becoming
final, Mr. Speaker, then we are prepared to trigger the repeal of the FPI Act -
not before, not unless it happens, not if it does not happen.
If it does not happen, it does not happen and the FPI Act stays the law of
the land; but, if it happens, and we believe it will, if all of the ifs become
reality, and we have reason to believe that every single one of them, Mr.
Speaker, will become reality, when that happens and all of the agreements are
binding and the shareholders of FPI have given their approval, as they have
signed their names to a piece of paper saying they will, when that happens, and
only when that happens, will we trigger the repeal of the FPI Act.
That is a solemn commitment, Mr. Speaker, to this Legislature, and one cannot
make any more of a solemn commitment, as far as I am concerned, than what you
make on the floor of this House. That is our solemn commitment to the people in
the communities where FP I operates.
We are not offering you a perfect deal. We offer you a deal that we believe
offers stability, that we believe gets a lot of the anxiety that you have
experienced in the past behind you.
The marketplace is going to continue, Mr. Speaker, to be very difficult from
time to time in this industry. That has been the history of the fishing industry
in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have ups and we have downs, and we have swings,
but, you know, the strong tend to survive and make a go of it, and we believe
that OCI is one of those strong companies with strong leadership, with a strong
financial commitment, with strong financial resources, with strong management,
that can make this industry work for the long term.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we believe that High Liner is such a company, that
has marketing arrangements with OCI, that has marketing arrangements with other
independent producers in Newfoundland, and that will continue to have them as
long as those independent producers want High Liner to be a marketer for them.
So, all of these things have been achieved and they have been signed off, and
when they become final and binding, Mr. Speaker, then and only then will we
trigger the repeal of the FPI Act.
As the minister who introduced this piece of legislation in 1985 or 1986 - I
became minister in 1985, so I guess it was about 1987 or so when we finally
introduced the act to give effect to what had happened during the privatization
period.
As the minister who introduced it, I want to say that I am blessed, I suppose
- is the only word I can think about - to have the opportunity to be able to be
here today to introduce
an act that will repeal all of that and return what used
to be FPI to the private sector once and for all. I believe that is where it
will operate best. I believe that is where it will have the best opportunity to
succeed. I believe that the people who end up owning what is now FPI, which is
OCI and High Liner, are stalwart people, stalwart business people who bring a
lot of reputation and a lot of commitment to this industry and to the future of
the communities where they operate.
It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that this is a good deal. It
is a good deal for the communities, not a perfect deal, but a good deal and I
believe it presents a better opportunity for tomorrow than FPI offers today, or
that FPI could offer if, in fact, they were to stay. I believe that the
communities out there want the end of FPI, they want the end of the present
ownership of FPI and they want to move on with somebody new. They want to move
on with OCI and High Liner. They have made that clear. Their union has made that
clear and we are prepared, as a government, to do what we have to do to make it
happen when all of the agreements that I have referred to in this debate so far
become final and binding. If that does not happen, then this will not happen,
but when that happens, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be proclaimed.
Therefore, the FPI Act as we knew it, up until today, will be no more.
With that, I am pleased to, on behalf of the government, move second reading
of Bill 1.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to address the bill which will, in effect, eliminate the FPI
Act. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not feel blessed to be voting in
favour of this, as the Minister of Fisheries just said, that he is blessed to be
able to stand here and vote in favour of the elimination of the FPI Act because
the plants associated with FPI should be passed back to the private sector. Mr.
Speaker, in the next hour I will tell you why I will not be voting for this act,
by the way, to repeal the FPI Act and I do not feel blessed.
What I also find, Mr. Speaker, is the irony in this because it was a
government with which the Minister of Fisheries sits today, a Tory government,
that brought in the original FPI Act in 1984. He was not the minister at the
time, but he did amend the act when he was minister in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, the minister talked briefly about how FPI came about. It came
about in 1984 as a result, I guess, of a culmination of bankruptcies in the fish
processing sector in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a
number of plants that had experienced severe economic difficulties and had
closed their doors, and there were a number of communities. Because everybody
knows if there is a fish plant that goes down in a community, not unlike a pulp
and paper plant that goes down in a place like Stephenville, it causes severe
economic hardships on that community and makes it very difficult for that
community to survive if there is no employment in it. What usually happens is
that people move out and the community dies or suffers severely, economically,
Mr. Speaker.
Back in 1984, because of the downturn in the fishery, because of potential
and real bankruptcies in the fishing industry, the government of the day, along
with the federal government in Ottawa, made what I consider to be a very
important decision. That is, they were going to set up what basically amounted
to a Crown corporation called FPI. What they did, between the provincial
government and federal government, they put some $300 million into the company
that they set up called FPI. They went out and started running those fish plants
over which they had control, and they were located all around the Province. At
that time they did close some of them. They did not close them all, but they did
make sure that there were fish plants in areas where they thought should be fish
plants. They tried to do it in a way that would have the greatest socioeconomic
impact on the individuals in certain communities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when they set up this, of course, it was supposed to be the
flagship of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words,
it was going to be a large company and unlike the other companies that were
involved in the fishing industry at the time in the processing sector, most of
them only owned one facility, maybe two, but FPI was going to own many fish
plants in the Province and, as a result, they became the largest fish processor.
But, they were left with some social obligations. In other words, they had to
make sure that they looked after the people and they did not compete directly or
overtly against fish companies around the Province, the independent ones.
Mr. Speaker, the act was amended in 1987 by the current minister, the member
who now represents Lewisporte. When he was the Minister of Fisheries in 1987, he
amended the FPI Act so that they would sort of semi-privatize it. By that, I
mean the government would back out of it. They would allow shares in FPI to be
sold to shareholders around the world, which would give them some capital to pay
off the money that they owed the government, the $300 million that they owed
both the federal and provincial governments. As a result, the Province says:
Okay, it is no longer a Crown corporation but we are going to bring in
an act to
govern it, and it is called the FPI Act. It is called the FPI Act, and that is
the amended version that came out in 1987. Under that amended version, even
though we were going to sort of privatize it, it still remained a quasi-Crown
corporation. Even to this day, we treat the company FPI in this Province unlike
we treat any other company in the Province, simply because we were the ones who
set it up originally and that we wanted to maintain control over it.
Today, as we speak, we still have control over FPI, through the FPI Act in
the Legislature. We do not have control over any other company, that I am aware
of, by
an act in this Legislature. As a result, in 1987 when they
semi-privatized it, there were a bunch of stipulations in the act. It was very
important, because we did not want to lose control of it. Even though we were
going to privatize it, we still wanted to have control over the company if we
required it. We made conditions. The first one was that the company must remain
the flagship for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one
thing. The other thing was that no individual or group of individuals could own
more than 15 per cent of the company. Now, you might ask why that was necessary.
The intent of the government in 1987 - the Tory government again, I might say,
who did the right thing - they did not want one individual to own all of FPI or
one company to own all of FPI. They felt that if it was spread out around enough
shareholders, who could not own any more than 15 per cent of the company, then
we could control it more tightly. So that was another thing. No individual or
group of individuals could control more than 15 per cent of FPI.
We amended the FPI Act back in 2002 when I was the minister. We also amended
it again in 2005 when FPI wanted to do an Income Trust. We added some clauses
that even tightened up the FPI Act even further. We put more control over FPI.
Some of those were that FPI could not sell any of its assets, whether it be the
boats, a fish plant, the secondary processing facility in Burin. They could not
sell the marketing division in the United States. They could not sell anything
in the company without the consent of government. In other words, before they
could get rid of the draggers that they got rid of on the Burin Peninsula, that
came into Marystown, they had to ask permission of government. In other words,
government could keep a close eye on FPI and if they thought that they were
doing something that was detrimental to the company itself, or to the
communities in which FPI operated, then the government could say: Hold on here,
now, we are not going to permit you to do that.
I do not see anything wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. I see nothing whatsoever
wrong with that.
The other thing is that its head office had to be located in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The head office of FPI is located on O'Leary Avenue. In fact, there
are 140 people, or 120 people, working at that headquarters on O'Leary Avenue
as we speak today. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, once we pass this bill, and once the
company is sold, those 120 people will be without employment, because the
individual who is head of High Liner, Henry Demone, has already said that he has
little interest, if any, in hiring any of them, and OCI already has their
corporate management group, so I doubt very much if any of them will get a job
with OCI, so we are losing 120 people on O'Leary Avenue.
The reason we thought that clause should be in there, that it should be
headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador, is because it would employ
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are loyal to our Province, rather than have
the corporate headquarters, for example, in Nova Scotia or in Danvers,
Massachusetts, where individuals who are running the company did not even know
where Newfoundland and Labrador was, did not even know it existed. That was the
reason we put that clause in there, Mr. Speaker, that it had to be headquartered
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The other one was that the majority of the board of directors had to be
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the majority. There was a good reason for
that, I say, Mr. Speaker, because, if you were born and raised in this Province,
then obviously you have an attachment and an affinity to this Province, and we
thought that if there were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians making up the
majority of the board of directors that, rather than making decisions based
solely on economics and on what is best for the business, they might have also
thought about: Well, I make my living here in this Province. I live here. I call
it my home. I raise my family here.
Maybe they would think, for example, if they were closing Fortune plant,
knowing the geography of the Province, maybe having relatives in Fortune, maybe
they would think twice before they made that decision. That is the reason we
wanted the majority of the board of directors being Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that, even though FPI has witnessed some
rough times over the past twenty-two or twenty-three years since its inception
in 1984, it has weathered the storm and it is still, provincially, nationally
and internationally, recognized as the flagship of the fishing industry of
Newfoundland and Labrador, just like President's Choice, for example, is
recognized nationally as belonging to Dominion or Loblaws.
When you see the sign FPI anywhere in the world, I know I associate it, and I
am sure everybody who sees it associates it, with the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. I would go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the logo of FPI
is showing nationally and internationally it is recognized as Newfoundland and
Labrador far more than the new slogan or the new logo we have for this Province,
the pitcher plant, I will guarantee you that. You go anywhere in the world today
where anybody buys fish and you see the FPI logo, I am sure that the people who
see that recognize that as a Newfoundland and Labrador brand far more than they
recognize the pitcher plant that we spent $1.2 million putting on as our brand
last year.
Mr. Speaker, you know, I still believe that FPI has done a good job over the
years, but I think what has happened with FPI, you can probably go back to what
the minister said in his closing statement: he feels blessed to come in here and
axe the FPI Act, because FPI should go back into the private sector and it
should be run like a business, and it should live or die based on a business
decision rather than a social obligation or an obligation to the communities in
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the thing that I dislike the most about this deal is that we are
asked to abolish the FPI Act and the government has given us an outline of what
they think the deal should be with High Liner and OCI. The thing that bothers me
the most, Mr. Speaker, is that we are breaking up that company and we are
selling off the marketing division and the secondary processing division to High
Liner, a Nova Scotia based company, and we are selling the remainder of it to a
company that is composed of - a Newfoundland company is the main shareholder in
OCI, but also in this bid to take over the assets that remain here in this
Province is a 30 per cent ownership by a company in Iceland.
Mr. Speaker, the minister got up there this afternoon and he talked about how
no one wanted the marketing division. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think he missed the
point, because anyone who knows the fishing industry or the processing industry,
anyone who knows much about FPI, such as the former board of directors, will
tell you, that during the moratorium when the groundfish stocks collapsed and
FPI didn't have much to put through the plants that remained here in the
Province, it was the marketing division in the United States, in Danvers
Massachusetts, the marketing and the secondary processing, that was the part of
the company that was making a profit.
Let me tell you why. Many years ago, FPI decided it was going to buy a
company, I think by the name of Cloustons. It was a marketing company down in
the Massachusetts area of the United States. They were going to use that to
market Newfoundland and Labrador fish, through this marketing company, once it
entered the United States. Over the years they have expanded that division. I
had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of that marketing division in
Danvers Massachusetts on a couple of occasions when I was the Minister of
Fisheries. It is a nice office building located in Danvers. They have a group
of, what I call, top-notch salesmen, executives. What they do, Mr. Speaker, is
not only do they market the fish that is produced by FPI in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but they also go out and buy and sell fish that is caught all over the
world.
For example, if there is a company catching fish off the Coast of Africa, FPI
might call them up and say, listen we will market that fish for you somewhere in
the world and we will charge you a fee for doing it. That is what they have been
doing. In fact, Vic Young told me, when he was the CEO of FPI, he was buying a
whitefish - I think it was called talapia - out of Lake Victoria in Africa. Now,
that fish that FPI bought in Victoria Lake in Africa wasn't brought back to
Newfoundland and Labrador for processing, it was bought and it was sold
somewhere in the world to a customer who wanted to buy that fish. They made
money from that. That money came back in one way or another to Newfoundland and
Labrador, to the headquarters on O'Leary Avenue. They did that all over the
world.
Just last year, FPI bought and sold $750 million worth of fish. That is a
large amount of fish, Mr. Speaker. They bought and sold $750 million worth of
fish. Now, I don't know how much they made off of that fish, because they do
charge a fee for selling it, but I would say that the amount was substantial.
During the moratorium when there was very little fish to be pushed through the
groundfish plants that FPI owned here in the Province, because our quotas were
depleted, what FPI did is they were buying fish, buying Russian fish from the
Berent Sea. What they were doing was, they were buying it, head off, gutted and
frozen, aboard Russian factory freezer trawlers in the North Sea, in the Bering
Strait, and they were bringing it back to this Province, thawing the fish,
skinning it, filleting it, packaging it, and sending it down to the United
States for a profit.
The reason they were doing that was so that they could keep their employees
working, providing incomes for the families of those who would have otherwise
been out of work, and the only way they were able to do that was because of the
marketing division. Because they could not just go out and buy this frozen, head
off, gutted fish from the Russians, sell it and make a profit, so they were
subsidizing it with the money they were making off the marketing division in the
United States.
That is the way the company should have been run, because that was the intent
established FPI in 1984. That was the intent. It was supposed to not only be a
financially sound company - in other words, not go bankrupt, not run large
deficits - but it also had to protect the social interests of the Province and
the communities in which it operated.
Mr. Speaker, what had to be weighed was, how much profit you wanted against
how many people you wanted employed. It was the intent that FPI should employ as
many people as it possibly could in the Province without showing a deficit,
without going bankrupt, and they did that, Mr. Speaker, for twenty-three years,
up until just recently.
In 2004 the current board of directors, the new one led by John Risley, came
in and said: No longer are we going to operate FPI the way we operated it in the
past. No longer are we going to subsidize one division that is not making money
with a division that is making money.
In other words, here is what he did: He said, the marketing and the secondary
processing division is going to be one division, the groundfish division is
going to be another one, and the shellfish is going to be another one, and you
are going to stand or sink on your own in these three divisions.
That is what happened to the groundfish sector. That is what happened to
Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown. Because, once FPI made that decision,
because there was not as much profit in the groundfish, that portion of the
company basically started to sink, and that is the reason they closed plants,
and that is the reason today, basically, we are selling off this company.
The marketing division, the secondary processing division located in the
United States, was making money, and the shrimp and the crab part of the company
is still making money on that side, so they were making money on both the right
and the left-hand side, but they were not subsidizing the groundfish division.
That is the reason we have the problem with Marystown, Fortune and Harbour
Breton.
The reason for that, that was a decision that was made around the boardroom,
because all of a sudden you had a group in there that were not interested in the
soci