December 11, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 37

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we welcome thirty-seven students from Botwood, in the District

of Exploits. These students represent Botwood Collegiate, the Botwood Boys and

Girls Club, and the Botwood Community Youth Network. They are accompanied by

their teachers: Darryl Chippett and Darrell Rice, as well as their chaperones:

Gloria Evans, Perry Chippett and Susan Hemeon.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans;

the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for Fortune

Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for Exploits; and the hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain John Russell, formerly of Red Cliff, Bonavista Bay, and currently

residing at Bonavista, celebrates his 100 th birthday today, December

I have known Captain Johnny for many years; in fact, there is a long-standing

history between our families. I am proud to stand in this place today and call

Captain John Russell a true friend.

Raised by his great-aunt and uncle following the death of his mother when he

was just one week old, Captain Johnny became and remains to this day a dedicated

and devoted family member. Along with his wife, Gwen, he raised six children,

has seventeen grandchildren and twelve great-grandchildren.

For some years, Captain Johnny owned and sailed his own schooner, prosecuting

the Labrador fishery. He was one of the first skippers to own a longliner when

they were introduced to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in early 1950s. He

sailed for many years as Chief Mate on vessels owned by the Crosbie Group of

Companies, as well as the vessel Blue Peter owned by the Blue Peter

Steamships Limited. In later years, he was captain of Chester Dawe's private

yacht, and he and Mr. Dawe remained friends until his death a few years ago.

During the war, Captain Johnny served in the Canadian Navy. He was towing

targets for the Navy off St. John's when two ore carriers were torpedoed off

Bell Island. Little did he know there were German submarines lurking in the

waters all around him.

Mr. Speaker, Captain John Russell is respected by all who know him. He has a

fantastic memory, and his marine knowledge is sourced every day, even at the

ripe age of 100. He possesses a sense of humour that is enjoyed by all who visit

his home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all member of this House today to join with me in wishing

Captain John Russell a happy 100 th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during this past summer a ceremony was held at the Joe Byrne

Memorial Stadium where the Newfoundland and Labrador's Baseball Association

welcomed two new inductees, Dale Green and Tom Blackmore from Grand

Falls-Windsor, to its Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Dale Green began playing baseball at age twelve, and recalls

that his love for the game came naturally. He quickly gained a very impressive

record during what would become an illustrious career. He has won eleven senior

championships; played on eight provincial Senior B championship teams, and

played in six Atlantic championships. In 1976, he played in the Canadian

National Midget Championship and was the winning pitcher in the semifinals

against the host province. He was also named Top Batter in the tournament, which

led to a position on the all-star team. He has also played in numerous other

championships and has won countless MVP and Top Batter awards.

Tom Blackmore, who now resides in Halifax, began playing baseball in Grand

Falls-Windsor at age seventeen, and throughout his career he was a catcher,

right fielder, and first baseman. His favourite position was on the side of the

plate where it was not unusual for him to bat upwards of 600. One game that

stands out was the 1953 All-Newfoundland semifinal against Gander, where he

scored five runs to lead his team to victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

congratulating Dale Green and Tom Blackmore, who have been inducted into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Association Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate Courtney Woodford,

age fourteen, of Triton on releasing her first CD.

Courtney has been playing the piano and singing since pre-school. She is seen

throughout the district singing at events like the Remembrance Day ceremonies,

Pilley's Island Tree Lighting Ceremony, and many school functions as well.

Courtney's CD is comprised of easy rock and Christian music. This has been

a dream come true for Courtney, and she accredits her achievement to the help

and dedication of her music teacher, Mark Walters.

Courtney's CD was recorded at Sweet Waters Studios in Springdale. Devin

Robinson produced the CD and was quoted as saying Courtney is a strong singer.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, talented rural Newfoundlanders are making their way

in the music industry. I hope this will be the beginning of a long career for

Courtney.

I would like my hon. colleagues to join with me in congratulating Courtney

Woodford on her first CD.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Megan Buffett, a young

up-and-coming singer and performer from St. Alban's who was recently awarded

the Mary Emerancy Pickard Music Scholarship.

It was just this past May that I rose to recognize her as a recipient of

$38,000 in scholarships. The Mary Emerancy Pickard Music Scholarship from Mount

Allison University is a prestigious award. It is a first year renewable award

valued at $6,000. The music scholarship recognizes academic and performance

excellence. It is awarded annually to students studying music. The scholarship

was established in memory of Mary Emerancy Pickard, the university's first

piano teacher and mother of Dr. Ralph Pickard Bell, graduate and first

Chancellor of Mount Allison University.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of Bay d'Espoir Academy, Megan looked at a

number of music programs and decided that Mount Alliston was best suited for

her. She is enrolled in the Bachelor of Music program, majoring in voice and is

the sole recipient of this year's award for the incoming class. While singing

is her speciality, she also plays several instruments and plans to pursue a

career in performing arts.

The daughter of Raymond and Louise Buffett, Megan has been involved in

community activities including Girl Guides of Canada, the Royal Canadian Army

Cadets, the Community Youth Centre and teaching instruments, voice and directing

music.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating Ms Megan Buffett on receiving the Mary Emerancy Pickard

Scholarship and wish her all the best in her music career.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Newfie Bullets

on winning the bronze medal in the 2006 World Broomball Championships, Mixed

Division in Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, the mixed broomball team was made up of eleven players from

Bishop's Falls, three from Goose Bay and two from Grand Falls-Windsor and

represented Newfoundland and Labrador competing against other teams from Canada

and countries such as Japan, Italy, and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, after round robin play the team advanced to the quarter final

playdowns where they defeated Kingston one to nothing in double overtime, the

game had to be decided in a shoot out, which advanced the team to the

semi-finals.

They lost the semi-finals and had to compete against Minnesota for the bronze

medal, in that final medal competition they defeated Minnesota in a final score

of 4 to 1.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating our

mixed broomball team on winning the bronze medal at the world championships.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, December 1, I was very pleased to attend the opening of the long

awaited Kiddy Viddy Valley Playground located on the corner of Regiment Road and

Cuckhold's Cove Road in the village of Quidi Vidi.

The Quidi Vidi Village Foundation sent a flyer around their community

requesting that everyone have an opportunity to participate in the naming of the

playground and the name they came up with was K-i-d-d-y V-i-d-d-y and was chosen

by consensus of the residents. They believe the spelling was very appropriate

for a playground - Kiddy. As well, it represents one of the regular

pronunciations of the name.

The people have been waiting for almost twenty years for this playground. It

had been originally promised to be created in the early 1980s by the City of St.

John's, but took this long for details to be worked out.

The playground is in a beautiful location overlooking Quidi Vidi Village. For

as long as the community has been there, the residents and their children have

used the meadow, which is now partially a subdivision and the playground, so

they are very delighted that people will still be able to go to a place they

have always enjoyed and be there as a family.

It is the hard work of the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation that keeps their

community strong. It is an incredibly unique feature to have a little fishing

village in the middle of a major capital city and we must protect it.

I wish to thank City Councillors Shannie Duff and Frank Galgay for their

assistance, and also Wally Collins and Art Puddister for keeping us company on

the rainy and blowing afternoon when the park was opened.

I especially wish to thank every board member of the Foundation. They should

be proud and need to be congratulated for not giving up on their dream of having

a playground for the children in the community and their families.

I ask that all hon. members congratulate the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation

for all their hard work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that the roll-out of the

new and a more secure drivers' licences and photo identification cards have

begun.

The first cards were issues last Monday, December 4, at our office in Harbour

Grace. Mr. Harry Lilly of Heart's Delight was the very first person in our

Province to receive one of these cards, a new photo identification card.

This morning, I had the honour of presenting the first driver's licence

issued at our Mount Pearl location to Susan Brown of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to partner with our colleagues in the other

Atlantic provinces in providing these new licences. Although all of us are

responsible for our own jurisdictions, we have worked together through a joint

Request For Proposals to offer a new licence and photo id with enhanced security

features and a similar format. Through this co-operative approach, we have been

able to provide better security for the same or slightly lower cost than we

previously paid.

front of the card which are visible only under ultraviolet light. There are

one-dimensional and two-dimensional bar codes, micro-printing and a ghost'

portrait. The laminate coating on the card contains an optical image that

increases the card's durability, security and tamper resistance. These

patterns shift in colour as the card is tilted. With these new security

features, the new licences are extremely difficult to alter or counterfeit

without detection.

followed by the date the cardholder will turn nineteen in bold yellow text. This

text is positioned vertically next to the portrait. The new design also includes

our new provincial brand.

The rollout is over a five-year period and residents will receive a new

driver's licence upon renewal. That means that people do not need to replace

their driver's licence until the expiry date noted on them.

Mr. Speaker, I am also the Minister Responsible for Consumer Affairs and,

from that perspective, I am confident that the new drivers' licence will help

prevent identity theft. I am very pleased that we are able to offer this

improved service to our customers and I would like to thank the staff at the

Motor Registration Division for all their hard work on this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the rollout of the new drivers' licences

this week. In addition to our Mount Pearl office, residents in Grand

Falls-Windsor and Labrador City will receive these new drivers' licences

tomorrow. On Wednesday, our office in Corner Brook will start issuing them and

then on Thursday our office in Clarenville will as well. We are once again on

the leading edge in all of North America.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I have to say it is pretty astounding stuff, with all the problems happening

in this Province right now, that we could involve ourselves with this amount of

time here in the House.

I notice the pattern shift in colour when the card is tilted. I noticed a lot

of that here last week, actually, when we were tilting a few questions at the

members opposite.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I suspect this has more to do with rolling out the brand

than it has to do with the security of our licences and the protection of our

consumers. The consumers of this Province need protection from this government

and that minister, when you look at paying $180 to licence your car, and the

other exorbitant fees that exist in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has spared the consumer and the customer

out there in rural Newfoundland the added expense of having to rush out prior to

Christmas and getting the licences renewed right now.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister: Look for initiatives - look for

more initiatives - to find a way to better serve the public than to confuse the

public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that in today's world identification and security are

becoming more and more important and we have to keep up with new and innovative

ways to protect people's identity from theft, and to provide them with a means

of identification when called upon to provide it.

I say to the minister, also, that there are many other areas in which

government should be working with the Atlantic Provinces and other jurisdictions

in Canada to streamline things. I could think of a number of examples where

things should be more streamlined between the provinces, and hopefully we will

hear more about that in the months and years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand here in the House of Assembly to

recognize an important event in the history of human rights. Yesterday marked

fifty-eight years since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations unanimously adopted the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for

all people and for all nations.

Mr. Speaker, in honour of this universal declaration, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador proclaimed the Human Rights Code, along with other

jurisdictions in Canada and other nations that have proclaimed human rights

legislation.

The provincial Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker, which is enforced by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission, prohibits discrimination in

the areas of employment, services, publications and accommodations, on the basis

of race, religion, religious creed, political opinion, color or ethnic origin,

national or social origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or

mental disability, source of income, and family status. Harassment on the above

noted grounds and sexual solicitation is also prohibited under the Code, Mr.

Speaker. The Code also requires employers to pay equal wages to males and

females who perform the same or similar work.

Mr. Speaker, the recognition and protection of human rights is a hallmark of

a civilized and tolerant society. How we, as a society, recognize and respect

the dignity and worth of all persons without consideration of race, sex, creed

or color is an indication of how we have advanced in the acceptance of the

inherent value and worth of all persons in our Province and in our country.

In May of this year, this House of Assembly amended the Human Rights Code to

also prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, on the basis of family status

and source of income, and to extend the limitation period for bringing a

complaint from six months to one year.

Mr. Speaker, government has also requested that the Human Rights Commission

now engage in further public consultations to bring forward recommendations on

further amendments to the Human Rights Code, including a reformulation of the

definition of mental disability. We want to bring the current definition in line

with the definition contained in the proposed new Mental Health Care and

Treatment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this House, and all citizens of our

Province, to mark the fifty-eighth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration

of Human Rights by the United Nations, and to promote the observance of human

rights as a shared responsibility, and to reaffirm our commitment to eliminate

discrimination and harassment in all its forms.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his release.

This is the fifty-eighth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. It has been a long time, of course, and there has been a lot of progress

in that fifty-eight years, but we still have a long way to go.

We have been very fortunate in this Province that not only did we bring in a

Human Rights Act to commemorate what happened back there by the United Nations,

but we have been pretty vigilant over the years in updating our Human Rights Act

to reflect the changing societal values that we do have; but, of course, one

must be forever vigilant.

There are still a lot of countries in the world where human rights are not

being recognized near enough, and certainly nowhere near the standards that we

in Canada face. China, for example, South America, and I reference even a news

report I heard over the weekend from Iraq where the Taliban killed a

grandmother, her daughter, and two granddaughters, all for the crime of them

being teachers. That is just absolutely unacceptable. We must, I say to the

minister, be forever vigilant, not just on the fifty-eighth anniversary, but

each and every year. As long as we have human rights violations in our world, we

should continue to persevere and insist that it be eradicated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

As the previous speaker said, there has been a lot done in the area of human

rights and protection over the past number of years, but there still remains

much more to do. I would like to point out that in this country we enjoy

relatively good human rights legislation. Other countries are not so fortunate,

and I would like to draw attention to the role that our troops are playing in

Afghanistan, in particular, in helping provide that country with some basic

human rights that we take for granted.

There were some good legislation amendments made last year, when we did away

with discrimination based on age for under nineteen and over sixty-five. I agree

with the minister completely, that we need a new definition of mental disability

under the new Humans Rights Code.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Leave is granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: To stress the importance of this, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to read a quote from Reverend Martin Niem ller

in 1945, at the end of the war in Germany, when he stated: First they came for

the Communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then

they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then

they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for

me.

I think that is a very true saying, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to close by

saying, as a reminder to everyone, that an injustice to one is an injustice to

all, and we have a responsibility to stop discrimination and human rights

violations at every opportunity we see them occur.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week Joan Cleary was fired from her job as CEO of the Bull Arm

Corporation because of the flagrant abuse of the Public Tender Act. However, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier can give $15 million to his buddies without going to tender

on the fibre optic deal. The Premier can also give $300,000 in an untendered

contract to his Tory campaign manager during the last election to do a feel good

promotion. It is obvious that the Premier has two standards, one for himself and

one for everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why did you break the Department of Business's

guidelines on the fibre optic deal and why did you break the Public Tender Act

for your feel good campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has a very short memory when he talks

about feel good campaigns. If we started to look back at some of the things that

were spent by his government, we have the good things are happening campaign.

They spent $250,000 for self promotion; all about them, all about the leader at

the time. We have the Lower Churchill ad campaign, $181,900 for a project that

just never happened; pumped up, spent the money on their friends. Actually, in

fact, some of their friends, Bristol Communications, for example, over a period

of four or five years donated $254,000 to the Liberal Party. For that they

received $20 million in advertising contracts. Then we have the Voisey's Bay

ad campaign. That cost the taxpayers $635,000. That is the kind of money that

was spent on ad campaigns by this government. Then, of course, we had attack ads

against doctors, and that cost them another $90,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, Premier, you broke the law and you never answered

the question as to why you broke the law.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development said that no money would be given to companies involved in the fibre

optic deal until after April of next year, money would not flow until after the

Budget which comes down in April.

Given that the Auditor General has already been given or has received an

additional $50,000 just to investigate this deal - and he will probably be back

looking for more money, according to what he told us last week - and given the

fact that the Auditor General said this report can be back before October, I ask

the Premier: Will you hold off on giving these companies the $15 million until

the Auditor General's report on this fibre optic deal is complete?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we are going to finish off talking about what he was talking

about the last time, and that was breaking the law with respect to $300,000,

which is a number that he has completely made up off the top of his head, which

he spoke about on Open Line, which he throws out to the public, which is a

completely inaccurate number. That number is inaccurate and that is not the

right number. The number is actually, in fact, less than $200,000 and the

consulting fees that were actually paid to that firm were $70,000, of which

$25,000 was paid by the federal government.

Having said that, after we got the Atlantic Accord - I have said time and

time again to the people of this Province and the people in this Assembly, that

Accord exercise was not about money. It was about pride and respect and dignity

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We were notified late in the week that cheque was going

to be presented. We had very little time. We had already retained Bristol to do

a small piece of creative work, which was well within the $50,000 guideline.

Very late in the week we were notified that the federal government wanted to do

a very quick promotion. We felt is was very, very important to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially to the children of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that they know what it was all about and that they take pride in our

accomplishment, and they wear it right on their sleeve to the best of their

ability because it is so important. In that particular ad that was done there

were no politicians. It wasn't Roger Grimes or Gerry Reid or Judy Foote or any

of the former ministers of government, they were ordinary people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) saying their names.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I apologize for that. If I am using the names, I am

sorry; apology done.

It was ordinary people. Men, women and children of our Province appeared in

that ad with smiles on their faces. You cannot put a price on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it is also about how you spend taxpayers' money. The

fact of the matter is, whether it was $70,000 or $300,000, you broke the law and

you still have not told us why you did it, except for the fact that this fellow

was your campaign manager in the last provincial election.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are investing 30 per cent of

the total cost of the project on the fibre optics, yet we are getting an equity

share. Instead, the companies who are investing less are getting all of the

profits. The Premier continuously calls for equity shares in the offshore and

the Lower Churchill, yet is throwing $15 million at these three companies and

getting no equity stake.

I ask the Premier: Why are these companies, Persona, MTS Allstream and

Rogers, getting fibre strands and profits when the people of this Province are

only getting fibre strands, and to date we do not even know how many fibre

strands we are getting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are four weeks into this exercise now

and obviously, as the minister said, the hon. member opposite just simply does

not understand. He cannot comprehend what this is all about.

We actually own an asset. In fact, we own a piece of an $80 million asset,

not a $50 million asset. We, in fact, own a piece of an $80 million asset,

because not only do we have a piece of the link that comes down from Halifax and

then comes across the Gulf and cuts across the bottom of the Province, we also

have ownership of the rest of the fibre that goes all around the Province and

goes all the way back again. We have a significant piece of a significant asset,

similar to a condominium type of ownership, which you may or may not understand.

The other thing which is important: Last week the Government of Quebec, the

Province of Quebec, invested $900 million-plus in IT, in infrastructure, in

research and development. That is why Memorial University supports us and CONA

supports us and Nati supports us and Canarie supports us and the Board of Trade

supports us and the municipalities of this Province support us. Are they all

wrong? I don't think so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

God bless the Auditor General. Hopefully, we will get some answers then.

My questions today are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, last Thursday you fired Joan Cleary from the Bull Arm Site,

allegedly because of a breach of a Public Tender Act with regards to a contract

to CSL Services Limited for $70,000. To date, you have refused to disclose the

details of the CSL contract.

Minister, if you had completed your review to the extent that you could fire

Ms Cleary, surely you had this information available last week. Why are you not

disclosing the CSL information? Do you intend to disclose it, and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Honesty is very important, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes when

you are honest in small details it will tell you where you are going in the

larger picture. I was never asked for information on the winterization contract

last week, and when that information becomes available, I have no problem in

tabling it here in this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I reiterate my earlier comment. Surely you had the information in your

possession. You justified the firing of Ms Cleary based upon that information.

If you had enough to fire her, I would assume you had it available, and if you

have it available, will you undertake to table it in this House? If so, if you

had it, I would presume we can have it at least by tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I was not asked in this House on Thursday to

present or table any kind of information on the winterization contract that was

let at Bull Arm. That is the long and short of it, Mr. Speaker. Once we have

information, then I will be happy to table it in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will ask the minister a direct question because she is fudging on

wanting to give us the information. We do ask, in your undertaking, that you

would provide it, and well before the House closes on Thursday.

Minister, maybe you can tell us then, without having the information readily

available at your fingertips: What was wrong with the CSL Services contract? Why

was the contract allowed to stand if it was improperly let? What are the legal

consequences of that breach, and was there any criminal wrongdoing in the CSL

contract situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was quite clear last week, on Thursday here in the House, when I said the

winterization contract was done completely outside the Public Tender Act. That

is why the actions taken were taken.

As far as I understand - and I have reviewed it completely, Justice is having

a look at it, as well as the government purchasing agency - there was no

intentional wrongdoing or political interference nor is there any criminal

intent, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, this is the second incident of wrongdoing at the Bull Arm Site

Corporation revealed in the past two weeks. You stated last week in this House

that you were responsible for what goes on in your department, yet you fail to

take responsibility. It is quite clear the law has been getting short shift on

your watch, in your department, and some people are running amuck.

When are you going to take responsibility, admit that you are responsible,

and instead of using people like Ms Cleary as scapegoats to hide your own

incompetence, do the honourable thing and resign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let's consider the source. This is the same person

who made a phone call to offer up his own son as a Conservative candidate to run

in his seat, which is a Liberal seat, so that it could be made available, so

that he could be made available to get appointed to the bench. This is the

source. This is who is asking for this woman's resignation, an honourable

woman, a woman with integrity, a woman with the respect of this entire Cabinet

and this entire Province, and this person is asking for that. Well, let me tell

you something, this woman has done an absolutely marvelous job in her portfolio.

She has done the open and the accountable thing. As soon as she became aware of

it she notified Cabinet on Thursday morning and a decision was made in

conjunction with the minister on her recommendation. We do the right thing. When

something becomes apparent we deal with it, the same as we dealt with the

Auditor General. We acted quickly because your government took the Auditor

General out, and you know where that ended up. The nerve of him!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bully comes to his feet with his personal attacks. I say, Mr. Premier,

there is one thing I can judge, and I am a good judge of character - the people

of this Province are starting to judge yours. They will judge -

Minister, maybe you can answer this one on your own props. Minister, you have

indicated officials in your department have conducted a review of all contracts

done at the Bull Arm Site Corporation as a result of the security shed debacle.

Will you advise the House if Spectra Energy has done any work whatsoever for the

Bull Arm Site since October, 2003, the nature of the work, the amounts paid to

have that work done, and was the Public Tender Act used to have that work done?

Will you undertake to provide that information to the House by Wednesday of this

week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the review of the work at Bull Arm is still

being completed. I will look for the information that the hon. House Leader has

asked for and I will provide it to the House once I have found it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of completeness, Minister, as well: Will you undertake to

table copies of all contracts awarded at the Bull Arm Site since October of 2003

and the details of those contracts, and would you be able to do so by Wednesday

of this week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to see where proprietary information is involved, but where it is

possible to table documents, I am more than happy to table documents. Perhaps

they might be interested in some prior to 2003. It might make the discussion

really interesting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we heard of instances where there was interference involving the

public tendering process at the Bull Arm Site. Concerns have been brought to our

attention involving another contract and the suspect process that was followed.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year a tender was issued for the site food services

for the Labrador Correctional Centre. At the close of the tender the low bidder

was Station Steakhouse, a company in Central Newfoundland. This low bidder

received calls from the correctional facility in Labrador telling them they won

the tender. However, shortly thereafter this $225,000 tender was cancelled and

reissued. The second time around, a company named Atlantic Catering, who was

unsuccessful during the first round of the bids was awarded the contract. It

just so happens that Atlantic Catering was the largest contributor to the

Minister of Education's campaign in 2003, providing over 20 per cent of her

total election funds.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Why was this original tender cancelled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of this contract but I

certainly will make inquiries with my officials and report back to the House as

soon as I have that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this company has such close ties to the

Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, and the fact that a tender call was

cancelled and reissued in favour of this company, I ask the Minister of Justice:

Can you provide any guarantees that the Member for St. George's-Stephenville

East, or her officials, did not discuss this contract with you or any of your

officials in your department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago not to give

guarantees, but I do undertake to investigate this, to find out about this

tender, and I will bring this information back here to this House of Assembly

when I have it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure someone knows, because the Member for

Exploits was supposed to do this work three months ago and they are still

waiting for a response back.

Mr. Speaker, once again it seems a little too convenient that a company with

such close ties to the Tory Party were to benefit from a cancelled tender call.

I ask the minister: Could you please provide us with who in the Department of

Justice made the decision to cancel this tender, and will you undertake to

release all documents, including the bids received, related to this tender call?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: I am not aware of this

contract. I am not aware of anything the Member for Bay of Islands has raised

here. I will undertake to go to the officials in the department to make the

inquiries and come back to this House with the information.

I will come back with the information, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Finance.

From 1990 to 2003, public service pensions were not increased even though the

cost of living rose by almost 50 per cent. Since 2003, pensioners sixty-five and

over receive only a 1 per cent per year increase, and this does not include

people who have retired before age sixty-five. The average public sector pension

is $10,000 per year.

Mr. Minister, will your government index public sector pensions to the cost

of living and provide a lump sum as a catch-up for the loss in income incurred

by public sector pensioners since 1990?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member should know that pensions are based on your income, and they are

based on your years of service. They are based on negotiations, through

collective agreements, on each of these, and that is exactly what has happened

in this case.

What we have done, in fact, in our pension plan right now - she is asking us

to put money in the pension plan in which there is no foundation to do it, when

we are $1.3 billion short in the Public Service Pension Plan. We just borrowed

$350 million. We just put $400 million, another $50 million on top of the $350

million, into a Public Service Plan to try to get up to a level where it can be

funded, and she is asking us to further erode the unfunded liability and pass on

that debt.

Any of the unions representing people out there, you ask them where they are

on this issue, they want to see the plan put on a solid footing. They want to

see if fully funded. They do not want to see an erosion of a plan occur before

that point in time. If it is fully funded and it is 100 per cent, why are you

going to take it out of 37,000 peoples' pockets in this Province?

We have looked at low-income people. We eliminated income tax for low-income

people below $11,500, below $19,000 for a family of two. We have increased

supplements. We indexed supplements. We put $32.8 million into a drug plan for

low-income people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the House knows that none of what he said is an answer to what

I am asking. We have a group of pensioners who are being discriminated against

at a time when we are celebrating the Declaration of Human Rights, which says

there shall be no discrimination on the basis of employment, age and source of

income.

Public sector pensioners in this Province have been subject to discrimination

relative to the working public sector because they were completely left out of

the indexing offer that this government made to public sector employees this

year.

I am asking again: Will the minister and will the government abide by equity

principles and treat pensioners the same as the working public sector? We have

to redress the wrong that has been done to them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is showing a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a

pension that someone is eligible for.

Every pension negotiated by their unions, by them when they worked for this

Province, is based on a certain per cent for each year of service based on your

average, your best five years of income in almost all cases, and the years of

service, for 2 per cent a year, and you calculate a pension based on that.

There is absolutely no obligation at all, other than what was negotiated and

agreed to. There is no discrimination of any nature. Ask the unions out there,

and they will tell you that. I have spoken with some union leaders and people on

the same basic issue. While they agree, they would like to see somebody get an

increase out there, there is nothing they are not entitled to. They are getting

exactly what they are entitled to according to law.

At such time, if the pensions were fully funded in this Province, not short

nearly $2 billion as is the case today, the Public Service Plan close to $1.3

billion short, the Uniformed Services Plan hundreds of millions short, and the

Teachers' Pension Plan is still not fully funded in spite of putting $1.953

billion in - she is not talking fact, Mr. Speaker, and misleading the public on

what she is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last week the people of this Province were shocked

to learn the cost of the Province's branding campaign. They were shocked to

hear the Minister of Business defend excessive spending, such as over $20,000

for one sign outside the Confederation Building. In his response, the minister

said the contract for this work was tendered. In December of last year, the

Premier said: We commenced a competitive proposal process.

I ask the minister: Did the Department of Business follow the normal process,

which is to go through the Division of Tendering and Contracts in the Department

of Transportation and Works?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition's ship continues to

go out, and I fear and suspect that it will never come in if they keep damaging

the Party the way they are, putting out misinformation and false information in

regard to what they are saying, and press releases that they put out in regard

to the $40,000.

On Backtalk, on Friday afternoon, I clarified exactly what happened. Each and

every one of those signs, two signs, cost $12,500 apiece. There is a piece in

regard to excavation and site work, et cetera, and that is exactly what

happened. They also continue to put out that it would cost $40,000 for two

plywood billboards, which is totally false. I heard the Member for Twillingate

refer to it on Backtalk as well, that he was up and looking out through the

window at the two plywood signs, and everybody in this Province who ran across

those signs know exactly what they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know what the minister said in answer to a question last week, and that

was: And then there was a further $40,000 that went into the actual signage, and

that was part of the implementation of it.

You said it, Minister. You were asked a question and that was your comment.

Now, I will ask you again: Did you follow the normal tendering process for this

branding campaign, and did it go through the Division of Tendering and Contracts

in the Department of Transportation and Works?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: If the hon. member is referring to the signage only, Mr.

Speaker, I certainly referenced that it is subject to ATIP, as everything, I

suppose, in this House is subject to ATIP, and I suggested that they make an

ATIP request in regard to that signage. That is exactly what I said.

In the meantime, you know, as I said on Backtalk, $12,500 for the signage

itself and then the signage had to be placed. There was excavation work, there

was site work to be done. There was a transportation cost as well, and that is

exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker, but this is all about pride. This is about

forty-three different versions of the government logo out there. That is exactly

what this is. That spells confusion.

This is about placing this Province's rightful place in the global

marketplace. That is what this is about, and businesses in this Province will

certainly diversify our economy and grow our economy for the future, and that

will provide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, maybe if I do not mention anything about cost -

and I will ask the minister again - did the Department of Business go through

the normal tendering process, which is to go through the Division of Tendering

and Contracts in the Department of Transportation and Works?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I apologize to the member if I did not answer her because

I got carried away there in regard to how I am proud of the brand. Across this

Province I have witnessed different stakeholders, the Boards of Trade, the

Chambers of Commerce, et cetera, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

how they bought into this brand.

Certainly, we followed government processing, government purchasing. It was

done by Transportation and Works. I understand that everything was followed in

that process, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: I ask the minister: Will he tender the documents for us before

Wednesday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

MS FOOTE: Sorry about that.

Will he table the documents for us before Wednesday of this week?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that $1.2 million spent on the branding initiative

was excessive. We all know that the money could have been spent in different

other areas of this Province.

I ask the minister: Is the $77,000 that you spent on new furniture, including

desks, chairs, coffee tables and bookcases for the Department of Business,

justified, given the serious needs of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked.

The chair calls upon the Minister of Business and asks him to put forward his

reply.

MR. O'BRIEN: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member called back from

China to get those prices, or probably from New Zealand. She didn't think

about what they could spend the extra money on when they were there, I can

guarantee you that.

The Department of Business, the current area, was due for upgrading at the

time and it was part of an upgrading right across government departments. It

made very good fiscal sense to do the upgrading prior to the Department of

Business going there, so the money was well spent. It had not been upgraded for

thirty years, probably, as I understand it. Certainly, the furniture and

everything else there was thirty years old as well.

We represent the Province and we entertain CEOs of corporations from all over

the world, and we have to have a professional image when we do that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Wait now, Mr. Speaker, he is talking about an upgrade that was

going on throughout every department of government, but the Department of

Business did not exist. I mean, it has only been there for three years, so I

guess we are asking whether or not it was necessary to spend that kind of money.

According to the information we received as well, over $46,000 was spent on

renovations up to July 20 in the Department of Business.

I ask the Minister of Business: Do you feel that the $123,000 on office

upgrades and furniture are a pressing priority of government, and would you

please provide a list of any additional additions that have been taken since

July?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I say to the hon. the member, if she wants any other

further upgrades just make an ATIP request. You understand what it all means and

how it works.

In the meantime, we are all aware of the pressing challenges that government

have, and all the challenges that governments have had since 1949 when we became

a Province of Canada. Certainly, yes, absolutely, if you want to sit down here

today, you could spend a whole budget on social programs, absolutely, but we

have to grow this Province, we have to diversify our economy, we have to put

more money into the department of the Treasury, and put more money in the

Department of Finance to make sure that we can take care of the social needs of

this Province, and that is exactly what it is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last spring we amended the FPI Act to prevent FPI from selling

any of its assets without the permission of government. I would like to ask the

Minister of Fisheries if FPI has asked for and received permission to sell one

of its groundfish freezer trawlers which was built three years ago at the cost

of $15 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

FPI did make a request, as per the legislation that was introduced and passed

in the Province last year and proclaimed since then, for permission to sell, I

believe, a couple of vessels, and reacquire two others in their place.

Everything that we have seen indicates to us that makes perfectly good business

sense. The permission was sought from government for that, and we have given

that permission, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the contract, Design

and Tender of Guard House/Security Shed for Bull Arm, as requested by the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as required by

Section 70 of the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I rise today to table the annual

report on the administration of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn tomorrow

at 5:30 o'clock and further, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not

adjourn tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 63 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Under Standing Order 63 and 64 dealing with private member's

motions, the coming Wednesday is Private Member's Day for the Opposition. The

Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would like to put forward a motion that we will

be debating on Wednesday. However, she already has one on the Order Paper and

that is not permitted under Standing Order 64(3).

I have spoken to the Government House Leader and with his consent, and leave

of the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would like to

withdraw the motion she currently has on the Order Paper and substitute it with

a new one that we would debate on Wednesday coming. And I understand from the

Government House Leader we have his consent in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Has consent been given?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree with that.

MR. SPEAKER: With consent and with leave, the hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans to put forward a notice of motion to be debated on Wednesday,

Private Members' Day.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read into the record the following motion:

WHEREAS this Province, as an energy producer, has benefitted because of

increased offshore oil revenue; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province are forced to pay some of the highest

home heating fuels in North America and are suffering because of these high

prices; and

WHEREAS many people on fixed incomes are unable to afford to heat their

homes; and

WHEREAS electricity rates in this Province have increased by a dramatic 15

per cent over the past two years;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the provincial government

to provide energy subsidy to low income earners in this Province;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the provincial

government to eliminate the HST portion of electricity and home heating fuel to

ensure people can heat their homes this winter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today with a petition from the people of Lark Harbour concerning

Route 450 on the South Shore of the Bay of Islands. Once again, the people in

the area who drive the road on a regular basis have asked that the government

take into consideration the road conditions, the safety conditions and the

problems which have occurred over the last number of years.

Mr. Speaker, in the last three or four years there has been hardly, if any,

money spent, only for general maintenance on an emergency basis, and myself and

the councils had to push on a regular basis to have this done. We know that the

department in Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland have made some of the areas

in the Bay of Islands their priority, but again, we get overlooked for opening

up some land up on Massey Drive for future development in the next twenty or

thirty years, $450,000, while we have gabion baskets, we have roads with no

lines on them, we have shoulders of the roads that have dropped, and we have a

major safety problem on the roads.

I know the minister was out there and did not even drive down on the South

Shore. He went so far down and did not even call any of the councils. He did not

meet with any of the mayors. He did not give respect to the volunteer council in

the Bay of Islands who have written the three ministers, this minister and the

two previous ministers, to have a meeting for the last two-and-a-half years and

we still have yet to get a meeting with the minister. Yet, the minister will go

out there, drive around and give the impression that he was down around the

South Shore, but he did not go to York Harbour or Lark Harbour. On a Sunday

morning he went as far as McIver's and dropped in and asked a store clerk if

he could find someone to show him where the bad road is.

Mr. Speaker, this is a safety concern. The ministers in these departments are

supposed to work on behalf of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and put

politics aside, but obviously we see a major problem with this minister and the

two former ministers. These issues are major. I have warned the minister before

of the safety concerns. I have written the previous minister about rocks going

through the gabion baskets. We had to fight to get the lines painted on the

road. The shoulders of the roads have deteriorated so much that there are dips

on both sides. The department in Corner Brook is well aware of the issues. I

know the minister has been written to by his own officials in Corner Brook,

making recommendations to have certain sections of Route 450 upgraded, but to no

avail, absolutely no avail. It is almost to the point of neglect by the

department, I guess for punishment for not going along with the Premier when the

Premier was out promising all the upgrades for the roads during the last

provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put the minister on notice, that if there is a

serious accident that does happen the minister would be well aware of the

conditions of Route 450.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that the Chair called Orders of the Day too

fast and -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) both sides, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize petitions on this side over here.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of constituents in my

district. Recently, I met with a group who are involved in a labour dispute, a

group of security guards at the Deer Lake Regional Airport. I have a petition

here. There are approximately 150 to 200 names on the petition. It basically

reads:

We, the undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge government to

prohibit the use of replacement workers during any lawful lockout or strike, and

to provide adequate and appropriate penalties for any employer who engages

replacement workers and for any person who acts as a replacement worker.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion around this issue and I have been

in communication with our Department of Labour, our Minister of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment and our labour agency. The group has been working with -

both sides have been working with the labour agency to bring this, I guess,

dispute to an end. I am encouraged that they continue to work with the labour

agency. My understanding is that they had a meeting last week. I am also of the

understanding that in 2007 our government will be reviewing all labour

legislation and at that point in time all stakeholders, including this group and

ourselves, will have an opportunity to have input into any labour legislation,

and I invite everyone to take that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition now to the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final pitch, I guess, before the House closes, on behalf of the people of

Burgeo and Ramea. I got in a little spot of trouble on the weekend. They thought

that because I had spoken out on this petition, that I was at least satisfied

with porta-potties. Nothing could be further from the truth. I thank the

minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I thank the minister for the fact that he did put, on an

interim, temporary emergency basis, a couple of porta-potties on a piece of

two-by-four in Ramea and in Burgeo, but I can assure you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to get up and

respond he can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I ask members for their co-operation as he presents his petition.

The hon. the member.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister, instead of bellowing and hollering and laughing, this is

a serious matter and I do not mean to make light of it when I talk about his.

Maybe he does, but I do not, and the people of Burgeo and Ramea certainly do not

make light of this.

We asked for porta-potties on an interim emergency basis. I just say to the

minister, and he is well aware of this, I can understand that he did it on a

temporary basis, that is understandable, but obviously it is not acceptable. The

minister knows - he is from Labrador, and we have snow in Labrador, too, and

cold weather - he well knows that the cold weather plays a factor with the use

of these things. It is not appropriate to have just porta-potties there when we

have a permanent regular established ferry service.

All we are imploring him is that, in the future, certainly by spring - it may

be a bit late now in the year for construction - maybe in the spring he can make

room in his budget so that hopefully we can put something in these communities

of a more permanent nature and a more adequate nature, rather than just porta-potties

that do not have any running water, that do not have any heating type of system,

that there would be something a bit more safe, a bit more health conscious, put

in these communities.

As I said, we appreciate what the minister has done. There was a quick

response. It took me five or six petitions in here to embarrass the government

into doing this, but once this is done - this is not about embarrassment. This

is about having the appropriate facilities.

I implore the minister, on behalf of users of the ferry service and all the

tourists who visit that area, please, maybe next spring, we can get rid of the

little blue porta-potties and put something down there that is of a more

permanent, functional and usable basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear no further from me in this sitting

of the House regarding the Burgeo and Ramea port-potty situation, but I will be

back in the spring when the winter thaws and we will see how they made out on

the South Coast with the porta-potties.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, stand supporting a petition from people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and

I ask members for their co-operation to enable the member to present her

petition.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, stand with a petition from people in the Province concerned about the

labour dispute that is going on at the Deer Lake Airport, and I, too, would like

to speak further to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are well aware that there are people to my left who are not being

very understanding.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and asks all

members for their co-operation.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is presenting a petition and the Chair

recognizes her now.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I say that I, too, am standing with a petition from people of the

Province concerned about the labour dispute in Deer Lake and I would like

respect from the floor to present the concerns of the people in this Province.

Thank you.

Lockouts are bad enough, but when lockouts go on as long as the one in Deer

Lake has gone on, it is unacceptable. The thing that is really disturbing to the

people who have signed this petition is that the lockout would not work if

replacement workers were not being used, and using replacement workers who are

workers other than existing managers and non-union supervisors. I mean, we

understand the use of management and non-union supervisors, but when you get

replacement workers who are brought in from outside, it tramples on the rights

of the workers in the workplace. I see the use of replacement workers as a

violation of human rights that employees have. I think the people who have

signed this petition see it the same way and, no matter what happens in Deer

Lake in regard to the resolution, the issue of replacement workers has to be

dealt with in this Province.

We have other provinces, such as British Columbia and Quebec, who, for a

number of years, have prohibited the use of replacement workers and it has not

destroyed the provinces. The working place has not been destroyed. The ability

of employers and unionized workers to work together has not been destroyed

because replacement workers are not used.

So, I was very glad to hear the MHA across the way from Humber Valley refer

to the fact that she agrees that replacement workers should not be used. I

think, for the good of the people in this Province, this is something that we

have to expedite and we have to make sure that it happens. The resolution of

what is going on in Deer Lake is one thing, but the problem of replacement

workers will be an ongoing problem that we will have to deal with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this

House not adjourn today, Monday, December 11, at 5:30 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House

not adjourn today, Monday, December 11, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 69,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69, Order 7, be now read

a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to bring forward a bill seeking

amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act on behalf of my

colleague, the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, members of this House will recall that last winter government

brought forward amendments to this legislation to establish a balanced regime

for collective bargaining through the establishment of a special Standing Fish

Price-Setting Panel to act as an arbitration panel to assist in the setting of

fish prices.

Mr. Speaker, government's intent in bringing forward these amendments was

to ensure the timely commencement of the annual fishery and to maintain the

confidence of the international market with respect to the reliability of the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

Mr. Speaker, since that time, of course, we have undergone a full fishing

season and I am pleased to report that the fish panel have successfully assisted

processors and harvesters in the establishment of prices for seven species in

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House will recall that at the time these

changes were introduced last February, government stated very clearly - my

colleague, the Minister of Fisheries - that we would be prepared to revisit

these amendments and bring forward additional improvements should they be

required, Mr. Speaker. With a fishing season of experience behind us, government

has identified several other amendments that we believe will further enhance the

legislation, Mr. Speaker.

While mandatory FOS will remain in place in the regulation, this amendment

will provide government with the flexibility to provide the panel with

additional arbitration options should complexities emerge during a season. We

feel that it is an appropriate addition, and one that will ensure that

alternative arbitration options can be explored should they be required.

Government is also advancing a further amendment that would allow the fish

panel, on the application from a party, to reconsider an earlier decision if a

reasonable case can be made that a failure to do so could place the conduct of

the fishery in jeopardy. The provision to reopen an earlier decision would allow

the panel authority to intervene in the event of market instability, currency

fluctuations or other exceptional factors that, if left unaddressed, could have

dramatic implications for the fishery and those who rely upon it, Mr. Speaker.

The final series of amendments are of an administrative nature and clarify

that amendments brought forward last winter apply to all parts of the Province,

excepting those included in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.

Mr. Speaker, collectively I am confident these amendments are both prudent

and sound and will provide the fish panel with the necessary flexibility to

ensure that they can work with harvesters and processors to maintain a balanced

collective bargaining regime for the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, this being said, I remind hon. members that the government does

not own the collective bargaining process. Ultimately, while government can

provide the necessary support to help stakeholders resolve disputes when they

occur, it is the processors and the harvesters who have the responsibility to

work collaboratively to advance this important issue for all who rely on the

fishery in this Province.

We can all talk for hours, I guess, about the importance of the fishery and,

of course, the challenges we have had in the last year or so, but we believe

these are enhancements. The minister said last year, on a number of occasions,

that we would look to see what happened in the first year, try to build on that,

try to enhance it and try to improve it. That is what we are trying to do here,

Mr. Speaker. There are no simple solutions - a lot of times we know the history

of this Province, of disputes - but I think it is starting with a timely start

to the industry, and making sure that in the global market we are seen as a

place where you can do business when it comes to the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, with those opening remarks I will leave it to the floor, to hear

comments from the other side. Of course, my colleague, the Minister of

Fisheries, certainly will be adding to this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising today to have a few brief notes on Bill 69,

An Act To Amend The

Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Maybe the minister will tell me later if he has had discussions with both the

processing groups and the union, what they are saying about this, and if they

have approved of this.

Mr. Speaker, it seems we have come full circle to where we started back, I

think, in 1996, when Minister Efford, I think, at the time, or in 1997, brought

in Final Offer Selection. Up until that time we just went through the normal

bargaining process whereby the union and the fish processors would sit down and

try to negotiate the price for a pound of fish, whether that be shrimp, crab,

groundfish or capelin, or whatever species we were offering or catching at the

time. It was decided at that time that we would try to find a better way of

negotiating so that we could have a more timely start to our fishing season,

which normally in this Province starts around April 1 and continues well on up

until on or about Christmas, and in some areas even longer.

Mr. Speaker, Final Offer Selection was based upon: that there would be a

panel established, or an individual who acted as the arbitrator, I guess, and

that the processors would put forward a price that they said they could afford

to pay at the time, and the union representing fish harvesters would put forward

what they wanted for their catch. So there were two offers on the table and the

arbitrator would have to decide on one and not the other, and that would be

binding upon both parties. That worked, I say to the minister, fairly well for

quite a number of years. We ran into a few problems, but nothing compared to

what the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the current

minister, encountered when he tried to change all this process back a couple of

years ago when he tried to bring in raw material sharing.

As far as I know, there are still ministers and still MHAs on the Tory side

of the House who have not visited some fishing towns in their districts since

then because they are afraid to go back, afraid of what will happen to them. I

say that with a grin on my face because I had that occasion just recently, to

visit one Tory district in particular, and they said they have not seen their

member - actually two - have not seen their member since the member who

represents St. Anthony area, the Straits, brought in this ill-conceived and

ill-fated final offer - not final offer - when the minister brought in the raw

material sharing.

The Minister of HRE, the minister who just introduced the bill, must think

that I am talking about him because he just bawled out to me that he has been in

La Scie, by the way. I wasn't talking about you, I say, Minister, but it leads

me to believe that you just visited La Scie for the first time in almost two

years. Is that what you are trying to tell me? That is why I sort of grin.

I know we have other members who have not been in the fishing areas of their

district for just about two years, for various reasons, but I think it has more

to do with this ill-conceived, ill-fated raw material sharing plan than it has

to do with much else.

Listen, I am sure that the hon. members opposite will work that out with

their constituents before the next election, and they will know all the reasons

why they didn't come there for over a year-and-a-half. I am sure, as well,

that the hon. members opposite will also find out in the next general election

what their constituents and their voters think of them. Having said all of that,

I am glad to see that the minister has been in La Scie, and I hope he got a warm

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, there is a thing that sort of bothers me about clause 6 and

maybe the minister, or the Minister of Fisheries probably, can stand later and

explain that in more detail, because I know that it is a technicality that this

falls under the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I think that

is what your title is there. I know, having been there myself, that it is the

Minister of Fisheries really who negotiates all this with the industry. Maybe he

can get up later and talk about what it means that: "...the method of the

Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel shall apply in establishing fish prices and

conditions of sale and species where parties to collective bargaining have been

unable to reach an agreement."

I am trying to figure out, what will he establish, what kind of a system he

or she or the panel will establish if final offer selection does not work in

order to establish a fish price. Minister, maybe you can explain some of the

options that will be left open to this panel in the event that they cannot get

an agreement between the processors and the union representing fish harvesters.

If you can tell me some of that, because I think that is the guts of the whole

changes that you are trying to make here and that is why I would like to know

why you are doing it and what other types of settlements - for example, can the

Standing Fish Price-Setting Panel, after this piece of legislation goes through,

select any model that they prefer to be able to establish a price? What

authority will be given that panel to determine whether or not these people

actually go back to work at the end of the day?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot to say about the bill yet, expect that it

concerns the fishing industry. I can, I guess, stray off the topic a little bit

here, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the fishery in general, when you consider that

this is the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act; just like if this were a

money bill, I could speak forever on any subject as I choose.

In the House of Assembly, I asked the Minister of Fisheries today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Can you tell the Member for Lake Melville to lower his voice a

little bit. It is difficult to hear around here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I am glad to see that the minister says he agrees with me, that

the Member for Lake Melville is making so much racket that he cannot hear me,

and maybe he will have to get up the second time and do all this over again. I

would like to thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, last spring we amended the Fishery Products International Act, and

there was a lot of fanfare concerning that. In fact, we spent most of the

session in the spring of the year talking about FPI and wanting to amend the act

because of how FPI had been behaving as a corporate citizen in this Province for

the past year-and-a-half or so, having closed down the plant in Harbour Breton

and the one in Fortune, and no work in Marystown since last December. We amended

the act. In fact, we brought forward a couple of amendments that the government

accepted and they wrote it into law under the Fishery Products International Act

back last June. One of them was that FPI could not sell any of its assets

without permission from the provincial government.

In the House of Assembly today I asked the Minister of Fisheries whether or

not it was true that FPI had written or called the minister to ask for

permission to sell some of its assets, mainly the Newfoundland Marten , a

brand new factory-freezer vessel that they built three years ago at a cost of

$15 million. The minister got up and said: Yes, not only have they done that - I

do believe that is what you said, minister - yes, not only have they asked for

permission to sell that one, but they have also asked for permission to sell

other vessels. That concerns me, because FPI in 2003 bragged about - and I have

a copy of their press release here somewhat - the fact that they had just built

a brand new freezer trawler, groundfish freezer trawler that cost them $15

million, and the fact that Rev. Desmond McGrath was on hand to launch the boat,

along with Mr. Derrick Rowe's wife, Linda, and they christened the vessel in

Marystown, if I am not mistaken.

That was done on July 10, 2003, and in that same press statement, July 10,

2003, I say to the minister, they also talked about investing. In 2003, they

talked about: They will invest over $20 million in modernizing its plant in

Marystown, the one in Fortune, and the one in Harbour Breton, they would

modernize their groundfish processing plant, and that the company plans to add

another factory freezer to the groundfish fleet by year end. Now, I do not know

if they have done that. Maybe you can check that one out for me. I know that

they built the NEWFOUNDLAND LYNX since then, but my understanding is that

is a shrimp trawler.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shrimp and turbot.

MR. REID: Shrimp and turbot.

What I am saying, I guess, is that in 2003 they boasted about adding this

brand new vessel at a cost of $15 million, but they also boasted that they were

going to spend $30 million on refurbishing the plants in Marystown, Fortune and

Harbour Breton. Well, what a joke that was. What a joke that turned out to be, I

say, minister. The fact of the matter is they closed Harbour Breton less than a

year after that. I think they closed it about twelve months, or somewhat less -

because it was not last fall that they closed Harbour Breton, it was the fall

before. So, that would have been back, I think, in late 2004 that they closed

the plant in Harbour Breton and then they followed the next year with the

closure of the plant in Fortune. Last year, I can remember standing in the House

of Assembly or asking you publicly in the media if it was true that FPI was

tying up their factory freezer trawlers, tying up their groundfish trawlers, and

would they be going back to work after Christmas, and you came on the airwaves

of the Province and basically condemned me for not knowing all of the facts, you

said. Just like the Premier does on various occasions in the House of Assembly,

now his ministers have been trained to do it the same way. I think just before

Christmas last year, or shortly after that, you came out and criticized me for

not knowing what I was talking about because it was normal procedure for these

draggers to come in at Christmastime and go back out after Christmas; that was

the normal procedure.

Well, I say to the minister that I did know what I was talking about at the

time because those draggers have not gone back to the fishing grounds since then

and, as a result, all of the crews that work for FPI in the groundfish sector on

their draggers and their trawlers have not seen a day's work, as far as I

know, since late last November or early December.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when the minister does not have a problem with

FPI going out and selling its assets, especially a brand new asset like a $15

million trawler, because these people have made a lot of commitments to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it seems like every few months they

break another one of those commitments.

Here is one right here: FPI International invests in new groundfish vessel

and at the same time makes a commitment to rebuild the three plants in Fortune,

Marystown and Harbour Breton - and we know what has happened here.

Minister, I think we put that amendment to the Fishery Products International

Act, back last June, we put forward that amendment simply so that FPI could not

go out and do as they wished with the plants and the vessels that FPI owns, but

I do not understand why you do not see it as a problem when they are going out

and selling one of these prize assets, a brand new factory freezer trawler. As

you indicated today, there might be other factory freezer trawlers and other

vessels that FPI might want to sell and that you have no problem with it.

Well, besides the fact that they are getting rid of an asset, and a valued

asset, I also have concern for the people who work on these vessels. I am sure,

when they find out that the vessel has been sold, they will have a bit of

concern because they have just, I guess, effectively lost their jobs. So, along

with the people they have laid off in the groundfish plants, you are going to

see more layoffs in the groundfish harvesting sector of FPI.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister, when he gets up later on

this afternoon to give a little chat on this bill - I am talking about the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I would like for him to maybe give us a

little history lesson as to what this government has been doing with regard to

trying to get the plant on the South Coast open. I am talking, I guess, now that

Harbour Breton has been sold to Mr. Barry, let's talk, in your speech later on

today, about Fortune and Marystown.

I remember back in the spring of last year, and all through the fall, even

prior to that, you were up ready to go to war with FPI, you and your government.

They were not going to run roughshod over you, and they were not going to run

roughshod over the Premier. It seemed to me like you had everything under

control and that the people in Marystown, Harbour Breton and Fortune would soon

go back to work, but obviously that has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like for the minister to give me his thoughts on

FPI saying, basically, that the people in Marystown can make a deal, or we can

make a deal with the union; all we want, we are not opening the groundfish plant

in Marystown until the FPI Act is scrapped, until the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador scraps the FPI Act.

Just imagine, the minister stood up in the pan of a truck on O'Leary Avenue

and ranted and tore - he stood in the House of Assembly and he stood elsewhere -

and said: We are ready to go to war with FPI.

I tell you, it takes a lot to get you to go to war. You need to take some

smacks up the side of the head - more than Mr. Harper is prepared to take from

the Premier, I think, before he goes to war. Here is a company saying that we

are not opening the Marystown plant - and I would like to hear the member who

represents Marystown probably get up and give us a little thought about that

this afternoon - I would like to know what they think about FPI saying that they

are not going to open the plant until after the FPI Act is scrapped.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions about the whole FPI process, and we

will ask some more in the few short Question Periods we have left. I also

understand that I can talk to this bill later on in the day and into the night.

As a result, I will sit down now and I will gladly listen to the minister

probably give us some enlightening answers to some of the questions that I

raised.

I would also like to hear from the Minister of Environment and Conservation,

the member who represents Burin-Placentia West, and particularly Marystown, in

the House of Assembly, to see what he thinks about what FPI is saying, because a

little while ago, I think it was in the summer, when asked a question by the

media of what he thought about something that FPI had to do, or had said about

the plant in Marystown, he said that his opinion did not count. That is a

strange thing for an MHA to say, and a Cabinet minister, that his opinion did

not count when it comes to some very sensitive matters concerning half of his

constituents and a company by the name of FPI. I tell you, if there was

something affecting the employment of anywhere from 650 to 1,000 employees in my

district I would hope that my opinion counted, and it would certainly be heard.

I would ask that the member who represents Marystown and Burin Placentia West

get on his feet this afternoon and give us what he thinks about FPI selling its

dragger fleet, closing down plants, and not going to open the plant in Marystown

until after we scrap the FPI Act.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and we will have a chance to listen

to the two hon. gentlemen opposite enlighten us as to what they think about FPI,

and answer some of the questions that I raised with regard to Bill 69,

An Act To

Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill 69, that will amend the Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act. There are a couple of things about this amendment,

about this bill, that I want to comment on. Of course, the heart of it is

section 19.11 which talks about the panel, and the power that the panel will

have with regard to its decision-making authorities.

I guess I have some concern, as I think the Leader of the Opposition had - I

think I heard him say something similar - I have concern about the fact that the

panel will make a decision with respect to the matters in dispute and in

accordance with the regulations. Then, I find out that the regulations are

basically, and the regulations which are outside of the bill, are the heart of

what that

section is about. The regulations, as I just said, are outside of the

bill. I have real concern that this bill does not include direction for the

panel with regard to its decision making. The minister may make regulations, or

the minister may delegate to the panel to do so with regard to the methods that

will be used for the decision making. This disturbs me quite a bit.

We have had other bills, even in this sitting in the House - for example, the

Health Research Ethics Authority - where the responsibilities of the panel and

directions for the authority - in this case it was the authority - are included

in the bill. I find it rather strange that these were not included in this bill

as well. I do not even think it is sufficient to say that there are a variety of

methods and you just pick and choose. I think that work should have gone into

coming up with the decision-making method and it be included. I consider this a

weakness in the bill that disturbs me.

Obviously, this will go forward. Then my question becomes: Well, if the panel

has the authority to establish its own method of decision making, what is going

to be available for the panel in doing the research around the methods? How will

the panel make those decisions? Will the panel have the resources? Will there be

researchers, or will there be money for the panel to have somebody do the

research to come up with the different methods that could be employed by the

panel?

If this is going to have teeth at all, this subsection 3, there have to be

resources there for the panel in order to make it work. I find this a real

weakness in the bill, to think that the very heart of this section, the stuff

that is needed to make it work, is not included in the bill. I put that out

there. I would be very happy if the minister would explain why it was seen that

it was not necessary to put the heart of the bill in the bill itself? It is

rather disturbing.

As I read this I think, you know: Yes, the pricing is a big issue. We know

that, and I am very glad that government took pricing seriously and that this

panel was put in place. We have seen the success of the panel over the first

year. The method that was used this year has worked, but when I think about the

income of people in the fishing industry, I realize that much more is needed

than mechanisms with regard to the pricing. That is one thing. Good prices are

important and good prices are what is going to put money in people's hands,

but we need to do a lot more about the fishery than fixing the pricing issue.

That is a big one, but we need to do more.

I believe that government has to put a lot more into the whole marketing of

our industry. This industry continues to be the backbone of our Province. It is

the backbone of our culture. Historically, it was the backbone of our economy.

While I know discussions have gone on and I know in the consultation process

there have been some recommendations with regard to marketing, I think that we

marketing the fishing industry.

This government has shown itself to understand modern technology when it

comes to communications. It understands modern methods with communications. It

understands the need for branding, for example. I am not going to speak against

that, the government understands the need for branding. The government has put

over $1 million into branding for the Province; branding for us. If the

government finds that so important, and I believe it is important, then why

doesn't the government see the importance of putting a marketing council in

place in this Province and start taking actions towards it?

The government understands marketing. This year $2.1 million was put into the

marketing and product development budget for tourism. Our government understands

marketing. Our government has a strategic marketing plan for the tourism

industry from 2004 to 2008. So, the government understands the need to market.

If we can have a tourism marketing council, than why can't we have a fishery

marketing council? We know the methods. We know what needs to be done to get our

message out there, so what are we going to do about it?

We need marketing in seafood. It is no good producing it, we have to market

it as well. We have to develop our fishing industry. We have to develop our

market. We have to find new markets. Improving and increasing our overall

markets is going to increase returns for the people in the industry.

I encourage the government to take its skills and its know-how with regard to

marketing, the skills and know-how that it is putting into tourism, the skills

and know-how that it put into branding, the money that it is putting into

tourism for marketing and the money that it is putting into branding, and use

those resources in looking at our fishing industry. We cannot be using

nineteenth Century methods when it comes to promoting our industry. We just

cannot take that industry for granted. We need to develop it. Rural Newfoundland

needs us to develop it. The people in the industry and people who are hoping to

go into the industry need us to develop that industry.

I am grateful to have an opportunity, because of this bill, to speak to those

issues today. I am sure I will have more to say as time goes on.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope I can be understood clearly. I spent a couple of hours in a dental

chair earlier today and I tell you, it does not feel very good. Whether I can be

understood or not, I guess members will have to judge accordingly.

MR. SULLIVAN: It will be hard to get your teeth into this bill.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will not be able to get my teeth into this bill, I can

tell you that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not to digress. Let me, first of all, try to respond to

the concerns or issues raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, our

colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

First of all, this is not a pejorative remark, and it is not meant to be.

Every piece of legislation that goes through this House, as far as I know, in my

thirty-odd years here, has a clause which allows the government, the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to make regulations. The net result of all that,

upheld by every court in the land, from Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of

Canada, is that regulations made under the authority of the act have the full

force and effect of law. In other words, if this piece of legislation provides

for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to make a regulation

regarding collective bargaining and the rights of the panel, that regulation,

because it is made under the authority of the act, has the same force and effect

as if it was written into the act. Every court, as I said, in the land has

upheld the right of Parliament to delegate their regulatory authority, or

regulatory regime, the right to make regulations to either the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council or to the minister.

That is not something unique, and I would not counsel that there ought to be

any concern that rather than write the various options for the panel in making

its decisions into the act - those options might be conventional arbitration,

they might be mediation, they might be some other novel idea that the panel may

want to proceed with, but rather than writing them into the act and building

inflexibility around them in that regard, the panel can come to the minister and

say: Look, Minister, we have tried to bring both parties together. We have tried

to bring them so close together that Final Offer Selection will work, but we do

not think we can get there. We have tried everything. We have met with the

parties individually. We have met with them, we have had them in collectively.

They seem to be too far apart for Final Offer Selection to work, but we believe

that if you give us the right for conventional arbitration, we can get there. We

believe if you give us the right to utilize mediation, perhaps we can get there.

We are allowing the panel to do what it can, the best it can, but if it

cannot get there then there is an out. There is an option for the panel to come

to the minister and suggest that they take another avenue, that they take

another approach, that they try something else. The panel, Mr. Speaker, have

come to us and asked for that. We have consulted with the union and with the

processors on the panel request. To be fair, neither side thinks that we are

going far enough. The union would like to have the legislation amended taking

out the shall, which at the moment says, the panel shall use Final Offer

Selection. They would like to have that taken out and say may. Therefore, the

panel, without reference to anybody, can, because of its own right and its

authority under the legislation, go to some other means or utilize some other

means. Again, like I said, it could be conventional arbitration or some other

means of dispute settlement.

That is what the union would like to see, and that would be consistent with

the Cashin Report from which all of this good stuff flows that we brought into

this House last year. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the processors do not want

to hear tell of that. They were adamant against it last year, they are adamant

against it now, they do not want the panel to have legislative authority to

decide on their own whether they choose Final Offer Selection or whether they

choose some other method of settling the dispute.

A kind of a middle-of-the-road approach, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the

panel has an issue, recognizing that the union has an issue and recognizing that

the processors have concerns that ought to be taken into account, a kind of a

middle-of-the-road approach is, give the authority to vary what the panel can do

based upon the panel's request to the Minister of Labour, the minister who is

responsible for this particular Act, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act. The panel can come to the minister and say, we have tried Final Offer

Selection, minister, and for those reasons we do not think it is appropriate.

Therefore, we are requesting you to give us the authority to use another method.

By and large, it might very well be conventional arbitration.

The parties are too far apart. The union is not in the ballpark, in our

opinion, based on our market intelligence. The industry is not in the ballpark,

in our opinion, so Final Offer Selection is no good to anybody. Perhaps, if we

allow them to make their pitch, make their presentation, and we can choose

something in between, that might be more of a remedy than choosing something on

each extreme end of the spectrum that does nothing for anybody.

Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of this government and this ministry, that at the

end of the day this never has to be used. We hope that Final Offer Selection

never has to be used. We hope that the industry can show the leadership that is

required to move the industry along and reach negotiated agreements. That is

what we hope. When we introduced this legislation in February of last year, we

said, we hope it never has to be called upon, but we do not have the luxury of,

coming April 1, not having a price established and a fishery opening. We can

never force harvesters to harvest. We do not intend to try. We can never force

processors to buy and process. We do not intend to try. But we intend to have a

mechanism, a public policy mechanism, Mr. Speaker, that will allow a price to be

established so that a given fishery will open on a given date, a price will be

established and the fishery will open. That is all we can do.

We should not be jumping in bed with one group to the disadvantage of the

other or vice versa. We try to create a level playing field so that as best as

possible - I know there are some people out there in the industry, Mr. Speaker,

who would like to see, perhaps, collective bargaining thrown out the door. Well

that is not going to happen while we are the government and I do not think it is

going to happen with any government in this Province. Collective bargaining in

the fishing industry was brought in and made a reality in this Province decades

ago. It is here to stay, it should be here to stay, and we may as well get used

to it and try to work within it. That is the whole idea here.

The fact that the minister will have discretion here and be able to react to

a request from the panel by regulation is not something unheard of, it is not

something that we are not used to in legislation in the Province, so therefore I

hope that addresses that issue.

I am not going to get into a big debate, Mr. Speaker, on the merits of the

FPI Act and amendments that we made last year, but I will say this: FPI did

request government approval to sell a couple of vessels, even though they are

good vessels and relatively new vessels, that they contend, given today's fuel

prices and operating efficiencies and so on, are not what they need. They have

purchased a couple of other vessels to replace them. They are in the process of

upgrading those vessels. They will meet their harvesting requirements if and

when they get back to harvesting again, and I hope that is sooner rather than

later. There is no impact, as I understand it, on the number of people employed

on the vessels. There has been no negative reaction from anybody in the industry

that I am aware of, and therefore no reason why this does not, from everything

that we have seen, make good business sense and why it should not go ahead.

There are other areas of the FPI Act, FPI amendments that were raised by the

Leader of the Opposition, that I will get into in Committee if he insists, but

certainly on those amendments, I am not going to.

The Leader of the Opposition, somewhat along the lines of the Leader of the

NDP, asked the question: What are those other alternatives for Final Offer

Selection? The other alternatives depending on where the panel finds itself, Mr.

Speaker, are very clear. It can range from conventional arbitration, it can be

Final Offer Selection, it can be a mediation process, or it can be a process

that more includes the facilitator, which is there anyway, which they did not

use very much this year. One of the reasons why the panel thinks that the

process did not work is that the facilitator was not engaged.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about resources and the

availability of resources to the panel to find out and make sure they are up on

current market conditions. Mr. Speaker, the panel is funded. The panel has all

the resources that it needs, as I understand it, to be up on market conditions,

to be able to determine, depending on the species they are talking about, what

the latest market intelligence is, what various quality levels should fetch in

the market place. All of that resource is available and has been available to

the panel for the past year and will continue to be available to them.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I suppose I should say that, again this is a

middle of the road approach. We want to see the industry show leadership. That

is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. I said that to the industry when I consulted

with them last year before my colleague agreed to bring in the amendments that

we brought in, in a special session in February of last year. We demand and

expect leadership of the industry. That means leadership from all sides of the

industry: the union, the processors, the harvesters, everybody.

When Final Offer Selection worked in this Province, Mr. Speaker, it worked by

the industry getting together, arriving at a negotiated framework agreement,

usually this time of the year, putting protocols in place and agreeing to add on

schedules, and agreeing to what species they would negotiate. All of that was

done before Christmas so that all sides of the industry knew where it was

heading into the new year. Mr. Speaker, that did not happen last year and it has

not happened this year, despite the fact that I met with them only a few weeks

ago and told them that: If you want to see the Legislature stay out of this then

you had better show the leadership that will demand that we stay out of it. You

had better show the leadership that is going to see framework agreements put in

place, that is going to see protocols put in place as to what species the panel

will have the right to decide on. If you are not going to do that, if you are

going to leave this open to the Legislature and do nothing, then I am telling

you now that the line is drawn in the sand. If you do nothing, if we hear

nothing, if you make no undertakings, if you do not tell us that you are going

to do something, then we are going to exert the leadership that is required and

we will amend the legislation if we have to. We prefer not to, we do not want to

do it, we prefer to stay out of it and leave the framework that is there now and

let is work, but if you do not want to make it work, if you are not willing to

make it work, then we will fine-tune it along the lines of the panel, that the

panel requested, Mr. Speaker.

Before I sit down, I will say one other thing. The panel that we have, Joe O'Neill,

the Chair of the Labour Relations Agency, a man who was foolish enough to answer

my distress phone call when he was on a cruise down in the South Pacific

somewhere with his wife a year or so ago and I said: Will you please chair this

panel for us? When he got in port he called me back and said: Yes, Minister, I

will do it - who gets nothing, he is a public employee anyway - who gets nothing

for the headache that he is going through on this panel. I don't even know if

he gets a lunch out of it - and Bill Wells and Max Short - where are you going

to get a better panel? As far as I am concerned, it is a blue-ribbon panel.

What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is, for those out there in the industry

who might be inclined to criticize and ask for an independent panel, a panel

that has nothing to do with the industry at all, I say: Beware of what you ask

for. Beware of what you demand, Mr. Speaker, because this panel knows their

business. This panel knows the industry. This panel knows all sides of the

industry and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they deserve the support of every one

of us in this House.

When I see processors in particular, and when I hear of processors in

particular making comments that this panel only have meetings so that they can

get another per diem, Mr. Speaker, I question where those processors are in

wanting to make the system work. It turns my stomach, to be frank with you, that

this panel who cannot defend themselves - and should not have to defend

themselves, because we will defend them - but this panel is a top-notch panel in

terms of this industry and what they know about it and so on. They have no way

to defend themselves, but to be open to that kind of criticism, Mr. Speaker, I

think is insulting and falls below the dignity of the public process in this

Province.

Joe O'Neill chairs this for nothing. The other two members of the panel, if

they meet, get a per diem for meeting, and so they should. So they should get a

per diem for meeting, and neither one of them, neither Bill Wells nor Max Short,

when they come in the door to take their cheque for their work, deserve to back

in. They should come in front on, and I want to tell them and tell the public of

this Province that we have faith in them, we have confidence in them, and it is

based on their recommendations, and how they see this matter unfolding, that

this legislation is before the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As you have seen, and as the Opposition Leader pointed out earlier,

technically this comes under my department but obviously, from the last few

words, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has taken the

lead role on this particular piece of legislation and made some very good

points. There were some points raised by members opposite and, of course, during

Committee stage the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has some more issues to

raise.

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the tone of this piece of legislation, just

from the short time we have been talking about it today, is talking about doing

the changes, making the changes, making the enhancements, so that at the end of

the day we have better legislation to deal with so that we can see this whole

industry move forward. We all know about the challenges, especially people in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and as rightly has been said before, how

important the fishery is to this Province, and will be, and always will be, the

backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these are to enhance and improve and move on. Who is to say that

next year or the year after there will be more changes or tweaks to come again,

because we know the challenges are out there, but at the same time I think the

call today is talking about an industry who has to step up to the plate, who has

to show leadership from all sides, to show that there is co-operation and a

collaboration to move this industry forward and to be optimistic.

Yes, we have heard many challenges throughout the last number of months and

so on, but it was even good just a few short months ago to hear some reports of

hopefully better prices this year in the industry. So, we look forward to that

with optimism, but these amendments are all about co-operation, enhancement and,

of course, as the minister said, about leadership within the industry so that we

move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to put forward these amendments today on behalf of my

colleague, and I look forward to further debate in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

second reading be approved on,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act? (Bill 69)

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act, has been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court

Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 66,

An Act To Amend The

Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court

Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code." (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last session of the House we passed legislation, this

House of Assembly passed legislation, which amended the Human Rights Code. There

were a number of amendments made, but the one that I remember the most was the

amendment that made it discriminatory to refuse to hire, or to continue to hire,

someone solely on the basis that they had obtained the age of sixty-five years

of age.

With the support of all hon. members in this House that legislation, in fact,

passed, but in order to give employers time to adapt to the legislation, the

legislation, or that particular section, will not be proclaimed until May of

this year. We gave one year so employers could get ready for it.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment, of course, is to recognize the

value of older workers and to address concerns regarding discrimination that

existed in employment on the basis of age. The bill that we are proposing today

gives further evidence to government's commitment to older workers. In this

case, recognizing the Province's judicial system would be well served by

having the act amended to permit Provincial Court judges to retire, not at the

age of sixty-five but at the age of seventy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to second reading of this

particular bill, Bill 66, which is,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991 And The Human Rights Code. The legislation has been prepared in response to

a request that was made to the Department of Justice by a Provincial Court judge

here in St. John's and, subsequent to that letter from that judge, I met with

the chief judge. I am not so sure of the timing. I met with the Chief Judge - I

am not so sure of the timing - who indicated that judges would be in agreement.

They felt, in consideration of the fact that mandatory retirement at sixty-five

had ended and the fact that there does come a point when judges should step down

in order to ensure renewal and revigoration and new ideas coming to the court,

that seventy years of age would be the appropriate compromise.

I am most pleased to report today that government is in agreement with the

request of the judges and the particular Provincial Court judge, and this Act

will take action to allow judges to extend their judicial careers by five years.

The mandatory retirement age, Mr. Speaker, for Provincial Court judges is set

out in the Provincial Court Act, 1991, and has been established at age

sixty-five. A number of our judges are approaching that age, and, as I said,

there has been a request from a judge in St. John's and from the Chief Judge,

on behalf of the judges, for the department to allow them to remain on the bench

for this additional period of time.

Mandatory retirement for Provincial Court judges is common throughout the

country, even in jurisdictions which have eliminated mandatory retirement for

the general civil service. The Province of P.E.I., Ontario and Saskatchewan, and

Newfoundland of course, continue to set the mandatory retirement age for a

Provincial Court judges at sixty-five years of age. However, the provinces of

Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have mandatory retirement for

judges five years later, at age seventy. Of course, Supreme Court judges,

section 96 judges, judges appointed under

section 96 of the Constitution of

Canada, they retire at seventy-five years of age.

One interesting province is the Province of Manitoba, which has eliminated a

mandatory retirement age for judges and leaves it to the judicial council of

that province to make recommendations that judges retire. I did discuss this

with the Chair of the Provincial Court Judges Council of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador who clearly indicated to me that was a role that the

provincial judicial council did not wish to take on.

To respond favourable to the judges' request to increase their age of

retirement, it would be both reasonable and responsible for this government and

this House to raise the retirement age so as to be consistent with what is

happening with the majority of other provinces. In increasing the mandatory

retirement age for Provincial Court judges, government is aware that retaining a

mandatory retirement age must be done in a manner that will not contravene the

Province's human rights legislation. Therefore, as a necessary response to

changing the retirement age in the Provincial Court Act, government is also

proposing a consequential amendment to the Human Rights Code to provide that the

code shall not be infringed upon should a judge be required to retire upon

reaching a higher retirement age.

Mr. Speaker, judges, of course, play a very important role in our society.

They have been tasked with making decisions which affect the lives of all

citizens. It is important to the public, Mr. Speaker, that the public have

confidence that our provincial court bench is a constantly renewing institution

with more or new generational ideas, so that new ideas are reflected in that

institution. Of course, the only way to do that is to have a reasonable date

when judges should be expected to step down to allow for this rene