Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 21 May 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 30)
2008-05-21
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May
21, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 30
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we will hear the following private members'
statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; the hon. the
Member for the District of Bellevue; and, the hon. the Member for the District
of Bay of Islands.
The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Grade 8 students from
Labrador West, as well as students from Churchill Falls, for their participation
in the historic affairs program held at Menihek High School in Labrador City on
May 1. The students' projects were related to aspects of our Canadian history
and consisted of three elements: a display, a written presentation, and an
interview with a panel of judges.
The work involved with researching and presenting these projects was a great
learning experience for the students as they incorporated cross curricular
elements of social sciences, humanities, literature and fine arts. Hands-on
learning was demonstrated along with filling requirements for critical thinking
and research skills. Participants engaged in intergenerational dialogue and
gained a greater sense of their historical roots and citizenship.
Awards were presented in a number of categories. The Laurier LaPierre award
for research and presentation on a Canadian cultural theme was presented to
three students: Shannon Lilly, Amanda Piercey and Julia Johnson. The Hudson's
Bay Company explorer's award for outstanding achievement in the field of
exploration went to Conner Kent. The Canadian Veterans award was given to Sam
Vardy for his presentation honouring veterans. Megan Harrington and Chelsea
Collier won the RBC Aboriginal Heritage award. The historical places award for a
project focusing on buildings and architecture was presented to Aleasha Conners.
Emily Bunnell of Churchill Falls took home the Margaret and Wallace McCain
heritage award.
The award for the overall best project went to Alexandra Penney for her
presentation on fiddle music in Cape Breton. Her ancestors were musicians from
Cape Breton who travelled and played under the Gaelic name Scumalash. She will
be attending the National Historica Fair in Victoria, British Columbia in July,
where she will participate at a history camp with 164 other student delegates
from across the country and showcase her project at the National Fair
Exhibition.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all of the
Grade 8 participants, their teachers, the judges, and the organizing committee
for making this year's Heritage Fair such a successful event.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me a great pleasure to stand here today, in this hon. House, and
tell you of my travels this past weekend. I was invited to travel to the
smallest community within the great District of Bellevue, the community of
Monkstown, where the Salvation Army Corps of Monkstown was celebrating their 108
anniversary.
At this celebration, the organizers sold 144 cold plates and held a hymn
sing, where they raised over $4,000. This community played host to people from
all over this great Island. The community normally is a home to twenty-nine
people, but this weekend around 100 people found lodgings within the community.
What a great model these organizers are to others who volunteer their time to
organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
The community of Monkstown is located on the Burin Peninsula, and last fall
contained thirty-two residents, but now only twenty-nine reside in Monkstown
today. Out-migration has caused this community, like many others on this great
Island, to shrivel. Monkstown is a rural community embedded by a beautiful
rugged coastline of Placentia Bay and, with its twenty-three kilometre dirt
road, this community and area is an ideal tourist location and does not deter
tourists at any time of the year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this great hon. House join me in extending the
Salvation Army Corps of Monkstown a magnificent 108 anniversary, with best
wishes on many more years to come.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this great House today to recognize St. Peter's Academy of Benoit's
Cove and, in particular, to Ms Harbin's class of Grade 6 and some Grade 7
students.
Mr. Speaker, Ms Harbin took on the responsibility of fundraising over $24,000
to cover the cost of taking twelve students to the NASA Space Camp in Alabama.
The students left on April 24 and returned on April 29. St. Peter's were
the only students from Canada and gained many friends, meeting other students
belonging to all parts of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, St. Peter's Academy won the Most Outstanding Team Award out of
the thirteen classes in attendance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members here today to show our
appreciation to Ms Harbin, her students and all the volunteers who made this
experience come true and to thank them all for being such great ambassadors for
this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon. members of this
government's ongoing efforts to improve and enhance our transportation
infrastructure through our Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, particularly as
it pertains to our Labrador Winter Trails system.
For the remote communities on the north and south coasts, these groomed
trails are a vital transportation link. In Budget 2008, we were very pleased to
provide an additional $200,000 in funding under the Labrador Grooming Subsidy to
enhance the winter trails on the north coast, as well as an additional $275,000
to purchase a groomer for the community of Postville.
Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador continues to
demonstrate that by working together, citizens, government, and communities can
achieve positive change. While we work further to invest, improve, and enhance
transportation in Labrador, this government also recognizes that this effort
must occur with significant consultation. We are keenly aware of the importance
of consultation and the need to always consider the perspectives of
Labradorians.
I am pleased to inform hon. members that officials from the Department of
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs will soon be holding consultations with
stakeholder groups to best determine how we can improve the Labrador Winter
Trails system. I can make every assurance that this government welcomes all
feedback and will explore every option presented for the future development of
this essential part of our transportation network.
Mr. Speaker, this government remains firmly committed to improving Labrador's
infrastructure on many fronts, including the Labrador Winter Trails system, the
coastal ferry service, and our roads. I am extremely pleased to note that we are
continuing the make very significant improvements to our transportation network.
For example, some $66.5 million is being invested to continue progress on the
Trans-Labrador Highway and to improve local roads. This includes $45 million in
cost-shared funding for widening and hard-surfacing Phase I of the
Trans-Labrador Highway, and $17 million, Mr. Speaker, for the construction of
Phase III.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a former premier in this Province once said that if you want a
message to be heard you should at least repeat it three times, I think it was
Premier Smallwood. I think the Member for Labrador, or the Minister of Labrador
Affairs has adopted that philosophy because we must have heard this announcement
at least three times by now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. He has very little in his department to
announce on any given day. I went through the Estimates this morning and was
astonished to find out that the Department of Labrador Affairs manages about two
files in Labrador. One to do with the Labrador Winter Trails he is announcing
today and the other one to do with the air and food lift subsidization for
Labrador communities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in a department that manages and administers the projects
of only two programs there is a budget of nearly $800,000 to $900,000 in the
minister's salary and his support staff to be able to do that. Look at it in
the context of this, Mr. Speaker, the full department spends less than $2.5
million in any fiscal year. So, maybe what the minister should be doing is
announcing the $800,000 or $900,000 that he is using up there to administer
these programs when they could be administered and are being administered within
the bureaucracy right now, and invest that into something substantial into
Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.
There is nothing new in this statement, not anything that we do not already
know. For example, we did know about the grooming and the money that was going
into that. We certainly know about the widening and hard surfacing of Phase I of
the TLH because it is less than what the people in Labrador West, for sure, were
hoping for. We know that it is going to take a few years before they have their
road.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
MR. HICKEY: Get your facts straight.
MS MICHAEL: I have my facts straight, Mr. Minister. I have my facts very
straight. Twenty kilometres will be done this year of that road and there is a
lot more than twenty kilometres that needs to be done.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Further Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and
the Government House Leader resigned, as we know. It was in the public airways.
He stated that it was due to interference by the Premier's office regarding
roadwork in his district. When such a senior minister, Premier, resigns in this
Province it is always a significant matter of public importance.
I ask the Premier, today, Mr. Speaker, to provide the House with an
explanation as to what happened to bring about this resignation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I did not hear the hon. member speak today, so I do not
know whether he used the term interference. I would be very surprised if he
actually said that.
The situation was this. We have allotted, through the department, about $73
million for roadwork. The total roadwork allotment for the entire Province is
$183 million, if I remember correctly. Our job then is to distribute that $73
million among forty-eight districts and, as we all know, some of the districts
are in St. John's, some in Corner Brook, require certainly less money. So it
is our job to try and equitably distribute that money around the Province in a
fair and proper formula. Now, I actually get involved in that process and I look
at it - and Stephen Dinn in my office actually also gets involved in the
process, together with the minister and her officials to make sure it has been
properly allocated. As you know, one thing that was brought to my attention this
year, there had not been an allocation for your own district, and $1.5 million
was allocated to your district and over $1 million to the Member for Burgeo
& LaPoile, and over $1 million to the Member for Port de Grave. I understand
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi does not require any roadwork. So we are trying to be
very, very fair in our allocation.
The other thing we use, and may I have so many ways in which -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer, the Premier, or else ask for
leave.
Does the hon. Premier have leave?
PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier by leave.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing we look at is the amount that has been
given to districts over the last seven years; since the turn of the century,
basically, since 2000. We look at what the cumulative total is that has been
allocated to each district. Some districts have more than others and have gotten
more than others over the years. The district that had the most money allocated
for roadwork was Bay de Verde - Baie Verte, I am sorry - which had, in fact,
over $20 million had been allocated. So, therefore, as part of our method and
the formula for allocating money, it was indicated that that money should not be
as much this year because it would in fact put them way ahead of other
districts. It was conveyed to the minister at the time, the Deputy Premier, that
in fact he was going to be allocated $2.5 million. That decision, of course, was
made in conjunction with the minister and with my office. After that, the
minister came back to my office and indicated that he felt he needed more for
his district - a reasonable request, as all other hon. members make from time to
time. He was told there was not any other money available, it had all been
allocated.
Then, while I was in Houston at the Oil and Gas Conference with meetings with
Chevron and Exxon Mobil and others, the Deputy Premier went to the Minister of
Transportation and indicated that he wanted another million dollars. The
minister indicated that that was not possible. I cannot give this verbatim. You
will have to ask the minister directly because I was not in that meeting, but
the Deputy Premier at that particular point in time threatened that if he was
not given the extra million dollars he was going to resign.
So, from our perspective as a government, and my perspective as a Premier, I
am not going to allow anyone in this government at all, under any circumstances
to come in and try and strong arm a minister in order to get more funds when
that person knows the process, knows the procedure, knows exactly how it is done
and is basically, while I am not in the Province, using some form of
intimidation. I do not mean in a crass manner, but using his position as the
Deputy Premier in order to get more funds. That is not acceptable. In fact, when
money is taken out of that pot and more money is allocated to the person in
question's pot that means there is less available for everybody else in every
other district in the Province. That means that he is, in effect, picking the
pockets of other members. I am not going to stand for that. I am not going to
allow it.
He indicated that if that was not acceptable, and in fact he indicated to my
chief of staff, that if he was not allowed to keep the extra million dollars
then in fact he would resign, and I graciously accepted his resignation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As well, in the press conference this morning when the Deputy Premier tabled
his resignation, he also said that there was no face-to-face discussion between
himself and the Premier.
I would like to ask the Premier today: Why was there no discussions between
him and the former Deputy Premier around this issue to try and sort it out?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: From my perspective, the facts were very, very clear.
The Deputy Premier met with my chief of staff. My chief of staff informed him
that this extra million dollars would not be available, because in fact the
funds - if there is any kind of surplus of funds we have to use it for some
extras, if there happens to be overruns in some of the districts.
I also, yesterday, had a situation where I had an MHA come to my office and
basically made a plea to me to provide some extra funds for roadwork, due to the
fact that children were being rerouted in buses over a particular road on the
understanding that this particular road was going to be fixed, for want of a
better term, and it was going to be paved. There was no money available for that
particular road. So I indicated to the MHA at that particular time that we would
attempt to find that money. There was no money available within the pot because
basically it had been all used up at Transportation and Works. This money had
been improperly obtained by the Deputy Premier from the Minister of
Transportation and Works, so we will be using that money for bus safety for
children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next question, as well, is for the Premier.
I would like to ask if there were any other issues that contributed to this
resignation; because this individual was a senior Cabinet minister within
government, held various portfolios, and I am wondering if there were any other
issues outside of this that would have contributed to the resignation today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There was another side issue which is not directly
related to this, but the primary issue, basically, was the situation with regard
to the roads. That is where, as I said before, the Deputy Premier knew the
rules. He was a former Minister of Transportation. He knew that the Premier's
office had to basically sign off on it, was told by the Premier's office that
they were not going to approve it, was told again that they were not going to
approve it, and then he decided that he would resign.
There was no forced resignation. He offered his resignation and, as I said
before, I respect that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the Premier would like to
share with us what the side issue might have been, and if it had anything to do
with differences of opinion inside of government.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are always issues between hon.
members, and especially in Cabinet. We have good healthy debate. I think we have
actually been commended for the debate that we have in Cabinet. Contrary to
popular opinion, we are very democratic in our deliberations in Cabinet. There
are lengthy discussions that sometimes drag on in Cabinet and there is good
healthy debate.
From our perspective, from time to time any of my ministers can have a
disagreement with me on any issue and we work it out and we ultimately reach
consensus. Nothing gets railroaded; nothing gets driven home. It is a matter of
everybody reaching consensus, and if we do not reach consensus we move on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess we will have to wait and see what the other issues may have been.
My next question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
On Thursday past, the minister issued an announcement of $3.5 million in
roadwork for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale and it was issued in
conjunction with the member for the area.
I have to ask the minister today: Why would you have committed to give the
$3.5 million to Baie Verte-Springdale District for roadwork, as you publicly
announced, and then retract on it later?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your question.
Yes, I did put out a press release; but, in sober thought and in hindsight, I
should not have committed that extra million to the district.
I felt that I was strong-armed and pressured to come up with that million
dollars. So, in retrospect, I did run it by the Premier because my gut feeling
said that I should not have done that, and I accept the full responsibility of
that.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Is it true that she was strong-armed by the Premier's
office to actually renege on the commitment and to cancel the $3.5 million
announcement in funding?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: I have never been strong-armed by the Premier's office at
any time in the last five years. I have made my decisions, but this decision -
my gut told me that I did the wrong decision. I consulted with the Premier's
office, and I take full responsibility for the decision that I made.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought I had just heard the Premier say, in answer to a previous question,
that he had asked you to cancel the funding. I guess I just want to confirm that
was indeed the case and, Minister, that you were contacted by the Premier's
office and asked not to approve the $1 million in extra funding for the District
of Baie Verte-Springdale.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the hon. minister that
while I was in Houston the Deputy Premier basically contacted her and indicated
that if he was not given the extra million dollars for his district he would
resign.
Now, if the strong-arming occurred, the strong-arming occurred with that hon.
gentleman. He has been around politics for thirty years. He is very experienced.
He is very good at what he does from a political perspective; however, he used
his position of influence to strong-arm one of my ministers.
Now, first of all, I am not going to stand for that when it comes to
strong-arming other ministers; and, secondly, I am not going to take money out
of all the pockets of (inaudible) members here that all want roadwork done and
have huge demands for roadwork, and that includes you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Is there often
interference in her department by the Premier or the Premier's office when it
comes to approving funds for districts for roadwork in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, there has never, ever, been any interference with
the department through the Premier's office.
I would tell my hon. colleague that there is lots of consultation that takes
place back and forth from the Premier's office to the department, but there
has never been anything out of the ordinary in our department. We have always
consulted, when need be, and the Premier has been there, but I think it should
be said that there is a message here that everybody is treated equally, MHAs, in
this House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The next questions I have are actually for the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, but I guess when the minister resigned he would have dropped his
briefing book on someone's desk on the way out, so I will ask the questions
anyway.
We have learned of significant bycatches of invasive species of green crab in
the Placentia Bay area. It has been in the media repetitively in the last number
of weeks. We have also heard reports of other unusual fish species that have
been found in waters around the Province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a link drawn in discussions around this
issue with increased vessel traffic in Placentia Bay, and speculation that the
green crab may have migrated with ballast water from oil tankers.
I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What research
has been done in your department to ensure
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: What research has been done in the department on this issue of
ballast water from oil tankers and the appearance of green crab in the Placentia
Bay area, and the
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would well know, since she was
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at one time, the issue of management
of the fishing industry, once you go below the high-water mark, it is purely the
jurisdiction of the federal government.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the issue of invasive alien species in the waters
of Canada has been an issue that probably was discussed when she was the
Minister of Fisheries, around federal-provincial-territorial meetings. I know it
was when I was there. It is an issue of major concern to fisheries departments
throughout Canada. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker, in the Great Lakes, it is an
issue on the Atlantic Coast, and it is an issue on the Pacific Coast.
Mr. Speaker, our government is very concerned about it; the Department of
Environment has made representation to the federal government. As the Minister
of Fisheries, when I was down across the road, we certainly made representation
to the federal government, and it is why, in part, we have invested in SmartBay,
Mr. Speaker, so that we can adequately monitor what is going on
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: in Placentia Bay, in order to prevent this type of thing
from happening in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In high-water mark or not, I say to the hon. member, it was in the last
election when your government went out and talked about establishing fisheries
research vessels in the Province, and facilities in that particular area. So I
would like to ask you where that is on the radar right now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you that it is a lot closer on the radar than it was when she was
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we at least have made a commitment to
investing in research from a fisheries perspective, and our government is
committed to research and development, as was evidenced by the announcement that
we made of $5 million at Memorial University last week, as was evidenced in our
recent budget of $4.175 million for research on oceans, Mr. Speaker, and our
ocean sector strategy.
Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to ensuring that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the decision-makers in Newfoundland and Labrador
have the appropriate information to make sure that our ocean environment is
preserved and our fishing industry is preserved on a go-forward basis, with or
without the help of the federal government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe soon we will see something on the research vessels that you committed
to.
My next question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, because the
European green crab is only one symptom of the environmental conflicts that are
occurring in the Placentia Bay area. Most recently, the federal and provincial
governments both gave approval under the environmental regulations for a new oil
refinery to be constructed.
I ask the minister: What is the current status of the Newfoundland and
Labrador oil refinery corporation's plan to construct the 300,000 barrel-a-day
refinery in the Placentia Bay area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The refinery has passed through its environmental impact study and has been
approved on that piece.
My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that they have hit some roadblocks in terms
of their financing given the circumstances that are occurring in the United
States with the subprime rate and so on. So, we are very supportive of this
project but we are in a position where we have to wait and see if they are able
to get the kind of investment that is going to be required to complete the
project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Because the environmental impact was completed without any investor present
at the table, I have to ask: Is government concerned that a new investor that
might come in, because they did not have a seat at the table, if they will be
willing to comply with the pollution and prevention policies that have now been
outlined in that environmental statement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine that somebody who is
prepared to make significant investment in any kind of project in this Province
would do the due diligence and know what is required of them in terms of
conducting business in this Province.
As far as we are concerned, as a government, only the highest standards
regarding protection of the environment will guide the operation of any kind of
a project within this Province, whether it is the new oil refinery or any other
business here in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Also, a federally-commissioned Environmental Oil Spill Risk Assessment
Project looked at high-risk spills across Canada and this particular area was
one of the areas considered to be of higher risk. I ask if government is
committed to developing a comprehensive environmental protection strategy for
this particular area of the Province - that means Placentia Bay - within its
entirety.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to the environment and ensuring that any
project that goes forward is done so in an environmentally sound manner, in
order to protect sustainable development for future generations. We work very
closely with the federal government. We work on SmartBay projects. We have a
very intense environmental assessment process, one that is recognized throughout
the country in terms of timelines and how open it is to the public.
I can assure the hon. member opposite that environment is an utmost concern
for us and we will continue to work with groups in the Placentia area and the
federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also know that the new nickel plant that is planning to be constructed in
Long Harbour is being considered now by Vale Inco, and we also know that they
are looking at the type of technology that would be used.
I ask the minister today if she can confirm that the hydromet technology is
working and that will be the preferred option.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Vale Inco will make a decision and a public announcement very soon in terms
of which technology will be used in the operation in Long Harbour.
I can tell you that, in terms of the work that is being done, the work on the
hydromet is very, very encouraging.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are aware as well of the environmental process
that has been ongoing in Long Harbour in relation to this facility.
I ask the minister if she has any indication right now when that process will
be completed, and if all the environmental concerns have been addressed to date
in that plan.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, that company submitted their
Environmental Impact Statement some time ago, and at that point it certainly was
rejected because there were a lot of deficiencies in that report.
As I said, our utmost concern is the environment so we felt that we would
want another Environmental Impact Statement submitted for our review. The
company has done that and now it is in the public process in terms of public
input.
We certainly welcome input from the members opposite and any members of the
public, and we will review that and ensure at the end of the day that all
environmental considerations are met.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The use of the hydromet technology, if that is what they choose to go with,
will require the use of tailings ponds in that area. We just witnessed recently
in Alberta from the media, that because proper protocols were not put in place
that there was a danger to wildlife populations in that area when they came in
contact with toxins.
I ask the minister: What requirements and protocols have been built into this
environmental assessment piece to ensure that those wildlife are protected from
toxins in that particular area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process does
exactly just that. We look at all of the potential negative implications or
possible impacts on wildlife on all of the surrounding area, and certainly all
of those issues will be addressed. Certainly, before any issues, before any
permits or any go ahead is given, all of those would be addressed in the
environmental assessment process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We realize that there have been very specific evaluations and EIS done on
both of these projects, the oil refinery and the hydromet, but local people in
the area have raised concerns with us. In fact, there are over 500 fishing
enterprises in that area and they are concerned about everything from tanker
traffic to these particular projects. They have been asking if government would
consider a larger environmental assessment that would evaluate the cumulative
impacts on the environment in the entire region as a result of compounding
industry. Would the minister consider that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the deficiencies that was evident in the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Voisey's Bay project was the fact that
the cumulative effects piece was not sufficient in our case and it was not
satisfactory. So, that is one of the things that we have asked the company to go
back and do. They have submitted a new cumulative effects plan and that is
currently being viewed by the public, commented on by the public, and certainly
my staff and myself will also review that before any decisions are made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the T'Railway system in this Province was
closed down after a federal report indicated to the Minister of Environment that
problems existed there. The minister had no alternative source of information to
draw on since the department had no system of regular inspections.
Given this lack of proper procedure in place for the T'Railways, I ask the
Minister of Transportation and Works: Are regular inspections done of bridges
and overpasses on road systems in this Province? If so, will the minister make
these reports available to the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, our bridges are inspected every two years. Just recently, if you
remember, we had the federal government close down the bridges, and
Transportation and Works worked all one weekend and inspected all of the bridges
here in the Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
system for people in wheelchairs has been discussed in the media. Also, when an
inspection was done of the Marine Atlantic a number of problems were identified
in the ferry system that falls under federal jurisdiction.
Can the minister tell this House what kind of regular inspections of the
provincial ferry systems are conducted, and will the results of those safety
inspections be made available to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I cannot speak for Marine but I can speak for the provincial ferries,
that we do have - in fact, we are now implementing new safety measures on our
ferries. Just recently, it was in the news, where we have asked people to get
out of their cars now and go to the cabin. That is one of the safety measures
that we have had. The other thing that we are doing, too, is that we are going
on those ferries, with the new design.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a follow-up to the first two previous questions; if you have information
available, I was wondering if the minister would make it available, those
reports?
Mr. Speaker, we hear so much those days with regards to problems within our
hospitals and schools, which leads me to the next question about other public
buildings and facilities in the Province.
I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Have inspections been done on
other public buildings and facilities, and will she make those reports available
once the inspections - if they are not done now, when they are done - available
to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we do inspect our buildings. In fact, this year
in the Budget we have invested a significant amount of money to have maintenance
done on all of our public buildings here throughout the Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, until today, I would have thought that it was the right of any
MHA to go to a minister and advocate on behalf of their district for
constituents, for schools, for projects. All MHAs do that.
Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification from the Premier whether it is true
or not that MHA requests to ministers must now be approved by him?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
There she goes again, playing the same old politics again.
There is a procedure in place. You would not understand this, because it is
not part of your background and your experience, but you would not understand
that there is a budget process that has to take place. We go through that
process and we allocate a pool of money. Then we go further in that and we
define how that money is basically allocated. Then that is it, it is done, and
then we finally advise the members. They sign off on that; they accept it.
Nobody is happy with it. There is nobody happy with their allocation for
roads, but that is the way it is. We put as much money into it as we can. At one
point, the past Liberal government put $6 million into roads. We put $183
million into roads.
I have a role to play, through my office, to make sure that the money is
fairly allocated to everybody in the room, and that is exactly what we will do.
As for someone having to come up and get my approval, if you want to drop up for
a chat about your district, you are more than welcome to drop up some time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I actually have offered a number of times, in about three different letters
to the Premier, how happy I would be to sit down and talk with him, but he has
never invited me up before. Now you have it. Now you are going to get it. Now I
will be up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to budgets, I think I understand the budget process very well.
One thing I do know is that ministers do have discretion within their budgets.
In the Estimates process, both this year and last year, I asked questions
about discretionary money and what criteria are there, and I know there is
discretionary money. I would have thought that the Premier's consent was not
needed if a decision made by minister fell within the mandate of the minister
and within the departmental budget.
Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the House and the public, what is
the criterion that he uses to insert himself in departmental decision-making?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The criteria is quite simply: when the House Leader,
the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries, the former Attorney General, goes
to a minister and strong-arms that minister with a request that if he does not
get his money he is going to walk and he is going to resign, it is on that basis
that I intervene in order to protect the public purse for all the other people
here who need some of that money, which includes you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am rather confused because the Premier has
said that he gets hundreds and thousands of pieces of mail
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: He has told us that he gets hundreds and thousands of pieces
of mail and requests through his office and that he does not have the time to
micromanage.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier again to tell this House what has
changed his opinion since he made those statements about micromanaging
departments.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member
has ever managed in her life, but I can tell you that $183 million, to me, is a
lot of money and needs to be managed very carefully, and I do not consider it to
be micromanagement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed,
without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments:
the Department of Business; the Department of Environment and Conservation; the
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the Department of Innovation, Trade
& Rural Development; the Department of Natural Resources; and, the
Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
I would like to recognize the other members on the Committee: the Vice-Chair,
the Member for Burgeo & La Poile; the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green
Bay South; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame; the Member for the
District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Labrador West; and,
the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Resource Committee be concurred by
the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further presenting reports by standing or select committees.
The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the
Estimates of Expenditure of: the Department of Education; the Department of
Health and Community Services; the Department of Justice; the Department of
Municipal Affairs; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment;
and, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
I would like to recognize the members of the Committee: the Vice-Chair, the
Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Grand Bank; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & La
Poile; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Port au Port;
and, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be concurred by the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in response to a question from the Opposition House Leader regarding
an employment agreement between the Province and Dr. John Fitzgerald, the
provincial representative in Ottawa. I have that to table, and I would put it on
the Table for all to see.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I present another petition today on behalf of the residents of Pouch Cove,
Torbay, Flatrock and Middle Cove in relation to the new proposed Torbay Bypass
Road.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, those people have expressed concerns
about the route of the bypass road through two kilometres of the Town of Torbay,
the community of Torbay. They are asking if the minister and the government
officials would consider an alternate route to bypass that area.
The concern that they have raised, Mr. Speaker is that the congestion in that
particular area, the livyers who live there - there are quite a few families
they believe that the highway, once constructed in that area, will be a major
problem for those who live there.
Some of the issues that have been passed along to them, why this route cannot
be reconsidered, was due to the watershed area and also the property that may be
used, or plans to be used in the future for an airport.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the minister about this and I know the minister
agreed to meet with them whenever the need arises, but I do present this
petition, Mr. Speaker, and urge government to have this route reconsidered, as
was planned to them at a public meeting held in their community.
Mr. Speaker, I will present that petition.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
Orders of the Day
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to go back to Presenting
Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to Presenting
Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report they have passed, without amendment, the
Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: the Department of
Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Government Services;
the Department of Transportation and Works; the Department of Intergovernmental
Affairs; the Department of Labrador Affairs; and, the Department of Aboriginal
Affairs, respectively submitted by yours truly.
I would like to thank the Committee members: the Member for Port de Grave;
the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Topsail; the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for
Kilbride; the Member for Exploits; and, the Member for St. John's East.
I move that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred by
this House of Assembly.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call, from the Order Paper, Motion
6, a motion put forward by the hon. Member for the District of Lewisporte.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to take a minute just to read the motion back into the record. It
says:
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable treatment
of all citizens; and
WHEREAS Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of providing fair
income tax treatment to all taxpayers; and
WHEREAS many Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen participated in the Atlantic
Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and
WHEREAS participants in the 1999 licence retirement program paid a
disproportionate and an unfair share of income tax on their licence retirement
payout as compared to those participants in the 1996 and the 2002 Atlantic
Groundfish Retirement Program; and
WHEREAS this inequity has cost fisher people who participated in the 1999 buy
back program undue financial hardship;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government
of Canada to immediately require Revenue Canada to review and correct the unfair
financial income tax burden placed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Retirement Program.
Mr. Speaker, I do count it a privilege and an honour to be able to introduce
this motion today. The tenor of the motion is one that I relate to very well.
I grew up in a small town, Beachside out in Central Newfoundland, and I know
all too well the activities that are related to the fishing industry. I, myself,
came from a family of mostly miners and loggers, but many of the people in the
town that I grew up in a town of only 200 or so people were actually
related to the fishery. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I even tried it for a while. When
I graduated from high school some of my friends were driving around in fast and
fancy cars. They were tied to the crab fishery at the time for a while. I was
looking at them and I was battling in my own mind whether or not I would
actually try and get a job in the fishery or maybe go to university and further
my education. Well, I did not take to the fishery very well. As a matter of
fact, everyday I was out there I got seasick and at the end of the summer
weighing just 113 pounds, I headed off to university, but my respect for
fishermen and the daily activities that they have been engaged in is tremendous.
I want to take each point of this resolution in the opening here, and I will
speak to it probably a little bit more broadly in the closing, but when I look
at the first
Whereas, the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable
treatment for all of its citizens. Then you ask, what does that mean? I think it
is a basic right, something that we take for granted everyday. We all expect
that we will be treated fairly and equally.
Then if I look at the next
Whereas, Revenue Canada is charged with the
responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner. I look
at that and I say: Well, while I do realize that income tax laws change
periodically, and from year to year, we all expect when we file our taxes that
we are going to be treated fairly in comparison to the rest of the citizens in
this country. We expect it. It is a right under the income tax law.
Then if I look at it and it says,
Whereas many Newfoundland and Labrador
fishermen participated in the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. If
I expand on that a bit, I look back in the spring of 1992, Mr. Speaker. We are
looking at sixteen years ago. The then Minister of Fisheries, John C. Crosbie
announced - what did he announce? He announced a two-year moratorium, two years
on the Northern Cod fishery. The moratorium was to take effect immediately and
continue until the spring of 1994, but we all know that that moratorium went on
for much longer than two years. In fact, for all intents and purposes, it is
still going on in some regards. Measures were taken in subsequent years to
permanently remove some Newfoundland fishermen from the fishery. This was done
to make the fishery more sustainable into the future.
In 1998, a $250 million Groundfish Licence Retirement Program was announced
as part of the federal government's then $730 million Canadian Fisheries
Adjustment and Restructuring Program for the Atlantic groundfish industry. This
retirement program was guided by three factors, three principles. Number one, it
was voluntary. Number two, it was targeted primarily to TAGS-eligible licence
holders and number three, it required a permanent exit from the fishery. In
other words, these fishermen fully expected that once they gave up their licence,
their chances of a livelihood connected to the fishery were gone.
Now, if I look at the next
Whereas, in the 1999 licence retirement program.
Those participants paid a disproportionate and an unfair share of income tax on
their licence retirement payout as compared to other years. Particularly, the
motion talks about 1996 and 2002. Again, to expand on that a bit, I have been
doing some research on this for awhile and, Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, I do
not claim to be one but I do think and I believe I have garnered an
understanding of what has happened here. While some of the details may not be
100 per cent correct or because the literature sort of gives you different
stories, I am confident that I do accurately understand the spirit of the
injustice that has taken place. You see, a significant number of fishermen
participated in a buyout or a retirement program in 1996. They were being
encouraged to permanently exit the fishery and to either retire or look for some
other source of income. Monies they would get from retiring their licence was
money that was intended to either support their retirement, sort of get them to
retirement age where they would collect some other funds or support some other
type of work, maybe some work where they would not make quite as much money as
they did in the fishery.
Well, they agreed on a purchase price for their licence. We are talking 1996.
They sold it and what happened was they got to keep the lion's share of the
money, practically all of it. In 1996 people sold their licence, they kept the
money. It was because of some capital gains exemption that was there under the
income tax at the time. The money they got, for all intents and purposes, was
treated the same as if it was ruled to be a future loss of earnings. The money
they got was the money that they applied to their future income.
Well, what happened in 2002? I am going to jump from 1996 now up to 2002. It
was much the same situation. There was a bidding process. There was a payout.
There was a capital gains exemption. The people in 2002, again, kept the lion's
share of the payout; paid very little, if any, taxes.
Now, I want to go back to the people that are squeezed in the middle in 1999.
These fishermen sold their licences through a very similar procedure. In fact,
DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided tax advice, in writing, to
fishers advising them that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will treat
their licence retirement income as capital gains. So, basically, they were
advised to file it as capital gains, which their different accountants did. The
problem though is that the capital gains exemption was disallowed for the
fishing licence in that year and this group of fishermen had to pay taxes. The
1999 group paid taxes on their buyout. What kind of money are we talking about
here? We are talking a lot of money. Most of the people got in the vicinity of
$120,000 to $130,000 for their licence and they paid between $30,000 to $40,000,
not only in taxes, but they also had to pay back some of their TAGS money or
some of their EI for that year. In total, you are looking at $30,000 to $40,000
per fisherperson. There are about 1,000 of them. We are looking at $30 million
to $40 million that should have come to the coffers of this Province through
these people who were entitled to it that they did not receive.
Now that is a terrible injustice, but it does not stop there. Of those
approximately 1,000 people who sold their licence in 1999 and had to pay the
taxes,
whereas no one else did, about a little over 100 of them sought some
legal recourse. When they did, rather than go to court, Revenue Canada settled
in some sort of a private secret deal with them. This group of people, this
100-plus, actually had their tax bill reduced by somewhere in the vicinity of 75
per cent of the original. There are some calculations that were done. So, what
happens now with the other people in 1999 who feel like they have been ripped
off? Now they have 100 or so people that, through a private deal, get a
settlement that looks pretty good, so they say well, we will file the same. So
they file an appeal with Revenue Canada, but Revenue Canada comes back and says,
uh-uh, sorry, you are too late; the appeal deadline is gone.
The whole thing, in my mind, stinks, Mr. Speaker. The whole thing wraps up to
a bad deal and what I would call a rip-off. If I were one of those fisherpeople
squeezed in the middle there, I would be feeling plenty frustrated.
That brings me to the resolution which says,
BE IT RESOLVED that this House
review of this situation to fix the wrong that has been placed upon this group
of people.
You see, Mr. Speaker, we have a conundrum of frustrations. The 1999 group
indeed are ripped off. They are the only group - the only group - that did not
have their licence payout qualify for a capital gains exemption. They are the
only group saddled with the tax burden.
Part of the 1999 group gets a settlement - they are told not to talk about it
- and 80 per cent or approximately 850 people are feeling totally, totally, left
out and feeling like there is no justice for them. They have been singing out to
the federal government for years, but they cannot get the justice rectified.
Forty million dollars, approximately, is owed. Surely, somebody up in Ottawa can
cause this terrible injustice to be reviewed and something can be done.
Thank you for these words, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to close debate at the
end of the session.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly want to rise and speak to the motion that has been put forward by
the Member for Lewisporte.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been of concern for us for quite some
time now. In fact, going back to almost a year ago, I guess, we started being
approached by fisherpeople in the Province as it related to this issue, and took
some time to actually meet with them to document their history. In fact, I think
I have written no less than dozens and dozens of letters, myself, for
individuals in terms of bringing the issue forward to the federal government and
also raising it with their legal counsel whom they had retained in the name of
Mr. Eli Baker.
Mr. Speaker, over that period of time, I guess, this is an issue that
continued to grow. It continued to grow because it was founded on very good
evidence that individuals in this Province were remitting under a tax regime
program, during the licence buyout phases, that was unprecedented in history by
any other phases of the buyout program and therefore, Mr. Speaker, felt they had
not only been wrongly taxed but had been wrongly informed as to how those taxes
should be paid out on their particular programs.
Mr. Speaker, we all remember the issue because it goes right back to the
Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. That was a program that was
launched in this Province in conjunction with the closure of the cod fishery,
which was in the years of 1990 to about 2000, I guess, the periods of time in
which people were given options under the federal government to either retire
their licences or to sell their licences back for a lump sum of money.
Mr. Speaker, the first program that was launched under this was the Atlantic
Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. What that did was allow people to sell
back their licences, but it also restricted them in terms of the amount of taxes
they had to pay on that money; because, as you know, many of these people, at
that time, had already worked thirty to forty years in this industry. They had
given yeoman service in an industry that was plagued with challenges over many,
many years, and an industry that oftentimes did not derive a great deal of
wealth for the fishing families that depended upon it. It provided no security.
It was a job and an industry that provided no security whatsoever. In fact, it
is only in recent years that fishermen and women have actually contributed to
things like the Canada Pension Plan, because in the earlier years they were not
even required to do that, so many of them were left with no security whatsoever
in the cases of disability or sickness or retirement.
When the industry shut down, and it shut down at the peril, I guess, Mr.
Speaker, of declining stocks and changing environmental circumstances of the
fishery at the time, as a result people were given an option, graciously by the
federal government, to have that sense of security that they never before had.
They were given an opportunity to be able to sell back, to get some money.
Mr. Speaker, in was in the programs that followed that - in 1996 it seemed
like the program went off without a hitch and, in fact, a lot of people who sold
their licences back did so receiving almost the full amount without paying
taxes, and there was no problem, no complaints, during that year.
It was in 1999 that we started seeing some problems with the program. They
were taxed more because the capital gains
section was abolished. Then later we
saw that introduced back into federal legislation. At this time in 1999 that had
been abolished and therefore they were required to pay some taxes on it.
Mr. Speaker, back in the time when they were selling back their licences,
many of them feel that they were misinformed by the Department of the Fisheries
and Oceans. At that time the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was giving tax
advise in writing to fisher people, not just in this Province but in the other
Atlantic Provinces and in Quebec, all of those who were able to participate in
the groundfish retirement and buyback program. Mr. Speaker, they were being
given advise in writing from DFO, and it was four years after they received that
advise, that they had concluded their buyback, they had already remitted all
these taxes to the federal government that had not been done by previous fishers
who took
part in the program, it was four years after when they realized that
they may have been given incorrect advise. Therefore, they took their issue up
with Revenue Canada, they took it up with DFO and they took it up with legal
counsel which they have now retained to file an appeal in the courts on their
behalf.
Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 850 fishers who are impacted by this tax
battle that they have ongoing. We know that there are some of them who have
deceased over the period of time that this action has been taken. Mr. Speaker,
nevertheless their families have lost the benefit of that royalty as well.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this issue needs to be elevated to the top of the
agenda for the federal government. We feel that if these people had owed money
to Revenue Canada or to the federal government that the taxman would come
collecting. I think we have all had experiences with that, Mr. Speaker, some of
us more than others I can tell you.
Now we see a situation where people are owed revenue and tax money that they
feel is owed to them by the federal government and through Revenue Canada, and
they want to be able to claim back that money. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a
legitimate request. In fact, if you look at the amount of money they are owed, I
think collectively if you add it up we are looking at somewhere between $20
million to $25 million that is owed to people who sold back their licences and
remitted taxes under unprecedented tax laws, being misinformed by a federal
government department like DFO, that really had no right to be providing
information to fisherpeople anyway on their tax exemption and laws. That is the
job of the Revenue Canada, not the job of DFO.
So, Mr. Speaker, they have a very legitimate issue. These are people, as I
said, who have worked in a profession all their lives that provided very little
security. In fact, over the course of a thirty or forty year career, many of
these people in the fishing industry have often faced and battled things like
declining stocks, low prices, market conditions, hampered by ice and climatic
factors.
In fact, you only have to look today down in the area around Pacquet, in that
area. We have heard from people down there. It is something like thirteen or
fifteen communities along that coastline that are impacted this year by ice
conditions, where they have had their EI benefits now cut off since April of
this year. They have had no income for the last two months. They have severe ice
conditions in that area, and their industry is shut down. It does not matter if
all the gear is on the stagehead ready to go, it does not matter if the bait is
in the boat, it does not matter if the crew is dressed. The reality is that even
if they wanted to do their job today and work in the fishing industry and go out
and harvest, they cannot do it because of the ice conditions that are plaguing
that coast and this community.
Mr. Speaker, they have asked for compensation from the federal government and
they have asked that they be given some extension of EI programs, which we have
seen on many occasions in this Province when it has been warranted. This is
another case where these people feel it is warranted and that they should be
considered for some kind of extension of benefits until they are able to take to
the water and to start harvesting the stock. This is typical of the kind of
conditions that fisherpeople in this Province have endured their entire lives.
It is very typical. Once their industry was shut down, when their livelihood was
taken from them because of declining fish stocks and mismanagement practices of
the federal government, and the interventions of NAFO, and the control of
foreign fisheries over the years, we have seen a complete shutdown in that
industry, going back in the 1990s. As a result of it, they were given an offer,
but that offer fell on different conditions and different terms over the periods
of time.
For example, those who would have sold in 1996 had an ideal program, a
program which did not claw back their taxes, a program which allowed them to
sell, free and willingly, being able to keep their money and invest their money
for their long-term retirement in this industry. Fisherpeople are unlike most
people who work in a profession. You have to remember, it is not just about
getting up in the morning and showing up for work. It is about building up
investments over the years, and I think we have all seen it.
I live in an area where going back a decade ago, all the fishing industry was
based on outside communities we called it. They lived in one community in the
wintertime and in the summer they all relocated to a summer fishing grounds that
was closer to where the resource was, closer to the actual fishing grounds
themselves. So with their profession came a lot of expenses, and that meant
maintaining their extra houses, extra sheds, maintaining boats and vessels and
gear. So, it was a lifetime of investment into a profession. Therefore, the
government at the time recognized this when they offered them buyback programs
and early retirement programs, but what they failed to do was they failed to
provide the same precedented terms under the tax laws in 1999 that they had
allowed for in 1996. That is where this issue is really coming from with a lot
of these individuals.
They have received a number of letters. I know in 2000, fishermen received
letters from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency saying that the licence
retirement payments were treated as capital gains from the disposition of
capital property. In essence, the department was instructing the fishermen on
how to file out their tax returns, which appears now to be a mistake, and one
that the department realizes was a mistake and that they should not have been
doing.
Mr. Speaker, there is a number of correspondence that I have copies of here
around this issue. I think to date - I had someone check in my office today and
I think we are just a little short of after receiving 200 letters on this very
issue in the Province today, from 200 different fishing families that have been
affected by these tax laws. I think in Newfoundland and Labrador, while the
numbers for the entire program is up around 850, I think that something like 80
per cent of them at least would be in this Province. Of the couple of hundred
letters that I am after getting and receiving from people, I am sure there are
many others out there who are still affected.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is strong enough to just bring a resolution to
the floor of the House of Assembly, to ask all members to support this, because
I do not know of any member here who would not want to support a fair and
reasonable tax regime for the people that they represent, if they are owed
money, to ensure that their money is collected. What I would like to see is
government take it a step further. I would like to see them take it a step
further, and I asked this of the Minister of Fisheries, actually on several
occasion. On May 6, in the Estimates Committee for the Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, I asked the minister at that time to strike an all-party
committee of the House of Assembly to discuss the issue and to provide support
to these people and to advocate on their behalf with the federal government
jointly as a committee of the House to strengthen the argument. Again, on May 7,
I requested government to do the same and again on May 8, because I felt it was
very important that government be involved and that we do something substantial.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am moving an amendment to the motion that was put
forward by the Member for Lewisporte. I am moving the amendment in an effort to
strengthen the actions of this House, to strengthen the call to the federal
government, to act on behalf of those 850 families in this Province that are
impacted. I think it is important that we not only say we support you and we
want to ensure that you get your proper due in terms of taxation and you get the
money that you are owed, I think we need to take action. As parliamentarians in
Newfoundland and Labrador, we can work collectively together as all parities to
strengthen the arguments and the advocacy work around this issue. That is why
today, Mr. Speaker, I move, and seconded by my colleague the Member for Burgeo
& LaPoile, that this motion be amended by adding the following to the end of
motion:
Be It Further Resolved that this House of Assembly urge the provincial
government to strike an all-party committee to pursue the resolution of this
issue with the federal government.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is the amendment that I am tendering to the motion. I
hope there will be support for the amendment in the House of Assembly because it
will strengthen the work that we can do on behalf of the fishing families in
Newfoundland and Labrador to try and bring resolution to this on their behalf.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The House will take a few moments to review the amendment as put forward by
the Leader of the Opposition to determine whether the amendment is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order please!
Are the House Leaders ready?
Having reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition
the Chair finds the amendment in order.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Innovation, Trade and
Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and have a few words on the
private member's resolution that is in front of us.
I have had some experience with it over the years, of course, in previous
lives. I think it is important, when we discuss this - of course, I have had a
lot of representation over the past number of years from constituents in my
district and from people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly when
I was in as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
I think it is important, before we get too far into discussing this, that it be
put in context why these licence buyout programs were put in place. The
resolution only speaks to the 1996, 1999 and 2002 rounds of TAGS buyout. There
were actually a couple of other buyouts prior to that that some people may have
forgotten by now. The whole works of them came about because the federal
government, who were ultimately the guardians of the resource, mismanaged the
ground fishery in Atlantic Canada. They allocated too many licences and
allocated too much fish, and as a result of that we saw the collapse of the
fishery in Eastern Canada.
Their response to that, in the initial round, was an $800 million NCARP
program, Northern Cod Adjustment Recovery Program. Then, in the second round I
think it was $1.2 billion that was allocated under TAGS. Then there was another
round called FRAM-ED, and for the life of me it escapes me how much money was
associated with that. It is somewhere in the order of $3 or $3.5 billion that
was associated with adjustment and recovery, licence buyout, early retirement
programs and what have you over the course of about a twelve-year period.
All of it, Mr. Speaker, came about as a result of the collapse of the
fishery, and it collapsed because of federal mismanagement. We all had our
fingers in the pie, in the pot, so to speak, and we all have to share some
responsibility for it, but I compare it something akin to a bank manager saying
that there are a bunch of tellers who are taking money and they are the ones who
are the problem. Well, ultimately the bank manager has to take responsibility
for what goes on in the bank. The bank manager is the person who is supposed to
be looking after that stuff. In this case the bank manager is the federal
government. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, given the volume of money that they
spent at the time, although all of it was not spent appropriately, that they
assumed that responsibility and accepted that responsibility.
What we see here in front of us right now is another example of how the
federal government has mismanaged the fishing industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador, in the way in which they have applied the capital gains exemption,
over the course of a ten-year period, to people who sold their licences at their
request, in response to the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker, some people might say, and I have heard people say it, that
anybody who sold out under this licence retirement program knew what the rules
were. Well, with all due respect, I am sure that a lot of people did not
completely understand what the rules were. Secondly, in some cases the rules
were explained to them by, as the member for CartwrightL'Anse au Claire
pointed out earlier when she read an excerpt from a letter that came out from
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency back in 1999 - they were certainly of the
understanding and made aware that this licence retirement program was eligible
under the capital gains exemption. As a result of that, some people undoubtedly
made their decision and signed the letter accepting the federal government's
offer for their licence and walked away from the fishing industry. Why wouldn't
they? They had a letter from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and they also
had, Mr. Speaker, the benefit, up to that point, of three different rounds of
licence retirements in the Newfoundland fishery or the Atlantic Canadian
fishery.
As I said, some people might not remember, but in 1991 there was a salmon
licence retirement program. The salmon licences were bought out along the
Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, with the exception of on the Coast of Labrador.
Along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, the salmon licences were bought out
under a licence retirement program and, Mr. Speaker, the people were exempted
from capital gains rules. In 1992-1994, under NCARP, there was another licence
retirement program and there were two phases, two aspects of that one. You could
take $30,000 and remain in the industry or you could take $50,000 and get
completely out of the industry. Again, Mr. Speaker, the people who sold out
under that regime, at that time, under that program, were exempt from capital
gains. Because the capital gains exemption applied up to $100,000, and for
everything that you received over $100,000 then you fell into the category of
paying taxes, but before $100,000 you were essentially tax free.
You can take that and then move into 1996. The same thing happened. People
sold out their licences for $100,000 or $110,000. Take for example the person
who sold out a licence in Griquet in 1996 for $110,000, $100,000 of it was tax
free and $10,000 was taxable. Their tax bill at the end of the day, what was it?
Two or three thousand dollars, maximum, three or four thousand dollars - not
even probably.
You turn that around and you compare it to the person who sold out in 1999
with $110,000 as the bid - because it was a reverse auction that took place at
the time where the fisherman or fisherwoman who held the licence made an offer
to the federal government, to a panel that was established by the federal
government, and the panel looked at the person's history, looked at what their
licences were and said, yes, we believe that this is a fair offer for this set
of licences and we are going to buy this person's licence out. They came back
and said, yes, we accept your bid of $110,000. The person who accepted it, well
what did they do? He looks at Joe down the road who sold out, a couple of years
previously, for $110,000. He knows that Joe had to pay $3,000 in taxes. Well,
what is he going to do? I am going to do the same thing. I am going to accept
the federal government's offer to me and sign off for $110,000. Lo and behold,
because they were maybe on TAGS or maybe drawing EI for that intervening period
of time, they did not understand that because of the changes in taxation and
because of other things as it related to TAGS and EI and what have you, that all
of a sudden, that $110,000 was immediately 100 per cent taxable. On top of that,
the EI that they had received was now to be clawed back, or the TAGS that they
had received, if they had received any of that, was going to be clawed back too.
All of a sudden, $107,000 that their buddy Joe received became $50,000 or
$40,000. By the time it was all said and done, and because they had signed off
on it, they did not find out all of this until they filed their income tax a
year later.
Here they are now, everything gone, licence gone, no ability to go back into
the fishing industry in any way, shape or form. Not just that they could not go
back into the fishery as a licence holder and as the head of an enterprise, they
could not go back in the fishery as a crew member, they could not go back in the
fishery as a cook aboard of a fishing boat, they could not go back into the
industry as a crab worker in a crab plant or an inspection worker on the shrimp
line. Mr. Speaker, they had everything gone under a bunch of rules that were
not, in the first instance, articulated to them in a way that was accurate.
Number two, everything that had happened previous to that, in three previous
rounds of licence retirement, had been under a different set of rules. The rules
changed in midstream and then, as my colleague from Lewisporte pointed out, you
go beyond that and, to add insult to injury, I suppose the federal government
recognized that this was not going to work, that they were not going to get the
uptake in the Licence Retirement Program, because this program was supposed to
end around 1999 or 2000, but because of what happened and because there was, if
my memory serves me correctly, probably $50 million or something like that, I
think, allocated for licence retirement under the TAGS Program, but I could be
wrong on that, it was expected to go in two or three rounds, the fact of the
matter is it dragged on and dragged on because people were not so eager to sell
out, as the federal government might have thought they were.
Giving up their livelihood is not the easiest thing for anybody to do, and,
as a result of that, it dragged on and dragged on until you get into 2002. You
get into 2002, the last round of buyout under the TAGS program, the last amount
of money that was left to be utilized in order to buy out a few more licences -
because the federal government still recognized that there were too many
licences in the industry, still recognized that something had to be done, the
capacity had to be taken out - so what did the federal government do? Reversed
the ruling on the capital gains exemption, re-established it in tax law at the
time, so one little group of people stuck in the middle essentially sold out
their licences, lost their licences, with no real compensation at the end of the
day; because, if you look at it, what is your livelihood worth?
I don't know about anybody else, but there are lots of days that this place
frustrates me; but I don't think you are going to buy me out for $40,000.
Somebody might kick me out. Any number of people can kick me out of here, and
there might be a day that I walk away with an option to come back if anybody is
foolish enough to re-elect me, but the fact of the matter is I am not going to
walk away from here for $40,000 and sign a paper saying I am never allowed back
in this place again.
That is what was done to the people in the fishing industry who are impacted
by this decision. They walked away for as little as nothing and can never go
back in the industry in any way, shape or form. They can hardly go on the wharf
and catch a tomcod. I suppose you can't, because you are not allowed to do
that either.
Take a fifty-year-old person, now, who has spent their life in the industry,
to have to choke that down and be told, then, on top of that, that 100 people or
so who decided to challenge this in court ended up getting an out-of-court
settlement and essentially got some shut-up money, for lack of a better way of
putting it, and they cannot get it.
Now, this is the dilemma that we have, and I really have to ask I only
have four minutes left, Mr. Speaker, so I am going to clue up shortly but I
have to ask. I remember in this House, when I was Minister of Fisheries, going
through some fairly rough times, and I remember being criticized for some of the
decisions that I made, and one of the people who criticized me most was a person
who now sits in the federal Conservative caucus. He was a champion, supposedly,
of the fishing industry at the time, and of fishermen, and I don't know why,
with his close association one Fabian Manning with his close association
with the federal government, and with the federal Prime Minister, and with the
federal caucus and federal Cabinet, supposedly, why the three members that we
have in the federal government right now are not standing up and demanding that
this injustice be corrected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I do not understand it; because, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
three years ago, about this time, one Fabian Manning had no trouble, supposedly,
standing up then and defending the interests of the fishermen and fisherwomen of
Newfoundland and Labrador, when he walked out of our caucus or he got kicked
out of our caucus - for the way that he was getting on.
Apparently he is after quieting down an awful lot since then. The champion of
the fishing industry is after being silenced.
I say to the people who contact me: Yes, the provincial government has a
responsibility to lobby on your behalf. We have a responsibility, and the
Department of Fisheries, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries, and every
member of this House has a responsibility and a right to lobby on behalf of
their constituents on a matter of such important as this, but ultimately the
federal government are the people who have the only opportunity to correct this
mistake. We have three people in the caucus of the Conservative government right
now in Ottawa, and two of them I am not going to speak about the other
fellow, but two of them are supposedly great friends of the fishing industry
in Newfoundland Labrador, and I would like to know what they are going to do
about this injustice, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, I want to speak because I only have a little over a
minute-and-a-half left to the Leader of the Opposition's proposed
amendment. I understand why she would make that amendment, Mr. Speaker, for an
all-party committee, but I am just going to say this: We have had all-party
committees under their Administration, when myself and the now Premier and the
now Leader of the Opposition, and what have you a number of others, a former
Minister of Fisheries - went off to Ottawa lobbying on various topics; and, Mr.
Speaker, I have to say, in all honesty, it was just as well if we stayed home.
There was nothing gained out of it. We spent $40,000 or $50,000, I suspect, or
probably more, and there was nothing gained from it. Inasmuch as we should have
something from an all-party perspective, I would hope today, when we conclude
debate, we will have unanimous support amongst all parties and all members of
this House on the motion that was put forward by the Member for Lewisporte.
I, for one, will definitely be supporting that motion. I have to say, with
all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I understand why she would
suggest an all-party committee but given our experience a couple of times, a
couple of rounds for me anyway being a member of the all-party committee led by
the former government, there wasn't a whole lot accomplished. We had a nice
trip to Ottawa and we had a great evening chatting amongst ourselves on
Parliament Hill, but at the end of the day there wasn't much gained, there
wasn't much fruit for our labors.
Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that we not move down the road of an all-party
committee, but we certainly have all-party support for this. We ask the Minister
of IGA and the Minister of Fisheries and all members of this House to work on
behalf of their constituents and call upon our three, in particular,
conservative members to stand up and do the right thing by the fishermen and
fisherwomen they have as constituents in their districts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted this afternoon to stand and speak to both the motion and the
amendment, both of which I support. I support the amended motion.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisporte for having put this motion on the
floor. This is an extremely important issue and I don't guess there is anybody
in this hon. House there may be some but if you don't know about Elizabeth
Harvey, you certainly have met with her as well. Of course, Elizabeth Harvey is
the individual from Isle aux Morts who has really been coordinating the effort
to see that the fishing people who have been affected by the actions of the
federal government get redressed. This is so unjust that it almost goes without
saying; how unjust this situation is.
I want to note: in the motion that the Member for Lewisporte has put on the
floor the whereases are important, because it talks about the Constitution of
Canada providing for fair and equitable treatment of all citizens, and it talks
about Revenue Canada being charged with the responsibility of collecting income
tax in a fair and equitable manner. Those two words, fair and equitable, are
words that are supposed to be the hallmark of who we are in Canada, words that
are supposed to be the hallmark of who we are as a people. The very basis of
what we are, our constitution uses that language.
The whole notion of equalization, the equalization system, the equalization
formula, payments to provinces who do not do as well as other provinces, that is
based on the whole notion of fair and equitable. It goes without saying that if
there is any group in this Province in particular who deserves fair and
equitable treatment, it is the fishing people of this Province.
I will not get into a history lesson, but it is good for us to remember on
what the fishing industry was based, for centuries actually. That for centuries
we had fishing people who got very little for their work; fishing people who
were controlled actually by merchants. Fishing people who did not even get cash
for the work that they did, who bartered in order to get payment back for the
work that they did. That is the history of our Province. It is good for us to
remember it because the families who are still fishing, families who live mainly
in the outports of this Province, families who maybe no longer are fishing
because of what happened to our cod stock, they all come from that history. They
all come from a history where our fishing people did not get treated equitably
and fairly and justly. That is the reality.
Here we are, in 2008, and we see our own federal government using its own
laws to treat unjustly and unfairly a group of people who have been and are the
backbone of this Province. Now it is not unusual that you see this kind of thing
happen, especially with the revenue agency, I hate to say.
It is only quite recently, actually in the last couple of weeks I have been
dealing with a young woman, a recent mother. She has only worked for minimum
wage all her life, although she has worked in the retail industry as a waitress.
So, she has made more money than minimum wage because of tips. As a young
mother, somebody who should be able to get maternity leave because of EI - she
has worked ever since she left high school, somebody who has not earned a lot of
money and because of the system not working for her, because EI and the Canadian
Revenue Agency and the Child Tax, because all of those do not work together in
any kind of cohesive way, she is being penalized beyond anything with regard to
benefits that she should be receiving as a young mother eligible for maternity
benefits.
When I read what is in the motion that the hon. member has put on the floor,
I become a bit discouraged because I know that Revenue Canada is charged with
the responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner but I
really do not believe that our system works for the people at the lower end of
the scale. For them, it is not fair and equitable. They end up being the ones
who suffer. They end up being the ones who do not get what they deserve and
paying back.
I know this is not the fishery but it is a good example. So I am going to
continue with it for a minute. For example, with this young woman that I am
talking about, because she was honest in her tax return and gave information
about EI and was honest with EI, she has ended up now having money being clawed
back because of her honesty; because of the two systems working one against the
other, the EI system and the taxation system working in conflict with one
another. That is unacceptable. That is exactly the same kind of thing that we
have happening here, that we have systems working against each other.
It is unbelievable that this government could put in place the plan for the
buybacks. That is happening at one level, in one department, DFO. The buybacks
were a wonderful idea, and I am sure there are people who are saying: Wow, they
were getting $100,000, $110,000 but they were getting that money based on years
of work, based on years of hard labour. So we get DFO doing this with one hand
over here, and then over here with the Canadian Revenue Agency we get the
taxation happening. It just amazes me with government how we can do that kind of
thing and people get caught in the middle and suffer and ne'er the twain will
meet.
We have it happen in our own system provincially. We have these kinds of
things happening where programs in one department conflict with another and it
is the people who suffer in the middle, and that is what we have happening here
with the fishing people. It upsets me so much and I am sure it upsets everybody
in this room. That is why I am really glad that we can discuss this together and
all of us together show the people in this Province, especially the people who
are
fighting this situation, the people who are hoping to get their money back,
to show them that we are all united in supporting them. I hope that we will move
forward with that sign of being united, that we will do more than just stand
here in the House today and speak to this, that we will do something concrete to
show these people that we are fighting for them. That is why I do like the
amendment to the motion.
I can understand what my hon. colleague said a few minutes ago, but you
cannot give up because one time it did not work. This could be the time it could
work. This could be the time by having an all-party committee, and we sit down
those people who are in the Cabinet in Ottawa, who say they are part of the
fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador and a friend of the fishers, and we
make them sit and talk to all of us together. This could be the time that it
would work, because something has to be done to show real solidarity with these
fishing people who have been treated so unjustly, and continue to be treated
unjustly.
There is a whole issue around claw backs, and it is such a part of our system
that we accept claw backs. I think there should be real restrictions on claw
backs because this is the other part of what happened. Besides the fact of the
non-taxable buyback and the fact that they ended up being taxed, they also were
not told that they would also have amounts of money clawed back. For example,
payments under the Northern Cod Adjustment Program, the payments under TAGS,
previous salmon licence buybacks, Child Tax Benefits, GST credits, that all
these claw backs were going to happen as well. This is part of our system and I
really think we have to have a serious look at claw backs because we claw back
without any thought to what the overall income of the people is. What is the
overall income of the person who is having money clawed back? It is
unacceptable. Just as what is happening here with regard to the buyback is
unacceptable.
What concerns me is that these people are retired. This was the whole idea of
the buyback. This was to allow them to be able to retire, to have the equivalent
of a pension. These people do not have pensions. This is money they can put into
RRSPs so that they have money to continue living on, that when they are in their
seventies that money can be part of a RRIF that they will continue to get money
from. This is real life, so we do have an obligation to stand here and to be
concerned about them, and to speak to their situation, just like we have to be
concerned about other people in the fishery as well. I know that the men and
women who are affected by this situation with the Canadian government are also
concerned about other workers in the fishery. For example, we have 30 per cent
of plant workers who are fifty years of age and older, and it is mainly women.
Many of us, I am sure, have stood at the gates of the plants. Maybe some in
the room have even worked in the plants. I have not, but I have seen the
workers, some of these workers over fifty, walking into the plant at 6:00 o'clock
in the morning going to work. They are tired of standing in that plant, and
standing in cold, and being on their feet all day long doing that plant work.
When we talk about retirement, we have to look at the condition of people's
work. Maybe that is another resolution that could go on this floor. Maybe that
is something else that we can talk about together as three parties: our concern
for plant workers over fifty who should be able to take early retirement.
We have so much around our fishery that we have to be concerned about, that
we are not doing enough about. Our fishery continues to be the backbone. I know
there are people who do not believe that. I would like to think that all of us
here in this room do believe that. I, myself, did not grow up with somebody in
the fishery in my family; however, my mother's family came from Heart's
Content and was rooted in the fishery. There is a
section over in Heart's
Content called Rockwood Room, and that was where my mother's family was.
I grew up with a notion of how important the fishery was to the history of
this Province, and that is what I hope this discussion today is doing for
anybody who is watching; that people who are watching, who are not part of the
fishery, are getting a sense of how important this issue is, and how and why we
should be speaking to it, and why we should be putting effort into it.
There are so many ways in which our fishery can grow. Our fishery can grow
one way is through aquaculture. I know the government is doing that. Another
way is through restocking. Another way is through marine protected areas. There
is so much that we can do to make sure that, when oil and gas is gone, our
fishery just as it was in day one will continue to be a strong industry
that is serving the people of this Province.
We will never get the same number of people in the fishery again as we had.
We know we are down almost 50 per cent in terms of the people who are working in
the fishery, but those 50 per cent who are left in the fishery have a good life
right now, and it can be made better, and that is what we are about here in this
House: to find the ways to make that happen.
Our responsibility is to those who are still in the industry, to make sure
that we are coming up with ideas, with ways in which that industry can be
strengthened, so that they will continue in the industry, their children will
continue in the industry, their grandchildren will continue in the industry, but
we also have a responsibility, too, for those who were so badly affected by the
changes in our fishery, those who were affected by the whole disaster with
regard to our cod stock, those who have taken
part in the buyout and who are
retired, that we have a responsibility to them as well.
I hope that we will do more than stand here today and speak to this issue. I
hope we will do more, as a House of Assembly, than just talk.
As I said a few minutes ago and I will repeat again, I will be voting for the
amended motion. I would really hope that the whole House would vote for the
amended motion so that we can take efforts together, as a House of Assembly,
showing that we have a united voice, and pointing out to the federal government
how unjust it is what is happening, that it is a grave injustice, an injustice
that cannot continue, and that we, as a House of Assembly, see it that way, we
name it that way, and that we are calling upon our federal government to bring
justice to the people who have been affected by this decision.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing others of my
colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly a privilege today to stand and second the motion made by my
good friend, the hon. colleague from the District of Lewisporte, a motion that
calls upon the federal government to intercede and to require Revenue Canada to
correct the unfair tax burden that has been placed on some Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement
Program.
It is a special honour as well for me, as I do represent a number of
constituents who have certainly been impacted by this decision. I represent a
fishing district, some thirty-seven communities all born of the fishery and all
very much dependent on the fishery today.
I will say, as well, there have been a number of speakers today on this issue
and certainly, for the listening audience, I want to assure people, from the
discussions I have had with my colleagues here in this House, there is a great
unwavering support for this motion; for they, too, have received letters and
calls and are eager to support their constituents in this long, long, battle for
fairness and justice.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I could start, I would like to perhaps take a
chronological look at this whole issue and try to put in perspective what this
small group of fishermen and fisherwomen has gone through over the years.
There are hundreds of people and families that have been impacted by this
unfair tax burden, to the tune of $20,000 to $40,000 for some individuals. This
amount, these figures - it has been suggested - have an impact on our Province
of $30 million to $40 million that would be put into the economy of this
Province.
I would like to, as well, as I go through this, take a look at the federal
government's responsibility to do what is right in this situation. Perhaps, to
start, we could go back to the history. We all recall that devastating and
shocking day, July 1, 1992, with the ringing announcement of a shutdown, the cod
moratorium, the shutdown of a fishery that had a devastating impact on
individuals, families and communities. We all recall the anger, the protests,
the fear, the anxiety, and indeed the grief, that echoed throughout every bay
and every cove in Newfoundland and Labrador. The largest single mass layoff in
Canadian history; 40,000 people were directly impacted by that announcement.
Mr. Speaker, that was the start of the issue which we are dealing with today
but the reality of that announcement is that we lost the fishery that defined
the character and spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador. We lost the fishery that
shaped our identity, our economy, our culture; and, for many people directly
involved in the fishery, with that announcement they lost their independence and
their means to make a living.
From admission of responsibility and recognition of the hardships, the
federal government committed to support the displaced fishers and plant workers
in this Province. To do so, they came up with a number of strategies -
strategies with specific goals: goals to restructure the fishery, goals to
reduce capacity, and goals to provide adjustment programs to the people directly
affected. We can recall some of those strategies: income support; retraining
programs; counselling; mobility support; economic development funds; retirement
for older fishers; and specifically, the licence retirement program.
In hindsight, it is certainly arguable that while the intentions were
obviously very supportive to the people at the time, and very supportive to the
economy of the Province, it may not have truly achieved its objective. The TAGS
program, in fact, cost a lot more than was intended. The groundfish stocks did
not recover as was expected, and the reality was, as my hon. colleague from The
Straights & White Bay North indicated, with too many people and too many
licences, the fishery was just not sustainable. So, there had to be some
incentive, some way, of reducing the capacity in the industry.
That way, Mr. Speaker, was the licence retirement program, a voluntary
program that provided people who have gone through undue hardship to sell back
to the federal government their licence in return for an income. The process of
licence retirement is similar to a reverse auction, where fishers had to bid on
the value of their licences based on vessel size, based on historic catches,
their age and their age towards retirement. All of these factors were
considered, no doubt, and a board had to decide then the value and the worth of
the licence.
At that time, the consideration of licence retirement was obviously impacted
by a capital gains exemption which would allow fishers who sold back their
licences to have an increased net income that obviously would enable them to
retire and certainly move towards the age of sixty-five.
Mr. Speaker, for many of us who are not involved, it is easy to dismiss that
whole decision, but undoubtedly, many fishers and their families struggled with
a very difficult decision. They struggled with the idea of giving up a way of
life, perhaps a way of life from generation to generation, from their
grandfathers to their fathers. They had to make that decision with so much
uncertainty. For many of them it came down to: can we afford not to?
With the licence retirement program, as my colleague alluded to earlier,
there were a number of programs and licence buyouts over the years. With
specific reference to this fishery, in the mid-1990s there was a buyout, a
licence retirement program, which was supported with a $100,000 capital gains
exemption. This was a good deal. Some 850 fishers availed of that opportunity
and, as a result, got out of the fishery and were able to make a claim for the
true value of their licence and what they held to make a living.
In 1999 - I guess the issue that we are faced with today - fishers were older
and the reality was that the cod stocks were not being replenished. The issue of
retraining and relocation was really not an option for many of the older fishers
out there in our smaller communities. In 1999 they were not fortunate enough to
have the leadership, the vision and the opportunities that are in this Province
today. Retraining and relocation was not an option for many, so they opted for
the licence retirement.
It is my understanding that at that time DFO sent out letters to fishermen
and accountants to indicate that the income would be considered capital gains,
income received from their licence retirement. Fishermen submitted bids with the
expectation that their net income from their licence retirement buyout was what
they could use for their retirement. Insignificant capital gains exemptions
meant that their income, their TAGS income, and other factors severely reduced
their net income and, in essence, reduced the value of what they owned and what
they used to make a living all of their lives. As a result, many fishers in this
Province were faced with an incredible tax bill at retirement stage, some up to
$40,000. Many found life to be very difficult and certainly a difficult outlook
for the future.
Mr. Speaker, that is where it gets complicated. It is my understanding that
certain groups who were engaged in the 1999 licence retirement program sought
legal counsel, appealed to Revenue Canada, and, as a result, were given a more
significant exemption under capital gains. They were either reimbursed or given
back some money clawed back from the licence retirement income. Apparently, it
has been suggested that they were advised to keep it quiet.
When the current group that we are talking about today, some 800 to 1000
people in this Province, learned of this deal and sought legal counsel and again
appealed to the Canada Revenue Agency, they were denied. They were denied on a
technicality, saying they had passed the deadline. Here is a group of fishermen,
similar to their neighbour, similar circumstances, faced with the similar
decision, but they were being denied on a technicality.
Through some of my research I read a letter from a tax company dated March
31, 2004, long after the 1999 buyout. In that letter it was suggested that the
tax company had negotiated a new arrangement. They had negotiated a new deal to
which their client would be very happy and pleased, and that there would be a
cheque issued come the fall of 2004. Mr. Speaker, that cheque has not arrived,
to my understanding.
I have to say, if one group is given an exemption, increased money, and
another group is not, on a technicality, and then we find out a tax company is
negotiating and making arrangements on behalf of their clients, it certainly
casts a shadow of doubt on fairness and equality and treatment for these
fishermen when it comes to the Canada Revenue Agency and what they went through
in 1999.
We have fishermen who, from generation to generation, kept the economy of our
small communities alive. We have fishermen, many of whom are up in age and ready
for retirement but denied on a technicality, while others were given deals,
backroom deals, and asked to keep quiet about it. Mr. Speaker, I say that is not
good enough. That is not good enough for the people of this Province, it is not
good enough for the fishermen who were tormented and tortured to make that
decision, and made plans with their families to retire, and who were given
conflicting information along the way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: That is the issue, and that is why the resolve of this group
of people continues to this day, sixteen years after their livelihood was lost.
Eight years after they had filed for the licence retirement program, they still
to this day are arguing and making their points. We today, as a group of
representatives for the people of this Province, are considering a motion, a
motion to support this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the federal government is responsible for the Licence
Retirement Program. When we look at the big picture, I may be wrong on this
figure but it was one figure I saw in my research, some 6,000 people in this
Province, some 6,000 fishers took advantage of the Licence Retirement Program.
Yet, here we are today, several years later, dealing with 800 or 900 fishers who
have been denied what 4,000 or 5,000 other fishers in this Province readily took
available and prospered because of it. We have a small group of fishers who have
been unfairly treated. We have another group from the 1999 Licence Retirement
Program who were given a sweetheart deal, a backroom deal, asked to keep quiet
about. If that is not an admission of wrongdoing, than I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker, some of these fishermen with the changes in our economy today
are struggling and finding it difficult. They are struggling not only
financially but they are struggling with the unfair and unjust treatment that
they have received. That is why I am pleased to support the motion introduced by
the Member for Lewisporte today.
I want to say in closing, it is unfortunate with respect to this issue that
the Canada Revenue Agency appears willing and prepared to hang their hat on a
technicality and deny these fishermen their income. Mr. Speaker, I also want to
say today, and certainly say on behalf of the people of the Isles of Notre Dame,
I am very proud and I am proud that the members sitting in this House today are
quite prepared to hang our hat on the side of fairness and respect for the
fishermen of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, just a final statement. Personally, I think
there are too many unanswered questions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, leave.
MR. DALLEY: I will be a second, Mr. Speaker.
I think in reviewing this matter, I feel there are certainly too many
unanswered questions and I call on Minister Hearn, the federal government and
the Canada Revenue Agency, to review this file and do what is fair and right for
all of the participants in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement
Program.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity to have a few
comments here, just a few preliminary comments.
First of all, on the motion put forward on Private Members' Day here by the
Member for Lewisporte, I certainly will be voting in favour of that particular
resolution that is here. Technically, I think it might be a little incorrect in
the sense that it only refers to the 1999 Atlantic groundfish retirement
program. I believe there were actually successive buyout programs that are
impacted by this.
Just for the record, or those who do not know, there were 850 people impacted
by this tax battle. Of those 850 fishers, fifty-two are now deceased since the
battle started in 1999-2000. In terms of dollars, we are talking about
approximately $1.6 million that those fishermen do not have right now but is in
the federal government coffers as a result of what the federal government has
done. That is for the facts.
The history of this thing, for anybody who has listened to Open Line shows,
listened to resolutions in this House before and speeches that us, as members
have given in this House, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the
Leader of the Opposition and myself, is well-known. In fact, I am pleased,
albeit surprised, to see a government member move the resolution. Because at the
end of the day, anybody in this Province who has been listening, and certainly
the media, they know who started this issue. I am going to give credit, first of
all, where credit is due.
The person who deserves the most credit, the single individual who deserves
the most credit for putting this issue on the radar is none other than a lady
named Elizabeth Harvey, who lives in the Town of Isle aux Morts, and that
happens to be in my District of Burgeo & LaPoile. Nobody deserves more
credit than her, and I do not know if her name has been mentioned here today. If
there is any lady and person who deserves credit for taking an issue and ramping
it up and brining it to the concern of all the parties that might be able to
help her, she is certainly the lady who did that. Of course, they have their
lawyer, Mr. Eli Baker, who has been intimately involved in this matter through
the legal route and the various appeal processes that have been ongoing. So, the
history is well-known.
The federal government are dealing unfairly with this group of people who had
the licence buyouts. All she is asking for and all of these 850 people are
asking for, is to be treated fairly by the Canadian tax system. You had a
certain select group, approximately 100 of them, who managed to cut a deal. They
cut a deal and they walked away with minimal tax consequences as a result of the
buyout. Yet, we end up with this 850 people who instead of paying out an average
of $6,800 as a result of a buyout, they are out $40,000 each. That is how unfair
this is. How can you take a group of people, apply the same regulations to them,
and one group walks away paying $6,800 - a hundred of them, because they cut a
deal with the tax department - and the other 850 has $40,000 gone out of their
coffers and their pockets. I will not even go to the fact that they need it.
Everybody knows they need it. That is why the issue is of such urgency.
So, we know who started this. We know who has been promoting this - and I am
pleased to see that the Member for Lewisporte took it upon himself to bring it
here today, but I want to see, more importantly as well, rather than just having
a Private Member's Resolution here that government members are going to stand
up on and say: yea, we agree to talk to the tax department. I am going to see
how principled they are. Let's see the government members put their money
where their mouth is when it comes to voting on the amendment, because everybody
- Elizabeth Harvey will be the first one to tell you, their lawyer, Mr. Baker,
will be the first one to tell you, and the 850 people impacted by this will be
the first one to tell you, that just passing a resolution here in the House
saying: Let's encourage the federal government to be fair with these people
and encourage the tax department to be fair with these people. That just does
not cut it. You need more than that.
Now, I noticed the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North, former Minister of Fisheries, got up here today and
pooh-poohed the idea of an all-party committee. Well, you talk about talking out
of both sides of your mouth. That is the same member, by the way, that is the
same member - the former Minister of Fisheries, when he was in Opposition a few
years ago, sat on an all-party committee. Maybe all he did was go to Ottawa, as
he said, and have a chit-chat, but I would like to think - maybe he should go
back and read his notes as to what he thought of it then. He stood up in this
House and what he thought of the all-party committee, of which he formed a part.
I did not hear him then saying it was a waste of time. I did not hear him saying
then it was a waste of time. By the way, m