Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 16 March 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 2)
2005-03-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 16, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV
No. 2
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
Admit strangers.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Statements by Members
This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the
Premier, the Member for the District of Humber West will ask leave to make a
member's statement; we have a member's statement by the Member for the
District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon the Member for the District of Baie
Verte, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and Labrador Affairs will
ask leave to make a member's statement; a statement by the hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's
North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
I ask the house, does the Premier and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation and Labrador Affairs have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank all hon. members for
leave.
On behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but particularly the
citizens of Corner Brook, I want to pay tribute today to Dr. Noel Murphy, who
passed away on the tenth day of March at the wonderful age of eighty-nine.
Dr. Murphy was a truly impressive individual who leaves a legacy for
Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed for Canada, of dedicated community service
that will benefit us and inspire us for generations to come.
He was a community doctor who earned the respect and trust of the countless
patients he helped during his career. That alone would be a tremendous legacy
worthy of a celebration, but he was also a radio pioneer, a newspaper columnist
and a commentator who conveyed his views with dignity and class. I will
especially miss his Christmas turkey show: Stuffing the Turkey with Murphy.
Not only was he prepared to state for the record what he believed in, but he
was willing to stand by his convictions, to put his name on the line and to run
for public offices where he knew he could make a difference.
He was elected as Mayor of Corner Brook, and he was elected to represent the
people of Humber East in this hon. House of Assembly. Not surprisingly, given
the magnitude of his contribution, Dr. Murphy was distinguished with various
national and provincial honours during his lifetime. No matter where he went,
people were eager to claim him as their own.
But his heart belonged to Corner Brook, and that is where his contribution is
most fondly remembered. The people of Corner Brook feel privileged to have known
him and to have been touched by the work of one of their city's most
impressive statesmen. Dr. Murphy will be dearly missed, as he was the kind of
citizen that we should all aspire to be.
On behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, everywhere, and
the people of Humber West and Corner Brook in particular, I convey my sincere
and heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and to all who knew him, as
together we collectively mourn the passing of a great individual.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I could ask leave to join with the comments made by the Premier in that
member's statement. I, too, have had the great privilege in the past of having
known, worked with, and met with Dr. Noel Murphy on several occasions over the
years. I must say, I believe the people of the Province who did know him would
concur with every single word that the Premier just said with respect to Dr.
Noel Murphy. A truly outstanding resident in terms of his contribution in the
Province generally, more particularly and specifically in the West Coast and in
the Corner Brook area in the last number of years. Also well known to people in
this part of the Province, of course, and in this Legislature for the time that
he spent here in public service for Newfoundland and Labrador. A truly
outstanding person in the Province who will be missed and I would ask that you,
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us, take the Premier's statement and turn it
into an expression of condolences on behalf of all of the Members of the House
of Assembly to the Murphy family.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Similarly, I would like to ask leave, considering the individual involved is
a former member of this House and a truly great citizen of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to offer my confirmation of the words spoken by the Premier in praise
of Dr. Murphy and his contribution.
I have known Dr. Murphy for many years. In fact, the association with my
family goes back many, many decades, as Dr. Murphy and my father were friends in
their youth, and Dr. Murphy has always remembered that and been very kind in his
memories of those days, and, since then, has made a terrific contribution not
only to the West Coast but to the medical profession, to Corner Brook, to radio,
and to the Province in general. He is certainly a fine citizen of Newfoundland
and Labrador, whose record stands really as an inspiration to people as to what
can be done by one individual contributing to a Province such as Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to honour an exceptional talent from the District of
Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who last month won an East Coast Music Award for Jazz
Record of the year.
Thirty-two year old Duane Andrews won this award in a genre of music which
requires a special gift and lots of hard work. His talent certainly adds to the
array of Newfoundland music. Not only is Mr. Andrews an accomplished musician,
he is also a producer. He produced his first debut album and has also worked
with other local distinguished artists, some of whom have received awards and
nominations themselves.
I am certain this will not be the last we will hear from Duane Andrews, who
obviously has the drive and determination required to accomplish great things. I
wish him the best of luck on his many projects, especially working with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Composers' Guild.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join me in congratulating Mr.
Andrews on his accomplishments.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation,
and Labrador Affairs.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank you for leave today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. This past Saturday, local sports legend Dick Power passed away in
Ottawa after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. He was forty-six years old.
I had the pleasure of knowing him both on and off the basketball courts, and
I can tell you it was better to be playing with him than against him. He was a
well-renowned provincial athlete, noted for his class and talent, a quiet star
who excelled in every sport he played. He was an integral part of the Holy Cross
soccer team that won a national gold medal in 1988, a silver in 1989, and a
bronze in 1981. He was a member of two National Ball Hockey Championships and a
member of the National Ball Hockey Hall of Fame.
I read a quote in Sunday's Telegram from his former coach, Brian
Murphy, that described the type of competitor and the person that Dick was, and
I quote: Dick was a player you always expected to be good, and he was good.
He was also great in everyday life. He had an incredible sense of humour and
he was thoughtful of others. It was his nature to want to make other people
happy. His decision to be an organ donor certainly reflected that. For many
years he passed on his vast knowledge as a school teacher, while providing
guidance and passing on his love of this sport through coaching. I have often
heard a good mutual friend of his, a MUN basketball great, John Devereaux, speak
of the profound influence Dick Power had on him, on and off the court, during
Dick's tenure at Stella Maris School in Trepassey.
Dick Power loved and was loved. His wife, Cynthia, shares his passion for
sport, love of people and love of life. Together they lived in Ottawa, where
they were both very active but continued to be very aware of everything that was
happening here at home.
His loving mother, Marie, was very proud of her son. His five sisters - Ros,
Maureen, Toni, Donna and Shelly - and his brother Charlie, along with nieces and
nephews, and especially his cousin Shawn, simply adored him. He had close
relationships with his extended family, especially his brother-in-law, the
Premier, who shared a competitive nature and love for sports on many, many
occasions.
Dick Power successfully battled brain cancer for five years; however, last
Saturday he finally lost that battle. Throughout his illness he continued to be
a tough competitor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House today to join me in honouring this
great sports legend, this brilliant educator, an exceptional Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. He will be sadly missed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to inform this hon. House that 2005 marks the 300 th
anniversary of Spaniard's Bay.
This year, the residents of Spaniard's Bay will celebrate their rich
heritage and make every effort to preserve it. To commemorate this milestone,
the residents have compiled stories, pictures and items of interest in a book
entitled, The Spaniard's Bay 300 Years of Memories, which was released last
fall. The book has been a huge success.
The residents of Spaniard's Bay take great pride in reviving the cultural
aspects of their community. They have developed the Environmental Committee and
the Spaniard's Bay Tri Centennial Committee to help in their efforts. This
year they are planning come home year celebrations to be held in the summer. The
year 2005 also marks the fortieth anniversary of the town's incorporation in
1965. As well, the Royal Canadian Legion this year will host the sixtieth
anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic Parade
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating the residents of Spaniard's Bay on all their efforts to
preserve the heritage of their community. I wish them success in all events that
will take place throughout this year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Scott Tournament of
Hearts was held in St. John's, and I rise today to pay tribute to all those
who played a
part in organizing and hosting this marvelous event. The best
female curlers in the country, and fans of curling, were in our capital city for
more than a week, and anyone who went to Mile One or to the Convention Centre or
who saw the media reports had to feel a sense of pride at the absolutely
first-class fashion in which everything was done.
Mr. Speaker, this superb event was the culmination of the tremendous
voluntary effort of Chairman Don Nickerson, his committee, and more than 600
volunteers, some of whom have worked tirelessly and unselfishly since the Scott
was awarded to St. John's in August, 2003. Mr. Nickerson and his committee
realized that they could not set attendance records or make any great fortune on
this event, so they set as their goal to demonstrate the legendary hospitality
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Scott Tournament of Hearts was terrific for the economy of
St. John's, but perhaps more valuable is the fact that the host committee set
a record for the best hospitality ever seen at any Scott Tournament.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating all the
volunteers for their magnificent effort.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank
Heritage Society on moving their Mariner's Memorial initiative to another
level. Initially the Memorial was intended to be a memorial to lost seamen who
sailed from Grand Bank. However, in consultation with sculptor, Luben Boykov,
and landscape architect, Fred Hann, the Mariners Memorial Committee approved a
motion to expand it to include the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A statue of a life-size bronze female figure will be the centre of the
exhibit and extol the virtues and strength of character of thousands of
Newfoundland women who had to endure the loss of their loved ones. The statue
will stand prominently in a memorial garden containing a symbolic shoreline of
beach rocks defining a water channel containing the names of mariners lost at
sea. Names of persons lost as sea from any area of the Province will be able to
be included in the water channel. Family members, groups or organizations, by
submission, can have the names placed in the water for a small fee to assist in
the maintenance of the plaques.
Presently, there is no memorial to lost seamen anywhere in this Province,
even though there have been attempts to put such a structure in place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Grand Bank Heritage Society and wish them every success.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide an update to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador on the status of discussions between our government
and Abitibi Consolidated on the future of its operations in Stephenville and
Grand Falls-Windsor.
Government is very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the future of both of these
paper mills and the impact that any change in their operations would have on its
employees, the communities in which they live, and indeed the entire regions
which view these mills, rightfully so, as the drivers of their regional
economies. Generally, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned for the pulp and paper
industry in this Province on a go-forward basis.
It was very early in our mandate that we understood very clearly that we had
to engage Abitibi to try to resolve some of the issues facing the company. At
that time, our understanding from the company that their exclusive focus and
only focus was for concern about the Stephenville mill due to rising energy
costs and, apparently at the time, lack of a dedicated on-island wood supply.
Initially, this government established a ministerial working group with
included myself, as Minister Responsible for Natural Resources, and my colleague
the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. This working group was
supported by senior government officials, including the Deputy Minister of
Natural Resources, the Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry Services of
Newfoundland and Labrador, of my department, and the Deputy Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
Our task was simple; it was to seek solutions, long-term solutions, to the
issues facing Abitibi's mill in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker.
While these discussions were ongoing - as a sign of good faith - government
directed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to renew its contract - known as the
Interruptible B contract - with Abitibi. This contract paid $1.3 million to
Abitibi in 2004, during the winter months, the peak times when energy would be
used, should Hydro require Abitibi to slow down its Stephenville operations to
lessen the demand on the provincial electricity grid during peak months during
the winter season. As it happened, Hydro did not have to interrupt the power to
Stephenville mill; yet, Abitibi were able to retain that $1.3 million in 2004.
On December 15, 2004, Abitibi informed government that unless we could
provide some assistance with cost, immediately on the energy side, the company
would begin to announce a shutdown in January 2005 and the permanent closure of
its Stephenville mill.
Based on that information, and where our discussions were at the time, which
had not concluded, I arranged to meet with the President of Abitibi-Consolidated,
Mr. John Weaver, and some of his senior executive, on December 21, 2004. During
that meeting, I clearly outlined for Mr. Weaver and his senior vice-presidents
that it was our intention and we wanted Abitibi to maintain all of its current
operations in the Province.
I also made it clear, Mr. Speaker - because, during the course of these
discussions over the last year, Abitibi had asked for priority access to
Labrador wood. I want to be very clear on this point, because we have been
consistent on it, I made it clear to the President and CEO of Abitibi at that
time, that priority or absolute access for Abitibi to the wood supply in
Labrador was something that this government was not prepared to discuss or even
consider. Should Abitibi, I told them, want to access wood in Labrador, then
they needed to build their own partnerships with people in Labrador and key
stakeholders in the forestry industry to achieve that objective.
However, I believed at that time, there remained an opportunity, as I do
today, for us to continue discussions with the company. Again, as a sign of good
faith, this government agreed to a request from the company to provide a
contribution towards its energy cost of $1 million, which offset the power rate
increase for a period of sixty days, provided that the company would provide us
with access to all of their data, designs, estimates and information related to
potential hydro developments on the Exploits River.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I have a
letter here that shows that you wanted to give them all Labrador wood, and
whenever you want to discuss that, I will discuss that with you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: And all priority rights for the remainder of island wood, I
may add to that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.
Just over a month following that meeting, we were advised that Abitibi was
undertaking internal operational reviews of four of its mills within its empire,
including two in this Province: Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be unequivocally clear. That was the first indication,
over a month ago, that this government had that Abitibi was also putting its
operations in Grand Falls-Windsor through a formal review.
Since that announcement by Abitibi, there has been much speculation about
what this company plans for its Newfoundland and Labrador operations - much of
which has been provided by the company itself. It is from the company that the
employees of the Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor mills and the people of
this Province have learned of several options under consideration by the
company. According to the union these options include: one, continue to run the
mills in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor but find ways to cut costs;
secondly, close the Stephenville mill; three, close Number 7 machine in Grand
Falls-Windsor and maintain Number 3 machine in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, those options have caused much anxiety among the
people whose livelihood is dependent on Abitibi maintaining all of its
operations here; from the people working in the mill, to those harvesting wood,
to the business that supplies goods and services, to the corner stores, the
restaurants, hotels - and the list goes on, obviously.
Mr. Speaker, within the past week I have had the opportunity to meet with the
unions which represent the mill workers for both the Stephenville and Grand
Falls-Windsor mills. As well, in the coming days, I plan to meet with
representatives in the municipalities in these two regions. I spoke to Mayor
Walwin Blackmore, for example, last night.
While there has been much speculation of what Abitibi intends to do, I want
to take this opportunity to quite clearly indicate to the employees, their
unions, to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville, this government's
position on a couple of key issues.
First of all - and this is to dispel any speculation whatsoever, Mr. Speaker
- this government does not have any intention whatsoever of amending Bill 27,
which is a piece of legislation that provides Abitibi with its timber licences
until 2010 with the condition that it retain the operation of two papermaking
machines in Grand Falls-Windsor and maintain annual production levels at
substantially the same levels as those in the proceeding three years of the 2002
agreement. Period, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, our discussions with Abitibi are ongoing with
regard to addressing the challenge of energy costs at the Stephenville mill. We
will continue to explore all possible solutions to these challenges. Our
objective is to reach an agreement that will assist Abitibi yet not put any
extra burden on the ratepayers, including residential or industrial customers in
the Province.
Mr. Speaker, as you can appreciate, this government does not want to see any
downgrading of Abitibi operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to assure Abitibi's employees in this Province, the unions that
represent them, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, the people of Stephenville,
the residents of the surrounding communities, and all of Newfoundland and
Labrador, that this government is committed to looking at any and all options,
and is prepared to do what is reasonable to see the future of these operations
continue as they are and actually enhanced.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy. Actually, I was kind of astounded
by the release the minister put out because on February 15 when I put out a
press release asking the government not to do anything that is going to affect
the mill in Corner Brook, the minister publicly said that they would never do
it, but the deal was already done; $1 million to a company that has an $8
billion asset, and a secret deal we were giving a million dollars.
I say to the minister, you should always be on the West Coast because you can
always learn something new. During the election, the Premier's commitment to
Stephenville: you have my commitment. One of the commitments by the
vice-president the Premier gave: Develop a framework for a long-term forest
management program, including the development of Labrador for the benefit of our
community.
That is the commitment that your Premier made during the election. During the
election they had all the answers for the mill, and here we see now that the
minister and this government go out and give $1 million to Abitibi - talk about
giveaways - with no guarantees. Two weeks later, they turn around and say: Okay,
if you are not going to go ahead and give us more, we are going to close down
the mill. So, here we get $1 million. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: - how come the Member for Humber East and the Premier - when I
said something, they should give nothing, they should give nothing whatsoever if
it is going to affect the mill in Corner Brook. There wasn't a word said. The
minister was on the radio saying that it would never happen, and here we find
out there is $1 million behind the cloak of darkness given to the mill. Why didn't
you make it public?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, they were in an election. They had all the
answers and it was going to be done. The Premier said during the election it
will be done immediately, the answers for the mill in Stephenville. We see the
answers, give them $1 million for sixty days grace, which is $6 million a year;
which is going to affect the other operation in Corner Brook. One million for
two months, that is $6 million a year under the cloak of darkness, and we talk
about giveaways. You are talking about giveaways that - why wasn't this made
public? Why wasn't this made public when the money was first given? Why wasn't
it made public?
I say, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, you had all the answers, you
made all the promises, you made all the commitments but here we see once again -
and when you stand on this side of the House you are talking about never giving
any giveaways to a multi-billion dollar company and here we are giving $1
million to an $8 billion asset company; $1 million. Then we turn around and
there are things in this Province we cannot do. Why didn't you make the
announcement public? Because you did not want the people to know, but it was
eventually going to come out and you were blackmailed. You were blackmailed.
Mr. Speaker, I say if you are going to do things, I say to the government
opposite, do it up front, do it so the people can understand it. For the people
up in Corner Brook, I say to the Minister of Justice and the Premier, who should
defend the interests of the people in Corner Brook because I can guarantee you,
Kruger will be adversely affected if the blackmail continues here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for updating the House on this issue that
is vital to the whole Province and especially the areas that are affected by
both the mills run by Abitibi Consolidated.
I have a real concern that I want to put to the House, that what we are
dealing with here is a company that is analyzing its own operations. As we know,
modern day companies in this world drive to not necessarily make a profit but
every year to increase their profit and make more profit, to make more paper
with less people and run their machines faster. We have to be ever mindful in
this Province, in particular, because there is a lot of history associated with
the paper industry, going back to 1905 with the Grand Falls mill. For many, many
years concerns were expressed in this Province, when government tried to take
control and get some sort of revenue from these operations, that the original
concessions and things that were laid out in the beginning were very
advantageous to the companies. Are we having an analysis by these companies
based on those concessions or are we comparing them operating costs versus
operating costs? Are we really looking for profits where the profits are not to
be found?
I think, if the minister has gone so far as to expect the company to provide
all the data required about hydro maybe they should be asked to open their books
to this government, if they are looking for concessions, so that this government
and the people of this Province actually know what is going on here, because a
full analysis of these operations is really required to make a proper decision.
I appreciate that the minister has committed to maintaining Bill 27. I think
it is a very important piece of legislation that was agreed to by all parties in
this House. That is very important to the integrity of the Grand Falls operation
obviously, in particular, but we also have to see what can be done to maintain
the Stephenville operation as well, knowing that property, when it was purchased
by Abitibi Consolidated didn't have allocated to it a specific wood supply.
That is a very different sort of problem that has to be addressed. I believe we
have to find ways to keep that mill going if we can. They have been running it
on some wood from the Province, they have been running it on imported wood, and
they are trying to rationalize the operation. If it is at all possible for this
government to do something that would be beneficial to the continued operation
of all these mills, then we should try and find ways of doing that.
I urge the minister to keep all parties and the House informed as to what
efforts can be made to do that. I have a sneaking suspicion that we have a
manufactured crisis here on behalf of the company and that we should be mindful
of that when dealing with them in terms of - forestry ought not to be managed
through crisis management and we ought to make sure we have all the knowledge
available to us before any decisions are made that could be vital to the future
of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This being Wednesday, and given the constraints of Standing Order 63.(7), it
calls for the House to go to Oral Questions at 2:30 p.m. I do understand there
are some other ministerial statements. Do we have agreement to proceed, or will
we now go to Oral Questions?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: I hear that we have agreement to continue with ministerial
statements.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it will be a year tomorrow that government announced a one-year
freeze on auto insurance rates. I rise today to update the House on what happens
now that the freeze is about to expire.
On March 17, 2004, we announced a comprehensive plan for reforming auto
insurance in this Province. Our first step was to freeze auto insurance rates
and to legislate a starting package of reforms based on savings that were
confirmed by an independent actuary.
Mr. Speaker, the rate freeze was put in place to protect consumers from
rising premiums until we could legislate our reforms and go through a public
review process to determine the future direction of insurance in this Province.
On August 1, consumers received an average overall reduction of 15 per cent
on their insurance premiums when Bill 30 was proclaimed into law. These reforms
results in consumers being treated more fairly by insurance companies through
the introduction of new underwriting guidelines.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, a company can no longer set rates or refuse
coverage based on accidents that are not the individual's fault, minor damages
when no claim is paid, and lapse in coverage, just to highlight a few of the
benefits.
Since the passage of Bill 30, the Public Utilities Board has held public
sessions around the Province. We also appointed a consumer advocate to represent
consumers during the review process. Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has
now wrapped up the auto insurance portion of its review process and we expect a
report at the end of the month.
The department also committed to reviewing, and consulting on, the process by
which rates are set. I want to inform the House today that this review is now
complete and we are prepared to move forward with a new rate-setting process to
ensure that every rate increase is justified.
Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward legislation this session to allow
for a rate-setting process that requires insurance companies to file
individually and justify any rate increases. This process will replace the
current system of setting maximum and minimum benchmarks, which was unique in
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we believe consumers are better served by requiring individual
companies to produce numbers that support why they are seeking a rate increase.
As well, the elimination of the minimum benchmark will also increase competition
by permitting companies to charge rates below the minimum benchmark.
Mr. Speaker, we will update the House on any additional legislation that we
may bring forward in relation to auto insurance once we receive and review the
report from the Public Utilities Board.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite surprising that the minister
stands today to talk about what her government has done with insurance reform in
this Province. If, when they came to power a year and a half ago, they had
implemented the reforms they promised back during their great election, the Blue
Book campaign, we would not be talking about insurance rates here today, and
consumers would have received a 20 per cent or 30 per cent reduction in their
rates. Instead, Mr. Speaker, government continues to delay and deceive the
public about their intentions to reform the industry. It is likely that one or
more companies will file for increases in the very near future, after the freeze
ends this week, all because of this government's inability to deal with this
particular situation. They just have not been able to get their act together,
Mr. Speaker. The industry is still in chaos.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Premier, just give me an opportunity to respond
to the minister, now Premier. I know you are all excited.
Mr. Speaker, the industry is still in chaos. Until the government moves
forward with plans to implement a meaningful cap on rates, and deal with the
profits in the insurance industry, consumers will not be well served by this
government. It is becoming more and more evident about the consumers and the
ordinary person in this Province, about the way they are being treated.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province say that government is
more interested in serving the needs of the insurance industry and serving the
needs of the legal community to protect their profits, rather than protecting
the purses of the consumer.
I say to the minister, stop continuing to promote this charade that your
government has put together over there -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. SWEENEY: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to respond to the minister's ministerial statement. I would
like to say to the minister that something has to be done in this Province to
set the insurance industry so that it works for the people of the Province. We
have heard records of insurance companies making, what I would refer to as,
obscene profits during the last couple of years that totaled billions of dollars
that goes into their pockets.
I differ from the Official Opposition on this, as I do with the sitting
government, what we need in this Province is a public insurance plan; one that
provides fair insurance policies at a fair cost to residents of this Province,
one that is affordable, one that does not discriminate and one whose money and
profits stays in the Province to be used for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, too many young people today that I know, and everyone of us in
this House knows of young people who have to park their vehicles because the
cost for insurance -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. COLLINS: Too many young people, Mr. Speaker, have parked their
vehicles simply because they cannot afford the cost of insurance, which they are
paying more for than they are per month for the vehicle that they have
purchased. That is an unfortunate situation and one that this government should
be working towards correcting.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform the House that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board announced earlier today details of the 2005 Call for Bids in the
Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area. This Call for Bids consists of seven
parcels of land. Three of the parcels are located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin
and four are located offshore Western Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government's optimism remains buoyed by the fact that petroleum companies
continue to see potential for more discoveries - particularly when we see in
view recently Shell Canada purchasing a buy in of 20 per cent in exploration in
the Orphan Basin - but discoveries in the prolific Jeanne d'Arc Basin, a basin
which is home to two producing projects: Hibernia and Terra Nova, home to White
Rose, which is scheduled to come on stream later this year or early next, and
home to Hebron-Ben Nevis which we remain optimistic will be our fourth major
development sometime in the near future. This Call for Bids follows on the heels
of our record land sale in the fall of 2003 and encouraging results in 2004.
I am particularly pleased to note the Call for Bids includes four parcels of
land offshore Western Newfoundland. This is further evidence that our oil
industry is active on several fronts, any of which could bring the next big
discovery. In addition, companies operating onshore Western Newfoundland have
also indicated plans for both drilling and seismic programs during 2005.
Mr. Speaker, currently companies have commitments over $1 billion for
exploration work offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I am encouraged by the
resurgence of interest in the past couple of years. I am particularly encouraged
by our high level of seismic activity with areas like the Orphan, Laurentian
Basins and offshore Labrador leading the way.
I am optimistic that these areas will be our next frontier and I look
forward, on behalf of government, to the further success through the drill bit
in the Jeanne d'Arc and South Whale Basins.
Mr. Speaker, this is truer today than any other time in our history as
success in our offshore will absolutely translate into success for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our new Accord, our new found oil and gas
revenues, and our renewed pride give us reason for optimism for the future of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular this industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. It is indeed very
good to see the interest continuing in our offshore. We cannot overstate the
benefits of this industry to our Province, not only in the production end, of
course, when you actually see the stuff being pumped out, but the actual
exploration that takes place and the construction that takes place if you happen
to be lucky enough to strike a good one. It is all very beneficial and needed to
this Province.
I am somewhat concerned about the level of interest - seven parcels. I notice
none of the seven parcels this year include anything in the Laurentian Sub-basin
or the Orphan Basin or the South Whale Basin, as far as exploration this year.
We know we had a lot of activity there last year, I say to the minister. I do
not know if it is all done or not. I guess it is up to the companies, depending
on the seismic findings, whether it is done or not, but usually government puts
up the parcels for bidding depending upon the level of interest that companies
show. The fact that there are no parcels from these three basins would indicate
that there is a low level of interest at this time in these three particular
areas, but it is very good to see, overall, that we have had the East Coast
actually explored and developed. We won the case on the Laurentian Sub-basin. We
have had seismic work there last year and now the West Coast is very good to
see, and talks of Labrador. So, it is indeed good.
I just say to the minister, we need to continue to do all we can to encourage
these companies to keep up the level of activity that is there and, in fact,
spark more activity. That includes things -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired. Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that includes keeping a high
level of activity at trade shows, for example, where I do believe there are good
returns for the dollars invested. If you can spark either one of these companies
to come here with an interest in our offshore, it will be money well spent.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly encouraging to see continued interest in the exploration of
the offshore of this Province, particularly as compared to our neighbouring
province. I hope that we will see a lot of interest in these bids now on offer
by the C-NOPB.
I would also urge the government to start considering, very early, what kind
of royalty regime we have, on the success of our maintaining of our offshore oil
and gas revenues through the new Accord. We should also start now looking at
what revenues this Province actually gets on the oil that is discovered and
produced off our Province as compared to other royalty regimes around the world.
We want, ourselves, in this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. HARRIS: The people of this Province must be the principal
beneficiaries of our offshore oil and gas, and we have to make sure that the oil
companies are not getting more than their share so that we, in fact, are going
to benefit to the maximum extent possible from our offshore resources.
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have been very supportive of the provincial government's
attempt to negotiate a new revenue sharing agreement with the federal
government, and since the agreement has been reached on January 28 we have
requested a briefing from the Minister of Finance three different times on the
exact technical issues of the agreement, the first request actually being in
writing on February 2. We have yet to receive a response one way or the other.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Is he going to honour our request
for a full briefing on the details of the new revenue sharing agreement and, if
so, when might we expect that briefing to occur?
It is obvious, after what we heard about Stephenville today, that details are
somewhat important. We would like to know what they are.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The request did come in, in early February, and within a few day after that,
actually, on February 14, on Valentine's Day, I say to the Leader of the
Opposition, we released the full details to the public of this Province. He was
invited. He got a copy there, and I believe I saw him down there at that
function. All the details are there. They are laid out. They are laid out in
print.
The federal legislation is now being drafted and has to be tabled in the
House of Commons of this country so that everybody can see the exact specific
details of that legislation there. If he wants it at any time, I am only too
delighted to sit down and have my officials - or I can explain to him any of the
details of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Many uncertainties still exist regarding this new revenue sharing agreement.
On the eve of the ceremonial signing between the Minister of Finance,
provincially and federally, correspondence showed that key elements of the new
arrangements were still actually being worked out two days before.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Have all the negotiations now concluded on all
of the issues, and when - does he know when the legislation is expected to be
tabled in the House of Commons in Ottawa for approval?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I am delighted that we did strike a great deal, and we signed and agreed
on that in Ottawa on January 28, and not an iota has changed, or any details to
be worked out. If it is wording and things of that nature - absolutely content
with what we signed on the twenty-eighth, absolutely the same as you saw on
February 14.
The question, when it is going to be tabled in the House of Commons, you
should ask your colleague, the Government House Leader in Ottawa, because we
would love to see it tabled and dealt with right away.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Finance, again: Is he
saying definitively that the documents that I and others received at the
ceremony on February 14, that they are the only references, that any information
that anybody wants, all of the detail is in that document, nothing else exists;
that is the only document that gives any information with respect to this
revenue sharing agreement? Is that a fact?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, that is the document. The next document you will see will be the
legislation that is tabled in the House of Commons. Then you will see how the
federal government puts in the legislation. We are very eager to see that, and
the exact wording, and that comes to the House to make sure it agrees with
exactly what was signed on January 28, exactly what was put out to the public on
February 14, and we certainly hope it reflects it.
When we see the legislation in its final form we will know that and we will
render an opinion on that, but we have every single reason to believe that will
reflect exactly what we have signed there. It is not open to
interpretation. The
federal officials agree with the
interpretation. We agree with the same
interpretation. The people we have dealt with agree with the
interpretation. If
the Leader of the Opposition has a question about any aspect that he would like
clarified, ask the question and we will answer it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I greatly appreciate the invitation, and intend to do so.
Mr. Speaker, last June, two days after the phone call from the Prime
Minister, the Premier of this Province stood in the House and said: The
commitment that I received is worth $700 million over the next four years. It is
in Hansard. It was said right here in this Legislature.
I ask the Minister of Finance: On what basis was the $700 million calculated,
and specifically, what estimate was used at that point in time for the price of
a barrel of oil to arrive at a $700 million value?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to an
article that appeared and the hon. Leader of the
Opposition was quoted. He was talking about the $700 million. He said: Ottawa's
offer to the Province is pretty much exactly what Williams claimed Newfoundland
would get in June, some $700 million over four years, double the $1.4 billion
over eight years. What is it that our Premier now is in a rant about, turning
down $1.4 billion over eight years? Well, we have $2 billion in cash.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That wasn't even part of the original deal. We came
up with $2 billion in cash, plus we will get the benefit of the interest on that
which could possibly be another $750 million. That is $2.75 billion. That $2
billion, depending on where equalization is and the price of oil, could be $2.6
plus the $750 million. It could also go as high was $3.9 if we stay under the
equalization line. The $700 million that you would have been prepared to take,
the $1.4 billion that you told us to take, has more than doubled and may even
triple before it is all over. That is your position.
The other thing is, despite your claim -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier to conclude his answer quickly now.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
Despite your claim to undying support throughout this, I would quote you.
November 3, 2004: From day one we have stated that the Premier has bungled this
file. We will let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will take the Minister of Finance up again on his offer to answer any
question. The question was this one - and that was not my position, Mr. Speaker.
It was the Premier himself who said: It is worth $700 million over four years.
Let me ask the question again: When the Premier stood in this House, not me, and
said, it is worth $700 million in four years, what assumption was being used -
because the provincial government provided all the figures in this negotiation -
what assumption was being used at that point in time with respect to the price
of a barrel of oil, for the Premier to stand up and brag that it was going to be
worth $700 million in four years? A direct question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, assumptions are based on a variety of things.
They are based not only on the price of oil; they are also based on the value of
the Canadian dollar. The stronger the Canadian dollar, the less favourable it is
for us; the weaker the dollar, the more favourable.
We did numerous scenarios at numerous price ranges. We did numerous scenarios
at various Canadian dollars. We provided all the data to the federal government,
that they pontificated out there what the amounts would be in the public. It
came from our department with numerous scenarios. We gave dozens of scenarios
out there with all different sets of situations. You can pick out whatever one
you want and go back, in retrospect, and say, at this price it is a certain
amount, at this dollar it is a certain amount. It changes every day, and as
negotiations went on we saw that with the increasing price of oil it was more
advantageous to us, and if it stays higher it is more advantageous again. The $2
billion would be a floor. It might be one half of what the Premier referred to,
of what we may actually get on this deal over and above our own entitlements.
Not only that, I might add, we added -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to complete his answer quickly.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have added. We have not only used this assumption, but since that time we
have added another year to the current Atlantic Accord to increase the agreement
that was already there to extend it out for a full eight years. So, there are
numerous other incremental benefits we got, and hopefully it stays up. The
Leader of the Opposition might have to suffer through the agony of another $2
billion on top of the $ 2 billion we got. Hopefully he will be able to deal with
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know they are having difficulty answering a direction question, but it is
an important direct question. Mr. Speaker, it leads to this question: The
Minister of Finance said there were a number of scenarios that were proposed. I
asked a direct question. Which scenario was the Premier talking about when he
concluded definitively that it was going to be worth $700 million in four years?
Which one of those scenarios? Because the next question, Mr. Speaker, is this:
What scenario was used - because it was different one - on January 28, when the
values changed? What scenario was used on January 28, compared to the scenario
that was used on June 7? Would the minister like to describe which scenario was
used each time, and how it changed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We said from day one that we wanted 100 per cent of offshore revenues that
were going to accrue to our Province without being subject to clawback under
equalization while we are an equalization-receiving Province. Regardless of what
that meant, we wanted 100 per cent. Whether the price went up or went down, it
did not make any difference; we wanted 100 per cent. We argued that. We were not
prepared in October - it was laid on the table at a meeting in Ottawa when I
attended there. They wanted to offer us a lump sum for eight years, $1.4
billion, and we would not take it. That is when the Natural Resources Minister
came down and told the people we were leaving $1.4 billion on the table; we had
to deal with it. We wanted 100 per cent. If that is $2 billion or $1.5 billion
or $5 billion or $10 billion, we wanted what is rightfully ours.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: We were not going to enter into another Upper Churchill,
where there is no escalator, and jeopardize the future of the people in this
Province. We made sure we covered that, and that is in that agreement there
whether the Leader of the Opposition likes it or not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I can tell him, with my reading of the information from February 14, if
that is the only documentation that occurs, that what he just described is not
on those two pages that were signed here in Newfoundland on February 14.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question, because he does not want to answer
direct questions but we are going to ask direct questions because the people
deserve and need to know. The Premier has indicated that he actually signed and
secured a sixteen-year deal; yet the second eight years, as everybody does know,
is subject to several different conditions. It is very much a maybe.
Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion floor is a good protection against prices
drastically decreasing, but what provision is there? Because it is certainly not
in any documentation that I have seen so far. What provision is there in any
concrete form to protect future revenues if the price of oil remains high like
it is today, at $55 a barrel? That is why I asked: What was the estimate used in
June for the price of a barrel of oil?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: What estimate was used in January? What estimate is going to
be used throughout the process to calculate our entitlement?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If someone has a crystal ball they cannot predict definitively into the
future. Equalization is changing in 2006-2007. One of the things to protect our
future, we wanted a guarantee that if the federal government changes
equalization in the future, we do not want to be compromised on the 100 per cent
principle. Therefore, we got a condition in this agreement that an independent
audit would be done to determine and adhere to that 100 per cent principle. That
guarantees it in the future. Beyond the eight years, the federal government was
not prepared to give, basically, anything beyond the eight years. We were
successful in negotiating beyond the eight years, that if we are off
equalization in those two years we could be in jeopardy, so we built in - and we
had a tough fight to get this. We went right to the limit to ensure that if we
are an equalization receiving Province in 2010 and 2011, or 2011 and 2012, and
our per capita debt servicing costs are not lower than at least four other
provinces in this country - that has never happened, we are double now the next
province - than we will get this for the next eight years. That is the best
possible date we could secure. One that we never thought -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is justifying the implementation of production
quotas for crab processors by saying it was recommended in the Dunne report. In
actual fact, Mr. Dunne states in that report, and I quote: The proposal for
Individual Raw Material Shares - which is a production quota - should only
proceed when processors can satisfy the minister that there are, or will be, no
substantive and reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters.
I ask the minister, why is he dictating production quotas when harvesters and
plant workers obviously have substantive and reasonable objections to them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding to implement raw material
shares in the crab fishery in 2005, and we are doing it on the basis of a number
of factors that we see in the industry right now and in the marketplace. We see
an industry that is under jeopardy as a result of substantial inventories that
are being carried in the U.S. market. We see an industry that is jeopardized as
a result of a higher Canadian dollar than we have seen in quite a number of
years; a dollar that has taken $60 million to $70 million out of the crab
fishery over the past two years. We see a resource that is in potential decline.
We see a number of factors like that, that lead to volatility and instability in
the industry, and we are acting on a number of reports that were commissioned by
the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he was the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture in this Province. Two reports, one by Mr. Vardy and one by Mr.
Dunne. The one by Mr. Vardy when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was
minister. One by Mr. Dunne when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and one by Mr. David Jones, who was
commissioned by the Minister of Labour in the previous Administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious that the minister quotes or misquotes Eric Dunne when it is
convenient for him to do so, when he wants to fool the people in the Province
into believing that what he did last week was recommended by Mr. Dunne; which is
not true.
Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech last year this same government said it
would consult before it acts and be inclusive when it consults. Mr. Speaker, I
ask the minister, why didn't you consult with the vast majority of individuals
in the fishing industry, the plant workers and the harvesters around this
Province, before you sided with the crab processors in this Province and
implemented or dictated production quotas upon them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on this matter there were extensive consultations and extensive
discussions over the course of about three to four months last winter and spring
as it related to both shrimp and crab. We implemented a raw material sharing
system in shrimp last summer, as everybody in the Province knows. It went
reasonably well. We know there are problems there that have to be addressed. We
are working to try to address those. We know that there are concerns by many
people in the industry about a raw material sharing system for crab and we are
prepared to sit down and discuss with all people in the industry how we might
best address those concerns.
Mr. Speaker, given the volatility of the market and the industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador, we believe that this is the best option to go
forward, and we did not do it like the previous Administration did in 2001.
Maybe he might want to tell the House where he was in late September 2001 when
the Premier of the day, the Leader of the Opposition today, ordered the Deputy
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to sign an authorization, an order on
plant production quotas in the shrimp fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talks about consulting with industry participants after he has
his decision made. It is obvious that he has consulted with the processors but
he has not consulted with the members of the FFAW.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo and I ask all members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two years ago this minister and his leader, the now Premier, said they had
enough evidence. They asked the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate what
they called a cartel in the fish processing sector in this Province. They
indicated, at that time, that they felt processors were colluding to limit
competition in the industry.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why is he now turning his back upon a union
that he was once so proud to be a part of and jump into bed and legalize a
cartel, something he asked the Competition Bureau to investigate just two years
ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just a factual correction there. It wasn't two years ago when
we asked the Competition Bureau to look at this matter, it was just about four
years ago. I believe at the time the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the
member today for Twillingate & Fogo, said that he saw no evidence of
anti-competitive behaviour in the industry and didn't know why we were running
off to the Competition Bureau to ask to have it investigate. Today he stands
here and says that there wasn't anti-competitive behaviour and asks why we are
doing what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, we plan, in the introduction of plant production quotas or raw
material shares or production caps, whatever you want to term it, based on
reports that were commissioned by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he
was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and his colleagues on the other
side of the House, in four separate reports, we are planning on dealing with the
issue of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to strengthen that act
so that harvesters can have better access and better tools to deal with the
setting of prices at the spring of the year. We are also ordering a disclosure
of sales invoices by the processing sector to an independent auditing firm, Mr.
Speaker. (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a final
supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister just said that he believed at that time there was a cartel and
he gave every indication that he thinks there is still one today.
I ask the minister: If that is the case, why are you establishing a cartel
under legislation? Is it because you don't want to deal with it and this is
the best way that you can hide and run from your duties?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, there is nobody on this side of the House hiding
from issues like a previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did. There is
nobody on this side of the House who is prepared to commission reports and then
let them sit and collect dust, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to do something to
stabilize the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I admit what we are doing
may not be perfect, but it is worth a try.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: As for the issue as it related to the cartel, or alleged
anti-competitive behaviour, we, Mr. Speaker, once again took action and asked
for it to be investigated, and it was investigated. The Competition Bureau,
rightly or wrongly, said that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed any
further. Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing to do now is to deal with the issue
as it relates to potential anti-competitive behaviour. We are planning on
formalizing a process of sharing in the industry that everybody knows about as
opposed to something that may have happened in the past under their watch that
nobody could prove was taking place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
How can this minister claim that his program of giving raw material shares to
crab processors is in keeping with the recommendations of the Dunne Commission
when Mr. Dunne clearly states that even a pilot project should not proceed in
the face of substantive and reasonable objection from plant workers and
harvesters?
Will the minister not acknowledge the overwhelming objections from harvesters
and plant workers in their union and go back to the drawing board on this issue?
Doesn't he know that this system will not work without the co-operation of the
fishermen's union, the harvesters and the plant workers to make it work?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that we cannot force fishermen to fish, we
acknowledge that we cannot force processors to process, and we cannot force
plant workers to go inside processing facilities if none of them want to. That
we understand. We also understand that Mr. Dunne said they should not proceed if
there were substantive and reasonable objections to it. That is why we have
proposed to address the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to mandate a
dispute resolution mechanism that will bind both parties in the industry, at the
end of the day, if they fail to negotiate. We also propose to order processing
companies to disclose actual sales invoices to an independent auditing firm so
that the people in the industry know what the actual price for crab is, as
opposed to what is being reported, as it was in the past.
Mr. Speaker, from the plant workers perspective, concerns about corporate
concentration and transfer ability of sharing is an issue that we take
seriously, which is why we have proposed a two-year moratorium on
transferability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Dunne Commission report, this system of production quotas
has never been put in place in any fishery in the world, and the benefits are
unproven and uncertain. Why is the minister proceeding, in the face of an almost
certain shutdown of the crab fishery this year, to achieve an untried and
unproven system that only the crab processors want, and they want it because it
will give them control over the industry and overwhelmingly transfer the
bargaining power away from the workers, the fishermen, the harvesters and the
plant workers, and pass it over to the plant owners? Why is the minister doing
that without the proper consultation, without working out the details before it
happens?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the concept of raw material shares has been
reviewed and reported on and recommended by the Fishing Industry Renewal Board
back in 1996, the Vardy report of 2001, the Jones report of 2003, and the Dunne
report of 2003, to name just four.
Mr. Speaker, there were also issues related to corporate concentration that
were raised by the Dean report, I think it was, back in 2002, when the previous
Administration were in government. We are trying to deal with those, Mr.
Speaker.
As for the suggestion that this has not been tried anywhere in the world,
there is one place in Alaska, in the Alaskan crab fishery, where this concept is
being introduced as part of an IQ system that is being introduced for the
harvesters. At the same time, and appropriately so, I believe, the sharing
system is being implemented in the processing sector.
Mr. Speaker, had this been dealt with back in 1996, probably when it should
have been, it would have been introduced as part of the IQ system that was done
for fishermen and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, won't the minister acknowledge that the result
of this IQ system, and the transferability that will eventually come, will be
more concentration in the fishery and less individual control by harvesters over
their future?
Why is the minister pursuing this reckless course of action that he knows is
almost certain to lead to the shutdown of the crab fishery this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, shutdowns in the fishery are not an uncommon occurrence in the
fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen it many, many times over the
years. In just about every season for the past five or six, there have been
shutdowns in either shrimp or crab for a variety of reasons. We do not suggest
that what we are proposing to do is going to fix that problem, but we do know,
based on reports from the market, and certainly I heard it in Boston this past
week, that two major buyers, major promoters of Newfoundland and Labrador crab,
are considering delisting Newfoundland and Labrador crab because of issues
related to quality and inconsistency of supply.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that Dunne reported on, that Vardy
reported on, that Jones reported on, as a measure to stabilize and protect
ourselves against issues like this in the market. We are prepared to do it, Mr.
Speaker. Is it reckless? No, it is not reckless. It is reckless to handle the
fishery the way the previous Administration did, which is to take an approach to
it and just keep it on life support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Last month, I sent out a press release urging this government not to give any
special considerations or special deals to Abitibi-Consolidated that would
adversely affect the mill in Corner Brook. The minister said that there was no
consideration for any special arrangement, and anything that would be done would
be done for all mills. Now we see a million dollar secret deal given to Abitibi
for sixty days, with no guarantees. How can the minister justify giving Abitibi
a $1 million grant, with no guarantees, while the company continues to
re-evaluate their operations in Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify, first of all, secret deal.
Now, here is what would have been a secret deal. A secret deal would have been
what we found out on the front page of The Telegram today, when you send
a letter to a shipping company telling them they have a contract and you phone
back half an hour later asking them to rip it up, and then the court has to
decide. That is a bit of a secret deal. It is not a secret when the government
responsible releases the information for everybody to see, which is exactly what
we did today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, that what we
are interested in is protecting every mill worker no matter where they live in
the Province; no matter where they live or where they reside.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier and I had the luxury, had the absolute luxury,
to meet with, for example, Mr. Kruger recently, and his operations in Corner
Brook, and what we said to Abitibi and what we said to Kruger are exactly the
same thing: that each mill has its own particular peculiar circumstances that
they may need help in. Kruger has it as well, and we will deal with them up
front and honestly, but what we will not do, Mr. Speaker, is ask one mill to
subsidize another one, and that is a principle we will not compromise because it
is not fair to them and it is not fair to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for a very brief supplementary and a very brief answer.
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: A million dollars is a pretty good subsidy, I say to the
minister.
Mr. Speaker, the government has stated they have no intentions of amending
Bill 27. Will the minister commit to live up to the spirit and intent of this
legislation and not allow access to the wood supply on Crown lands if Abitibi
does not maintain a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me let the Member for Bay of Islands in on
a secret. I just gave a Ministerial Statement, whether you were listening or
not, that we will not amend Bill 27, which means that we will demand a
two-machine operation in Grand Falls, which is exactly what the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans, the unions, and the people in Central Newfoundland asked for
yesterday, and we gave it to them today, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Now, with respect to the direction of the flow of wood, I
believe was the second part of your question, why don't you ask your own
leader who, in August of 2007, talked about how he had a deal - August 2003,
sorry, August 7, 2003 - who wrote John Weaver, the President of Abitibi, to say
that we had a deal (inaudible) direction of the flow of wood?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him. He will give you his answer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated to Oral Questions has expired.
I will ask direction from the House. Is it the wish of the House to continue
with routine proceedings, or do you wish to now go to the Orders of the Day and
the private member's motion?
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we have Presenting Reports by Standing and Select
Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to just give an interim report on the Standing Committee dealing with
the House Standing Orders. We have met over - a couple of times between when the
House closed and now today when the House opened. What I would like to do on
behalf of the Committee, with representatives, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi, my colleague the Opposition House Leader, and some colleagues on this side
as well, just to give an interim report.
I would like to move: One, that the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly
be amended by the insertion immediately after Standing Order 2(2) of the
following:
(1.1) Following a General Election the Members shall elect a Speaker
immediately after the administration of the oath or affirmation of office.
Two, that Standing Order 7(1) be revoked and the following substituted: The
Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. No
debate shall be permitted on any such decision and no such decision shall be
subject to an appeal to the House. In explaining a point of order or practice,
the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
Three, that Standing Order 24(1) be amended by the insertion immediately
after (
d) the following: (d.1) Tabling of documents.
Four - this is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker - that Standing Order 46(4) be
revoked and the following substituted: 46(4) The Member speaking immediately in
reply to the Minister of Finance in giving the Budget Speech shall be limited to
twice the amount of time used by the Minister or three hours, whichever is
greater.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I must say, Mr. Speaker, it came at some -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Five, that the following be added immediately after
Standing Order 60(3): 60.1 A motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the
House for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House shall be
decided without debate or amendment.
Six, that the Standing Order 74(1) be amended by the insertion, immediately
after the words and figures "Standing Order 72.", of the following,
and I quote: "Such motion shall be decided without debate or
amendment."
Seven, that Standing Orders 119-128 be revoked subject to the enactment of
legislation - which is being put forward in the name of the Opposition House
Leader, myself when we get to the legislative part of this session.
Eight, that Practice Recommendation 1(1)(
a) be amended by the insertion
immediately after the word "break" of the following: "from the
end of the sitting day on Maundy Thursday".
Nine, the traditional parliamentary rule of Anticipation no longer apply in
the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ten, and that the Clerk of the House of Assembly be authorized to renumber
and reprint the Standing Orders making all necessary adjustments and revisions
in order to carry out the spirit and intent of the above noted changes to the
Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that this is an interim report, that
the committee is continuing to work on other changes. My sense is that when we
come back in the fall we will have the full body of our work completed. We
continue to talk, and we discussed a number of issues relating to when the House
should open, how long it will open, introducing a sort of a more friendly
practice, maybe opening earlier, closing earlier. Those decisions have not been
made and we hope to achieve those through consensus, and we are working towards
that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the resolution?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was not aware that we were going to vote on this right away. I just want to
say a few words as a participant in this committee. What the committee is
working on is very important to the future of, not only this House but future
Houses. We have a number of matters that have yet to be finalized. The interim
report, as the Government House Leader has said, covers a number of things that
there was a fairly immediate consensus on.
I have to say, I was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the changes
being made to the Budget Debate. Having been here for nearly fifteen years now
and having listened or not listened, as the case may be, to numerous lengthy
speeches, including some by Your Honour, as well as the current Minister of
Finance, the current Opposition House Leader. So, I probably have heard, perhaps
not as many as the Member for Lewisporte going back over the years, but it
seemed to have gotten into a competition from one year to the next, almost like
the Guinness Book of World Records of the House of Assembly, who could speak the
longest and be the most boring and deter the most people from watching it on TV
as time went on. I think it is a practice that really ought to be changed. I
want to recognize that the committee has been working very co-operatively on
issues such as this, despite the fact that, even in this instance, it will limit
the debate in the coming session of the House as we enter into the Budget
Debate.
I look forward to a continuing success with this committee and see if we can
achieve some significant reforms to the Standing Orders of the House so that
private members can participate more fully and that all members of the House can
have a more effective system for the views of elected representatives to be
heard and to be effective in bringing about a change in the House of Assembly.
So, I support these recommendations and look forward to an opportunity for
this committee to meet further over the next while and come up with further
recommendations that will be beneficial to this House and future Houses.
MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the motion put forward by the Government
House Leader?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
I wish to advise members that the appropriate modification has been made to
the booklet that we have on Standing Orders and that will be distributed to
members within the next several days.
Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
Section 28 (4) (
e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling one special warrant relating to the 2004-2005 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: As Speaker of the House of Assembly, pursuant to
Section 39
of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1997, I hereby table the annual
report of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Police Complaints Commission for
the period April 1 2003 to March 31 2004.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting
of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2; and further I give notice that I will
on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of supply to Her Majesty,
Bill 4.
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 give notice of a petition. It is containing 127 names. It was
sent to me by the Chair of CAW Local 597 of the Women's Committee. It is
concerning the decision, or maybe not full decision, by the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment to look at closing out the Committee Against
Violence office located at 5 Hardy Avenue in Grand Falls-Windsor.
When I heard of this possibility, I met with the central co-ordinator and I
could not believe what I was hearing, because for the past seven years that
particular office has received funding from various government sources and has
been able to stay open. I couldn't believe that a minister who is in charge of
the Status of Women would be looking at cutting off funding for this
organization that plays such a vital role in our community. It has a volunteer
base that works with the central committee, and they look after violence
prevention services right from Eastport to Westport. Every volunteer agency that
is in the central region is connected to the Committee Against Violence. We have
RCMP, mental health, food bank, public health nursing, child youth mental health
services, the hospital - you name them - they are all involved.
Do you know that the central co-ordinator, Ms Lorraine Hearn, I knew her when
she started to operate this organization. Prior to getting government funding
seven years ago, she actually had her own telephone number listed, as public
information, for anyone who was in need of protection from violence, or any of
those victim services. She allowed her own telephone number to be used as a
contact point, and she herself would try and assist people who needed help with
any of these issues.
Let's face it, government should not expect people to operate a victim
violence centre in their own home, seven years later. There is no way that an
individual should take on that responsibility.
With the $2 billion windfall that this government has received from the
Atlantic Accord, anything to deal with social issues, health care issue,
educational issues, all of those vital services should not be axed.
I would like to say to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment: Rethink your decision. Do not jump ship when so many people are
depending on you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS THISTLE: If I could just have a few seconds?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS THISTLE: When 127 people commit to put their names on a petition like
this, there is a lot of meaning that goes behind it. On top of that 127 names, I
have a stack of individuals who wrote me personally on this matter. I know
things are moving quickly today, there is a lot of business to be done our first
day back, but hopefully tomorrow I will be able to pick up this issue again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is
moving a private member's resolution.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise today to put forward a motion. It concerns the production
quotas within the crab processing sector of our Province, that the minister
outlined last week in a press conference. I want to put this motion forward, and
what I will be asking at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister
delay this decision, this edict that he passed upon the harvesters and the plant
workers of the Province last week. I will be asking him, at the end of the day,
if he would postpone this imposition of production quotas until it is agreed
upon by the FFAW and the processors, and not just by the processors in the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, what the minister did last week is, he said that when the House
opens - which it opened yesterday - some time in the next couple of weeks we
will be asked, in this House, to pass a piece of legislation that will have, I
believe, more far-reaching effects on the fishing industry of our Province than
any other piece of legislation that has ever been passed in this House of
Assembly since 1949.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that it will change the way the fishing industry
of our Province is run, or has been run, forever. Mr. Speaker, I am talking
about the legislation pertaining to production quotas for crab,
whereas the
minister refers to them as raw material sharing.
In the short period of time that I am allotted, I will give you the reasons I
think the minister is presenting or imposing this upon the harvesters and plant
workers of the Province, and why I am adamantly opposed to production quotas, as
I am sure many people in this House are today.
Mr. Speaker, under this scheme, for the first time in the history of the
Province, the minister will allocate a portion of the total amount of crab that
is landed by harvesters in this Province to individual plant owners or
individual plants. Mr. Speaker, that has never been done before in history.
As we all know, up until now, a fisherman or a harvester went out and he
caught his crab, and prior to doing that a price was negotiated with the union
and the processors in this Province, but it was usually a minimum price, and
once the fishery started then a fisherman basically went to whichever processor
in the Province offered him the most for his catch. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this
is the way it has been going on for quite some time. I cannot say it is the way
it has always happened because, as we know, in the fish merchants days prices
were never negotiated and fishermen probably did not find out what they were
being paid for fish until the end of the season, when they were rudely surprised
and rudely awakened to find out that they were not being paid very much.
Mr. Speaker, what the minister, by bringing in this piece of legislation,
will do, is eliminate all competition among processors in this Province, and
therefore a fisherman will be forced to sell his catch probably for far less
than he has been receiving for it in past years. Now, you might want to say why
the minister is doing this. For his own reasons, he said, he is doing it to
create stability in the industry and because it was recommended by Mr. Eric
Dunne in the Dunne report.
Well, let me just address the second part of that first, where he says he is
doing this because of what Eric Dunne recommended in the Dunne report. Mr.
Speaker, the minister, in the past few months, has blamed a lot of things on
Eric Dunne, and twisted Mr. Dunne's words a number of times for his own
purposes. One was last year when he talked about setting up a licencing board.
Eric Dunne recommended an arm's-length licencing board for the issuance of
processing licences in the Province, and what the minister set up basically was
another level of bureaucracy whereby he still controls the licencing of fish
plants.
Mr. Speaker, to quote directly from Mr. Dunne, what Mr. Dunne actually
recommended in his report was, he said that we should look at the proposal for
individual raw material shares or production quotas only when - and it is on
page 149 in Recommendation 9.12 of the Dunne report - he said that raw material
shares should only proceed when processors can satisfy the minister that there
will be no substantive and reasonable objections by plant workers and
harvesters.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, since the minister unilaterally went out
and announced he was going to have production quotas just one week ago, we found
that harvesters and plant workers from all around this Province are adamantly
opposed to production quotas for crab, and the reason they are opposed to it is,
they believe it will put more power, more control, back into the hands of
processors than we have witnessed in the last fifty, sixty or 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about stability - when the minister talks about
stability - this will create stability. Already he is not doing what Mr. Dunne
suggested he should do, listen to the harvesters and plant workers before he
implements this. He did not do this. Now he is talking about creating stability
in the industry, and he says he is going to do this by dictating or imposing
production quotas upon harvesters.
I would like to know how he is going to create stability when 99 per cent of
the harvesters in this Province are adamantly opposed to production quotas. I
don't know how he is going to create stability. What he will do, Mr. Speaker,
is eliminate competition. If we can remember in the history of our Province,
wealthy fish merchants usually dictated to fishermen when they fish, what they
fish for, and for how much they were going to fish for.
Mr. Speaker, once we eliminate competition from and among processors in this
Province what we will end up with is what today's minister and the Premier
called a few years ago, a cartel in the fishing industry. What that means, a
cartel is a group of people who collude to limit competition. Mr. Speaker, if
you limit competition in the processing sector so that one processor is not
competing with another on the head of a wharf for the fish that a fisherman is
landing in this Province, all that is going to happen is that fisherman or that
harvester is going to be offered far less for his catch than he had been used to
in the last ten or fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge any economist in this country to tell me that I am
wrong or to prove to me that I am wrong, because anytime you eliminate
competition there are only two things that can happen. If you are selling
something and there is no competition, then you can ask what you want for that.
Mr. Speaker, if you are buying something and no competition, you will definitely
drive the price down. All you have to do is look at what happened in the airline
industry in this country when you talk about lack of competition. Jetsgo went
out of business on Thursday or Friday of last week and already we see the ticket
prices on airlines going up in this Province. The same thing will happen in the
fishing industry this year, only it will happen in reverse.
When processors in this Province are no longer competing on the heads of
wharfs for the catches of fishermen and harvesters in this Province, Mr.
Speaker, I will guarantee you that the price for fishermen will go down. Not
only will the price go down, Mr. Speaker, but other things will happen to those
fishermen. For example, many fishermen in the Province receive bait at a
discount from processors because they wanted their crab badly. They also
received ice from processors because they wanted their crab badly. Mr. Speaker,
they had other arrangements with processors because these processors needed
these fishermen because they wanted them to land their crab there. Now, if you
eliminate the competition among these processors and each individual processor
is guaranteed - as he is going to be under this scheme - a certain amount of
crab each year, then it only goes without saying that these fishermen will not
get their ice, the price for bait will go up, other things will go up and the
price that they are going to be offered for crab will go down.
Mr. Speaker, the minister also talks about the need for change in this
industry. Why do we need change in an industry? The minister says we need change
because we need stability; that each year the fishery is interrupted because of
shutdowns, because harvesters and plant owners cannot come to an agreement on
the price. Well, I say in the six or seven years that we had Final Offer
Selection mechanism in the fishing industry, the industry worked fairly well. I
look at the Member for Bonavista North down there who worked with a processor in
that area and he knows that it worked pretty well.
These processors came to me in 2002 and asked me for production quotas for
crab, and I said: No, I will not give you production quotas for crab unless it
was negotiated between the FFAW and the processors. I will not unilaterally say
yes, I am giving you the processors. The reason that they said - they told me at
the time - they wanted production quotas is because harvesters were making too
much money off their product. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, that
I am one who believes that fishermen, harvesters in this Province should be the
primary beneficiaries of the fishing industries, not the wealthy fish merchants
in this Province. So, he is saying that he is going to add stability by doing
this.
When I told these processors back in 2002 that they were not getting
production quotas for crab, they told me: If you do not give it to us, we are
backing out of Final Offer Selection. We are backing out of the mechanism now of
how we used the set price for the last six or seven years and that we will force
you, Mr. Minister, to give us production quotas. Well, I told them then and I
will tell them now, I will not do it. I told them that then, and if it was my
decision today I would tell them again: I will not do it. I will not force
harvesters in this Province to live on their production quotas where they are
going to get the shaft by fish merchants in this Province and they are going to
force them to go back to conditions that they had 100 years ago, when they
fished all summer and were told in the fall of the year that they did not have
any money, when they did see money. Because many fishermen in this Province
never saw a cent, never saw a cent. That is where this government wants us to go
back to today.
Now, after you bring in these production quotas he says it is good for plant
workers, it is good for processors, it is good for plant workers in the
Province. Well, let me ask you this. If, for example, a processor knows that he
is going to have 10 million pounds of crab next year, or 15 million or 20
million or 5 million, that might be fine for him, but, Mr. Speaker, once he gets
that and he can
schedule his fishermen so that they can come in when he wants
them to come in, I ask this question, and maybe the Member for Bonavista North
who worked for a fish processing company can tell me, once that processor knows
he has his quota for the year, once he knows he can
schedule his fishermen to
arrive at that plant whenever he wants them to - I want to ask the Member for
Bonavista North - will that processor still employ the same number of people as
he has in the past? I can answer it for him as well, Mr. Speaker. The answer is
no.
The reason why most plants in this Province have two shifts is because
fishermen decide when they go to fish and they decide when they are going to
land it. As a result of that, a lot of crab comes in, in a short period of time.
As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, if the plant owners can
schedule fishermen,
they will have no reason whatsoever to have a second shift in a plant, because
they can stagger the boats so that they come in in an orderly fashion, and you
can eliminate half the plant workers they currently have in these production
facilities.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that really and truly frightens me about
production quotas, the thing that I couldn't agree to when I was minister and
I wouldn't agree to today, is the transfer ability of production quotas. Mr.
Speaker, I have two crab processing facilities in my district. If, for example,
one of them wants to sell out next year, now that he has a commodity that is
worth something to sell - because prior to this piece of legislation going
through the House he has his license and he has his plant, and that license
stayed with the community, it stayed with the plant in the community. What the
minister is doing now, attaching to the license and the plant, he is also
attaching a production quota, something of great value to these processors.
For example, if one of those smaller processors in my district, or any other
district in the Province, wanted or determined that he was going to sell his
quota - right now he has something valuable to sell - it would be snapped up
like that. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? The quota would be transferred and the
license and that plant would no longer exist in those communities. What really
frightens me, Mr. Speaker, is that is where I see the fishing industry going if
this government is permitted to go ahead with what they are proposing in this
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation, because,
number one, it will eliminate competition and it will drive the price down that
is going to be offered to our fishermen and our harvesters around the Province.
I think that most people with a grain of sense would realize that is true. When
you don't have to compete for something, you don't have to offer as much for
it.
The other thing, it will not lend stability to plant workers in this Province
because, for one thing, I think that their numbers will be reduced dramatically
when the processors have complete control over the quota, when it will be
caught, at what time it will be caught, when it will be landed, and when it will
be processed, because they will not need the workers that they have now to take
care of peak times.
Mr. Speaker, the transferable quotas that these plants will have, and the
value attached to them, what I think you will see in the very near future is
that you are going to see a lot of individual small plants being sold off to the
bigger ones, and you are going to see a lot of consolidation in the industry.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, all I can say is this: If people want to see how
production quotas look, and how production quotas work, all you have to do is
look at FPI. FPI has had production quotas; they have had their own quotas since
1979. They have had their own quotas since they established themselves, and
their quotas were distributed among a number of plants in the Province, and in
their quest to show more and more profits year over year over year, what have
they done? They have taken their quotas from towns like Harbour Breton, they
have taken their quotas from towns like Fortune, they have moved them into other
towns, and what has happened to the people, and what is going to happen to the
communities in which these quotas previously existed? I say, Mr. Speaker, they
are in for a very bleak future, and I warn any plant worker or anyone who lives
in a community with a crab processing facility to be very wary of signing on to
what the Minister of Fisheries is asking you for in this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate what I want the government to do
again before I sit down, and what it is:
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of
Assembly calls upon government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed
upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended - I might say - in the Dunne
report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to pass a few comments on the issue of the day and the issue of the
month and the issue of next month, too, I dare say: raw material sharing in the
crab fishery.
Mr. Speaker, let's go back a little ways in time. We do not have to go a
long ways, but we will go back a little ways. It has been widely acknowledged by
most people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, most people in the
fishing industry, and I suspect most people in this House of Assembly, that
there are considerable structural problems in the fishing industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not just me saying that. There have been a
number of people, and a number of people who sat in the chair of the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture over the past number of years, who I suspect must have
recognized it; because, had they not recognized it, why then did they spend so
much of the taxpayers' money commissioning people and groups to travel
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and to travel throughout the world, to
look at fishing industries and to provide reports to government on what should
be done?
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here today is deal with about $2
million worth of paper right here that the previous Administration commissioned
to be studied and reported on over a period spanning from this report on the
Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in the Fishing Industry - Les Dean,
chair; Harold Wareham, panel member; and Sam Walters, panel member, September 5,
2001 - we are pleased to present our report. That was the mandate that was given
to them on September 5, 2001; the report was received on the fifteenth day of
November 2001.
September 2002, Mr. David Vardy as chair, Mr. Ross Peters as panel member,
and Brian Delaney as panel member and director of research, were asked to review
the Newfoundland and Labrador cooked and peeled shrimp industry. Mr. Speaker,
that was announced on December 10, 2001. The mandate was, the report was
delivered to government on March 31, 2002; nothing done with that by the
previous Administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this one here, A Review Of The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, A Framework for Stability, it is called, delivered on
October 3, 2003. Well, we would not expect them to do much with that; it was
only eighteen days before the election. Nevertheless, they commissioned Mr.
David Jones, the previous Administration did, to conduct a review of the Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act, so we got that report.
Mr. Speaker, back in the midst of a shutdown in the summer of 2003 - I do not
know if I will find the letter here or not, but anyway - the bottom line was,
some time in July or August, I think it was - in August, I think it was - Mr.
Eric Dunne was commissioned by the previous Administration to conduct a review
of fish processing policies for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That
report was delivered to me on the fourteenth or fifteenth of December, I believe
it was, 2003.
Now, every one of those reports - and there have been others, I am sure, that
have looked at different aspects of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing
industry, but every one of those in particular - looked at issues related to
corporate concentration, consolidation of ownership, whichever way you want to
spin it, looked at issues as it related to instability in the industry, raw
material sharing, issues related to stabilization for plant workers, looked at
issues related to the quality of the product that was being put out by our
industry, what were the various factors that impacted the quality that was being
put out by industry, why were we having shutdowns from time to time, and
reviewed the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, and reported back to government.
Three out of the four recommended that there be a raw material sharing system
put in place in the fishery. The other one was not asked to look at that type of
thing, it was looking at corporate concentration and suggested that there be
limits put on corporate concentration in the industry.
Mr. Speaker, why did we roll out two weeks ago? We rolled out a system of raw
material shares in the crab sector. Mr. Speaker, it is being portrayed by the
Opposition and by the fearmongers throughout the Province that what we are doing
is capitulating to the processing sector. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's set the
facts straight as to what the processing sector was looking for:
Transferability, immediately, they set the shares, no requirement for disclosure
of sales invoices. They did not propose any changes to the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, to have a mediation, arbitration process put in
place. They wanted shares based on buy, not on production. They are not
advocating that there be limits on corporate concentration. They are not
advocating that there be limits on control of ownership. For the record, Mr.
Speaker, under the old system, under the system -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: Well, you talk to some of the ones on the deck of the boats,
and you talk to some of the ones out in Fogo, and you might find that there are
some people who actually want to give this a try, I say to the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo. Maybe he should check with a lot of people in Fogo and
find out what they think. He might find out, if he checked with the chair of the
Fogo Island Co-op, who happens to be, I do not know, a fifty-five foot boat
owner, if I am not mistaken, I forget the exact size of his boat now, Mr. Glen
Best, if you check with him, he was on - I am not going to say anything that he
did not say publicly - he certainly was in the media saying that he supported
this and thought that we should go forward with it.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Member for Twillingate & Fogo might want to
consult with a few more of his constituents. Maybe he might want to check -
MR. REID: You might want to consult with Mr. Cassell in your own
district.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I might want to check with Mr. Cassell in my own
district. I am very familiar with Mr. Cassell's view on this, very familiar
with it. I also know what Hedley Richards' view is on this issue, and Norm
Cull, and Mike Symonds, and Harry Hopkins, and I can go on with a list your arm
long, if you want me to keep listing off names. There are people in this
industry, reputable people, who are not rogues, Mr. Speaker, as some people
might suggest that they are, who do support this concept and who do think that
we should give this a try.
Mr. Speaker, just because there are some people opposed to it, that doesn't
mean that everybody is opposed it. Are there people who have legitimate
concerns? Yes, there are people who have legitimate concerns, and we are willing
to try and work with the people to deal with those legitimate concerns.
Where, Mr. Speaker, was the previous administration? Why is it today, that
the previous administration, the Official Opposition, are suggesting that what
we are proposing here now is going to allow the industry to end up in the hands
of four or five companies? We have already said that we are prepared to
implement, before this becomes a permanent arrangement, if it becomes a
permanent arrangement, a cap on ownership, a limit on ownership, of this
industry. I didn't see the previous administration propose that. I didn't
hear tell of it.
On their watch, Mr. Speaker, four companies currently control over 50 per
cent of the industry. Four companies currently buy, process and market more than
50 per cent of the crab that is caught in Newfoundland and Labrador. They didn't
do anything about that, if there is anything wrong with it. They seem to think
there is something wrong with it, so why didn't they do something about it? We
are proposing to do something about it. We are proposing that there be a cap put
on how much an individual company can own. If we left it alone, Mr. Speaker,
while they are fearmongering as to what might happen under this concept, under
this system, while they are suggesting that some processors might actually buy
up ownership of this industry - it has been going on under their noses for
years. Sure, we all know that fish companies out there have been buying boats
and licenses hand over fist. We have all heard the stories of this past winter,
where $2 million, $2.5 million and $3 million has been planked down on the
barrelhead by processors to buy boats and licenses and send the fishermen who
owned them off, and whatever happens to the crew happens to them. They did that.
They were prepared to let that continue. We are not prepared to let it continue,
Mr. Speaker.
Does anybody know? Did anybody in the Opposition consult with crew members in
the fishing industry? Did anybody actually just check to see who out there is
getting 6 per cent and are they getting 6 per cent of what? There are men and
women on the decks of boats in Newfoundland and Labrador who sign on for 6 per
cent. They don't get 6 per cent of the gross, I can guarantee you. They get 6
per cent of the negotiated price which we all know, in most fisheries or in a
lot of fisheries, is substantially less than the gross. We all know about the
under-the-table money. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get the money on top of the
table, so everybody in the industry shares in it fairly. That is what we are
trying to do. That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: There are crew members in this fishery today who are fishing
for 2.5 per cent of whatever the skipper or the owner tells them they get, not
2.5 per cent of what actually is in the kitty, 2.5 per cent of what they are
told is in the kitty; 2.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker! Men and women who are on the
decks of boats that are grossing $1 million that between the works of them are
getting less than 10 per cent of the catch. Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. That
issue needs to be dealt with and we are trying to deal with it to the extent
that we are able to deal with it through amendments to the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act to try and get the real price on the table so that
everybody knows what the price is.
There are people out there, men on the decks of boats who are getting paid
$10,500 because that is what they need in order to qualify for top unemployment.
They are getting paid that and then get paid $500 a week after that. That is the
kind of stuff that is going on in our industry. Nobody wants to talk about it
but that is what is going on because we have all, over the past number of years,
abdicated our responsibility to try and deal with it. That is an issue and a
problem that is no one person - it is not just government's responsibility, it
is not just the industry's responsibility, it is not just the union's
responsibility. It is the responsibility of society to try and deal with those
types of matters. To the extent that we can deal with it, we are going to try
and deal with it in this. That is one part of it. That is why we done the things
that we have done over the past year.
I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talking about plants closing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that if quotas are cut, plants will probably
close. That is a foregone conclusion. There is nothing we can do to prevent
that. However, under the old system any company in this Province today could
close down whatever facilities they want.
FPI for example; let's talk about FPI. We all know what happened in Harbour
Breton last year; legitimate concerns, big problems, big problem for government,
big problem for the member for the area, big problem for the people in Harbour
Breton. It is something that we hope we can find a solution to, and we are going
to work with the people of the area and all involved to try to find a solution.
Well, let's take the situation in Harbour Breton. In the absence of a raw
material sharing system, in the absence of an open and accountable and a
transparent process with a licensing board that we have instituted, in the
absence of raw material thresholds and regionalization and all of that; in the
absence of all of that, we have what we had last year. What could happen? I am
not fearmongering. I am just stating a fact.
There is nothing that requires, and there is no authority for us to require,
that FPI maintain its Bonavista operation. Why wouldn't FPI? Maybe FPI would,
under the old situation, shut down Bonavista and process whatever crab they
could get in Triton. What would happen then? Well, I suspect we would have the
Member for Bonavista South screaming a little bit. We have the honourable crowd
on the other side, the Official Opposition, crying out to the minister, crying
out to the Premier: What are you going to do? What are you going to do to force
FPI to do something to keep Bonavista open? Well, Mr, Speaker, under what we are
proposing here Bonavista has to stay open for at least the next two years, and
before FPI can make a decision on closing Bonavista - which I cannot see them
being able to make the case, but anyway. Before FPI can make the case to close
down Bonavista and take the production associated with that to another community
- like Triton, for example - they would have to, two weeks before they make
their application, advertise their intent publicly in two papers, one being a
regional paper.
Number two, it would have to go before the licencing board. The licencing
board would have to consider their request against the criteria that we laid out
about a month ago, which considers regional balance, adjacency, historical
dependence, a whole list of issues that have to be considered and a whole list
of tests that FPI would have to make before they haul their production and their
licences associated with Bonavista out of the town. Then that consideration
which would be given to that by the board would be recommended in a public way
to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and then the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture would have to make the decision.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that FPI, or any company, would be very hard pressed
to haul their production out of a town like Bonavista. Mr. Speaker, yes, there
are concerns. We understand that, but the alternative to trying to manage
rationalization, to manage stability, to impose stability, to deal with the
market problems that we have, the alternative to trying to deal with that is the
chaotic nature of the industry and the lack of management ability that we saw in
the past. That is something that we do not accept. We do not believe it is a
prudent and a proper approach. We think that a different approach has to be
taken. This represents, based on the combination of what we announced over the
past couple of weeks - as I said, $2 million worth of studies commissioned by
the previous Administration. I say it is upwards to $2 million anyway,
commissioned by the previous Administration. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker - we
are not hiding from our responsibilities, we are not hiding from the
controversial nature of this matter - we are trying to deal with it to the
extent of our ability and with the long-term best interest of the industry and
the Province at heart. That is what we are committed to. We are not committed to
short-term political gain. If we were committed to short-term political gain we
would have thrown our hands up and said there is nothing we can do with it, just
like the previous Administration did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to speak today to the private member's motion on what I call a
crisis in the crab fishery if, in fact, the minister proceeds to implement the
decision that he has made.
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the minister go on for about fifteen minutes
talking about anyone who is opposed to his decision as being fearmongers. I
guess he would include in that anyone who is involved in the union; it would be
the harvesters, the plant workers. In addition, he went on to talk about the
rogues, and I assume that he is referring to the harvesters because he talked
about how they are making all of this money and not giving the crew a right
percentage of the take. I am not sure if he is suggesting that what he is
proposing will assure that every crew member who is working with a harvester
would in fact get a raise.
But, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I have to say that I find it ironic that
the minister can stand and talk about some being opposed. So I would assume that
the in excess of 1,000 people who gathered out in front of Confederation
Building last week to voice their objection to his decision is what he would
consider to be some. I think anybody who would look at the industry would have
to consider that to be a significant number when the people had to come fr