Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 23 November 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 45)
2004-11-23
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 23, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 45
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we would like to welcome to the Chamber some students from O'Donel
High School in Mount Pearl, in the District of Mount Pearl. These are sixteen
French Immersion students, and they are also part of a history class. We welcome
their teachers: Mrs. Suzette Fury and Ms Christina Randell-Flemming. Welcome to
our Chamber. We are honoured to have you as our guests this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Members' Statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for Lake Melville; the
hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley; the hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains; and the hon. the Member for Topsail.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to congratulate an incredibly bright and talented young lady
from Tilton, in the District of Port de Grave. Six year old Cassidy Mercer has
recently published a children's novel entitled, Mrs. Reed and the Magic
Wand in Polka-Dot Land.
I was honoured, Mr. Speaker, to join 100 enthusiastic supporters as Cassidy
officially launched her book in Spaniard's Bay. In Cassidy's words, "I
got my idea in my imagination." Her book tells the story of how Mrs. Reed
found a magic wand while looking for a book, and then agreed to take her pupils
to Polka-Dot Land when their school work was finished.
Cassidy's cousin, Darrell Peddle, an engineer by profession, did the colour
illustrations for the book. Darrell, and family friend Evelyn Haley, a retired
director for Carlton Cards, did the editing. The layout was done by Fred Clarke
of Pro Image Printing, the Bay Roberts Company responsible for printing the
book.
Cassidy, supported by her grandmother Yvonne Saunders, has plans to publish
more children's books in the near future and I am already looking forward to
her next story.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to keep their eyes on Cassidy Mercer as
she emerges as one of Newfoundland and Labrador's promising young writers.
This is a copy of her book. [Holds up book to show members.]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like today to inform this hon. House that in the summer
of 2005, the Labrador Heritage Society will be hosting celebrations in North
West River and the Upper Lake Melville area.
June of 2005 will be 100 years since Mina Hubbard departed North West River
and travelled by canoe across the interior of Labrador arriving at George River,
Ungava Bay, in late August that same year.
The 1905 journey was a significant accomplishment because Mina was a lady
from Southern Canada at the time living in the United States, and women in that
era were not encouraged to try such adventures. Also, Mina Hubbard, while on the
journey, plotted the first accurate mapping of the interior of Labrador.
Celebrations will begin 100 years to the day after the original journey
began, starting June 26, 2005, running until August 27, 2005; 100 years to the
day after Mina arrived at George River, Ungava Bay.
Our celebration also includes recognizing the other successful journey
completed that same year from North West River to George River, headed up by
Dillan Wallace.
A special feature of the celebration is the local flavour -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. HICKEY: Just one minute, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HICKEY: A special feature of the celebration is the local flavor, as
one of Mina's guides was Gilbert Blake, a local trapper. His family members
still live in the area and will be front and center at the celebrations, along
with decedents of Mina Hubbard and Dillan Wallace, who will also be travelling
to Northwest River for the ceremonial.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a young man from my
district who was recently recognized by a national organization for his work as
a youth leader.
Corey Parsons of Fortune received the Young Leaders in Rural Canada Award at
the 2004 National Rural Conference in Red Deer, Alberta, held October 21 to
October 23.
The award was introduced last year to honour the community development work
of rural youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine in each of three
categories: innovation, leadership and partnerships. Corey's award was in the
leadership category. The presenter spoke of Corey as a young man who encompasses
the spirit of leadership in his hometown of Fortune.
His efforts in Fortune have led to over three-quarters of a million dollars
being infused into the local economy. Mr. Speaker, this is no small achievement,
especially in a rural community.
Some of Mr. Parsons' other achievements include spearheading workshops and
public meetings on topics ranging from seniors issues to vandalism, and
improving the quality of life in the community by his involvement in winter
carnivals, summer festivals, waterfront festivals and fall exhibitions.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in honouring and
congratulating one of rural Newfoundland and Labrador's most dynamic young
leaders, Corey Parsons.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a
remarkable gentleman, Mr. Ralph Ball Senior of Deer Lake who passed away last
week at the tender age of eighty-three.
Ralph was a highly respected man throughout the Town of Deer Lake, best known
first for his undying love for the Montreal Canadians, and secondly, for his
trade as a blacksmith. He became a blacksmith at the early age of seventeen and
worked and owned the Deer Lake Forge for forty years until his retirement in
1986. Retirement could not keep Ralph away from the trade he so dearly loved. He
still managed to spend most of his time at the shop after his retirement and he
actually worked up to March 5 of last year.
Towards the end of his career the hammer and anvil began to give way to
welding and new technologies. However, Ralph still prospered and his son Ralph
Junior still carries on the tradition today.
Ralph has a very large, loving family; four sons and three daughters, two of
whom are here in the gallery today, Randell and Valda; and fourteen
grandchildren who absolutely adore him. He will be greatly missed. Like the
trade that he mastered, Mr. Ralph Ball Senior and the Deer Lake Forge will
remain a large part of the history of the Town of Deer Lake.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to pay tribute to my dear Uncle Ralph and
extend heartfelt sympathies to the Ball family.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The twenty-ninth annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just been
completed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was first started by Mr. Tim Borlase who
believed that all the children in Labrador should be brought together to show
their skills.
Mr. Speaker, plays and skits are usually written by the students themselves.
They could take place in the form of modern technology or go back to the old
days of the fishing boats and the trap line.
Students from all over Labrador come into Happy Valley-Goose Bay and perform
their plays. Mr. Speaker, there are no winners because all of these students are
winners, but most important of all, it gives the students from the most rural
communities in Labrador a chance to come together and show the people in the
Upper Lake Melville area exactly the kind of talent they have.
It is people like Mr. Borlase who has been there for many, many years and who
has promoted young children in Labrador. Mr. Borlase, I understand, is on the
verge of not taking
part in future years but, certainly, on behalf of all of the
students in Labrador, I want to thank him for the tremendous job that he has
done, and just as important to the students, for the wonderful job that they do
in showing their talent to the rest of Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I am very proud to recognize a very special individual from my district
who recently received national recognition for his athletic achievements.
Nominees from every province and territory vied for the top honour that
Special Olympics Canada bestows upon its male athletes. The list of nominees was
reduced to three finalists with the winner being selected from votes cast by
Special Olympics programs in each province. Special Olympics Newfoundland and
Labrador recently announced that its very own Andrew Ash was named National Male
Athlete of the Year 2004.
Andrew is a resident of Paradise, and has been involved in Special Olympics
for the past eight years. As an athlete, he participates in snowshoeing,
athletics, swimming, floor hockey and bowling. Although Andrew was primarily a
swimmer, he has now focused his training on snowshoeing. At the 2003 Provincial
Winter Games, he won two gold medals and one silver medal, and then competed at
the 2004 National Winter Games earning again two gold medals and one silver
medal.
More importantly, Andrew significantly improved his personal best at the 2004
Games in each of these events, such as the 400 metre where he improved his time
by over one minute. Andrew then achieved one his lifetime goals when he was
named to the Special Olympics Committee National Team Training Squad and is
preparing to represent Canada at the 2005 World Winter Games in Nagano, Japan.
To add to Andrew's list of accomplishments, over the last year the generic
sport community in Newfoundland and Labrador recognized him when the Mount Pearl
Sport Alliance named him Athlete of the Month in March. This was the first time
that a Special Olympian has been recognized by this organization. To his team
mates and competitors he is a great motivator and role model, to his coaches he
is the perfect student. Andrew strives to achieve his best and Special Olympics
is definitely a part of who he is.
I ask all members of the House to join me today in congratulating Andrew Ash
for his outstanding athletic achievement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to inform the House of Assembly today the results of the
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board's Call for Bids that closed on
November 17. A total of $71.1 million in work commitment bids were received for
five parcels in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin area in the 2004 Call for Bids. Two of
the five parcels went to Husky Oil Operations Ltd., one to Petro-Canada and
Husky, one to Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro and one to the consortium of partners
in the Hibernia Field.
The Jeanne d'Arc Basin is home to our two producing projects, Terra Nova
and Hibernia, as well as the White Rose development, which is expected to go
into production early next year, and also to the Hebron BenNevis discovery. This
land sale shows there is plenty of life left in our most explored basin. The
area of petroleum potential in our offshore is vast and the amount of drilling
that has occurred is still very low. Therefore, there is plenty of room
remaining and remaining opportunity for the existing players and even new
players who are interested.
During the past five years the industry has committed to spending in excess
of $1 billion alone in the offshore area in exploration. This includes the 2003
land sale when $673 million was committed in the Orphan Basin. The area offered
in this year's Call for Bids was only one-eighth of the area on which bids
were received last year and, therefore, there was not the same amount of
expectation the most recent bid which would match last year's record sale.
Mr. Speaker, there is exploration proceeding on several fronts and during the
past year seismic work occurred in the Orphan Basin, the Laurentian Basin and
offshore Labrador. The level of exploration that is occurring bodes well for the
future of this industry.
It is exploration, Mr. Speaker, as one person in the industry described to
me, is the milk that really drives the industry that is needed to ensure the
long-term viability of our petroleum sector. We will continue to work
co-operatively with companies, groups and individuals toward advancing our
offshore industry and we wish them great success in their exploration efforts.
We also welcome new players to come to Newfoundland and Labrador as part of
our emerging industry in the oil and gas sector, recently such as BHP who has
done a farm-in with Conoco Phillips for natural gas seismic work on the
Laurentian and Sub-Laurentian Basin.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My thanks to the minister for providing me with an advanced copy of his
announcement. It is, indeed, good news to see that we have continued interest in
our offshore, because with the new interest, of course, comes new opportunities,
an opportunity for new discoveries. With new discoveries, hopefully, will come
new developments, and places in rural Newfoundland such as Marystown and the
Burin Peninsula and the capital city region certainly benefit from having
developments.
I guess the only thing, from a negative point of view, we would comment on,
is the former Opposition, now government, had often stressed the fact that they
would have a new plan for the offshore, there would be new plans and new
approaches taken; but, so far into year two we have not seen any new plans yet.
I guess it will be stay tuned, as they always say when we ask something about:
Where is the plan? It is always, stay tuned.
So far, we have seen scale backs in trade shows, which is also important, of
course, in advancing our offshore opportunities to other players. We have to let
people know we have it. Instead, we have seen some back-scaling when it comes to
shows. We have seen some senior people in our department leave this year, people
who were instrumental in the department, I would suggest, in having people take
interest in our offshore, and we cannot have that. We cannot be losing
well-skilled people.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. PARSONS: On another positive note, I hope, as well, the discussions
that are ongoing today are successful and then the offshore that we are talking
about here, of course, will be as beneficial to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
as it ought to be.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed it is encouraging to see further exploration development activity,
particularly in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. It is also interesting to note, Mr.
Speaker, that one of the players here, as part of parcel number five, is the
Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, with 8.5 per cent of the Hibernia
partnership, and they are part of the consortium that has bid to do further
participating as people who take 8.5 per cent of Hibernia home with them every
day; they are now into exploring our offshore, and it is time, Mr. Speaker, that
this government demand that the new Minister of Energy in Ottawa, who happens to
be from this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is time this government demand that the new Minister of Energy in Ottawa,
Mr. Efford, insist that the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, which by the
way is headquartered in Calgary and operates out of Calgary, move here to
Newfoundland and Labrador as a first step in the transfer -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: - of the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, the 8.5 per
cent of Hibernia to Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: I would like to continue on with some positive notes on both
sides of the House again today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to inform my colleagues about
the continued recognition and accomplishments of the Province's artists. As
you are aware, Newfoundland and Labrador boasts some of the country's most
talented and creative people; individuals who have made their mark in all genres
of the arts.
Today, I would like to acknowledge three of those individuals who recently
were nominated for major national awards, all in the field of theatre. These
artists are: Jillian Keiley, Lois Brown and Robert Chafe.
Mr. Speaker, theatre directors Jillian Keiley and Lois Brown were two of the
five finalists short-listed for the prestigious Siminovitch Prize in Theatre for
2004. Fifty-nine of the country's top directors were nominated for this aware,
the largest prize in Canadian theater. Selections were based on the artist's
sense of originality, use of experimentation and overall creativity.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that Jillian Keiley won this
prestigious award of $100,000.
The award stipulates that $25,000 of the total prize be awarded to a prot P g P
or organization of the winner's choice. Ms Keiley selected fellow local
director, Danielle Irving, as her prot P g P .
Ms Keiley is the founding Artistic Director of Artistic Fraud of
Newfoundland, the winner of the Canada Council's 1997 John Hirsch Prize, and
the 1996 Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council's Emerging Artist of the Year.
Last year, Ms Keiley directed the Canadian tours of Jack Five Oh for
Sheila's Brush and Tempting Providence for Theater Newfoundland and
Labrador, both of which are currently playing in destinations all around the
world. Despite all of these commitments, she still finds time to teach at both
Memorial University and the National Theatre School of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is a significant accomplishment for Jillian Keiley and for
theatre in Newfoundland and Labrador. In her acceptance speech in Toronto last
month, Ms Keiley acknowledged mentors along the way who helped her achieve her
success. One of those mentors was fellow nominee Lois Brown who gave Ms Keiley
her first paid job at the Resource Centre for the Arts, the Province's most
significant incubator for theatre.
During the same week, Ms Keiley's partner in Artistic Fraud , Robert
Chafe, was short-listed for the prestigious Governor General's Literary Awards
for his two plays, Butler's Marsh and Tempting Providence .
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms
Keiley, Ms Brown and Mr. Chafe on receiving this national recognition. I know we
will continue to see great things in the future from these individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for an advanced copy of his statement today, and I can
assure you there are going to be positive statements from this side. We have to
recognize these three individuals.
From a person who competed many times, the thing that is most notable is that
there were fifty-nine finalists. Out of the top five finalists there were two
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is an accomplishment in itself. Then, to
have a Newfoundlander and Labradorian win this award, it again bodes well for
theatre for Newfoundland and Labrador.
The people on this side would like to congratulate the three individuals who
were all nominated. We would also like to thank them for promoting Newfoundland
and Labrador, the theatre of Newfoundland and Labrador. This kind of promotion
will bode well for all theatre, all of the arts in Newfoundland and Labrador,
and we wish them continued luck, continued success, and continued promotion of
the arts and theatre in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to join in recognizing the achievements of Jillian Keiley, Lois
Brown and Robert Chafe. It is part of an ongoing recognition on the national
level of the value and talent in this Province on the theatrical level.
These three individuals, it is very good to see that these are all relatively
newcomers to the artistic scene, although Lois Brown has been teaching for a
number of years, but Jillian Keiley and Robert Chafe, one got the Emerging
Artist of the Year Award a couple of years ago but they have been - in
particular Jillian Keiley, with the award, the Siminovitch Prize, has been
recognized nationally, has received other awards as well, and is an extremely
creative individual with a lot of originality, and has been recognized by
theatre departments and academic departments.
By leave, Mr. Speaker? I think I am about to expire my time. If I may have
another couple of moments?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: I got that sensation, Mr. Speaker, that I was about to run
out of time.
Mr. Speaker, it is part of a tradition of national excellence being
recognized in this Province, and it is certainly deserving in all three of these
individual cases. It speaks well, Mr. Speaker, of the need for this Province to
give, and continue to give, support for theatre programs both in Sir Wilfred
Grenfell in Corner Brook, support for the LSPU Hall, which is a crucible of
artistic development for many people in this Province, and places like Theatre
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Stephenville Festival. These reap rewards not
only to our young people, who are getting national recognition like this, but
also in terms of preserving and expanding our cultural values, and it also helps
with the tourism industry because many people want to see the kind of theatre
that is being produced in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
Yesterday, in this House and in the media, the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture stood in his place and became the official apologist and
spokesperson for FPI with regard to the closure of the fish plant in Harbour
Breton. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has decided to support
and defend the company's decision to close the plant, instead of standing up
for the people of Harbour Breton.
Mr. Speaker, a question. If the minister read the FPI Act, he would realize
that it states that decisions of this magnitude, closing a plant and shutting
down a community, cannot be made without the permission of the government. Will
the minister confirm that he has, in fact, already given his approval to FPI to
close the plant in Harbour Breton?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, when the Leader of the Opposition sat in government, he not only
did not have enough interest to ask FPI questions; he did not have enough
interest to ask the Justice Department questions, and he did not have enough
interest to look at the Fisheries Restructuring Act and the FPI Act.
The FPI Act says nothing, Mr. Speaker, about the closure of plants. As a
matter of fact, it says that the relevant sections in the Fisheries
Restructuring Act that apply to plant closures, plant mergers, mechanization or
trawler transfers resulting in a significant permanent change in employment in
excess of 100 people or one-half of the workforce, as the case may be,
associated with any single plant closure, any single plant location, would be
the subject of approval of both governments.
He is right, that is in the Fisheries Restructuring Act. He is wrong; it is
not in the Fishery Products International Act.
When Fishery Products was privatized in 1987, Mr. Speaker, there was clause -
and I can read that, if you want to give me the time - it says, "the
continued application of a number..." -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The minister has about one minute to answer. I would ask him if he could
conclude his answer now rather quickly.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it says in
Schedule A - I will leave it at that,
Schedule A; the
Leader of the Opposition can check the wording himself - that those sections do
not apply to the Fishery Products International Act. There is no requirement to
inform government, and there is no obligation for government to stop it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see again that he continues to defend FPI today
rather than stand up for the people of Harbour Breton.
Section 2(1) of the
Fishery Products International Act, if the minister would take the time to read
it, clearly states that the company cannot make decisions which create undue
disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the
Province. It also states that maximum employment stability and productivity
through employee participation in the company must take place. It effectively
makes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture the Chairman of the Board and
the CEO for decisions such as closing a plant and destroying and killing a
community.
I ask the minister: Will he now, in his role as the effective Chairman and
CEO for purposes of decisions of this magnitude, ensure that the company lives
up to its responsibilities to the people of the community of Harbour Breton?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Harbour Breton
and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will do what is in our power
to hold FPI to their responsibilities in Harbour Breton and in this Province.
That, Mr. Speaker, is part of the process that we are into.
As I said yesterday, and I have said time and again since yesterday, we have
engaged in a process with the company, the union and the community and the local
MHA. We have had numerous discussions on this matter as late as this morning, as
late as two minutes before I walked into this House, with those individuals and,
Mr. Speaker, we will continue that.
There is a working group meeting that is going to take place on Thursday to
see if we can find a solution for Harbour Breton. The previous Administration
could not find a solution for Arnold's Cove; we found a solution. The previous
Administration could not find a solution for the aquaculture industry; we found
one. We will work on this one and if a solution can be found we will find it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, the minister can defend FPI all he wants. The fact of the
matter is, if he would read the relevant sections of the FPI Act, the changes
that he was part of the all-party committee to make in putting it in the new
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: That is a public company, with the person who is in ultimate
control over the company for purposes of decisions like closing a plant is the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Why is it that he is willing to stand
in this Legislature today and give up the control that he has and go back to
having some discussions and meetings, instead of telling the company that he
will act as the Chairman and CEO for purposes of this decision and make them do
the right thing that they are obligated to do under the act?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that it took three years for him
to finally get interested in FPI and finally start asking some questions.
Unfortunately, when he was the Premier of the Province he had not enough
interest to ask any questions about FPI. He said: I thank them for their
information. I thank them for dropping by to visit me and they were on their
way. That is what he said, if I remember correctly.
We are asking questions. We have been engaged in discussions with FPI since
last April on a variety of issues related to the company, related to their
groundfish operations and their shellfish operations. We are going to continue
those discussions. We are working with the people of Harbour Breton and the
Fishermen's Union to try and find a solution here. As I said, if we can find
one we will do something. If we cannot, we will not. That is it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can understand now how the people of Harbour Breton and other communities
must feel in terms of a minister wanting to give away the authority that he has
and go back to having some discussions, because that is the way he prefers to
handle this circumstance.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has set a precedent for issues with respect to FPI
by saying there will be a free vote in the House. I ask the minister: Will he
give a commitment that there will be a free vote in this Legislature with
respect to whether or not the minister and the government allows the FPI plant
to close or not? Because the buck stops right there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has indicated that should there be revisions to the FPI act
contemplated by this government the appropriate legislation will be brought
before the House, all people will be able to see what is proposed and all
members of this House will be open to vote as they see fit on that legislation
as it relates to the income trust transaction that was proposed by FPI. That is
what we are prepared to do. If there is legislation to come forward, we will
bring it forward.
As for Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition
- okay, we will. We will insist that FPI continue to operate Harbour Breton. As
he may know, there was a clause here that it be the responsibility of the
government to fund that transaction. If that is the case, we will let him know
how much it costs and then we will have a free vote, and the people of the
Province can decide.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to try and find a solution for Harbour Breton, just
as we found one for Arnold's Cove. Maybe you should talk to the member for
Arnold's Cove and see which government handled the Arnold's Cove situation
better - us or them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Fisheries, but I would
like to let him know that FPI was and still remains a profitable company and it
does not need the assistance of this government to reopen and keep that plant in
Harbour Breton alive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 2002, this current Minister of
Fisheries issued a press release stating that he gave the mayors of Fortune,
Harbour Breton and Marystown a commitment which stated, and I quote from his
press release, "The only way we..." - meaning the Tory Party -
"...would accept layoffs is if the union and the employer..." - FPI -
"...mutually agreed to them through negotiations and the collective
bargaining process."
I ask the minister, quite simply - because I have not heard an answer from
him yet, Mr. Speaker - I ask him quite simply, does he and his government intend
to honour that commitment and that promise?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you know, consistency is a wonderful thing, and the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo has been consistent right on through. All he knows how to
do with fisheries matters is play politics with them. That is all he knows how
to do, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: That is the reason the department was left in such a mess
after the two years he was there.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask him, where was he when FPI walked away from
Twillingate? Where was he when they walked away from Bide Arm and Englee and
Fermeuse and Grand Bank and Gaultois and Great Harbour Deep and Port aux
Basques? Where were you then? Where was your government then, through the 1990s?
Where were you? How come you did not make them then? Because you could not force
them to continue to operate, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you, Mr. Minister, where I was not. I was not the Minister of
Fisheries. I was not the Minister of Fisheries when they closed Twillingate, but
when others tried to close it they were not successful. Last year, or two years
ago, when they tried to lay people off in Harbour Breton, Marystown and Fortune,
when I was the Minister of Fisheries, they did not do that either!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member if he would get to his question.
MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The announcement this weekend of the permanent closure of the Harbour Breton
fish plant is a very serious issue, but one that could also have serious
ramifications for other communities in this Province that have plants that are
operated by FPI.
I ask the minister again, quite simply - and he does not have to get on with
his rhetoric. I ask him quite simply, because of the seriousness of this issue -
and I see a former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Lewisporte, who laughs
at this today, who is laughing at the people of Harbour Breton, who is laughing
at the other communities that have plants - I ask him one question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the member asking the question that this is the second time I have
had to interrupt to ask him to finish his question. Do it quickly, in about five
seconds.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he appoint an all-party
committee to study the restructuring program that FPI has put forward, as well
as the closure of the Harbour Breton plant?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. The member is obviously not
listening. We have engaged in a process with the company, with the union, with
the member for the area, and with the community. We have had meetings with all
of those individuals and all of those groups. We are going to continue that, to
try and find a solution. That is what we are going to do, and that is what we
are going to stick to until we exhaust all options. Hopefully, before we exhaust
all options, we will find a viable option. That is the situation. That is what
we committed to and that is what we are going to stick to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, he was also engaged in the process last week and
neither he nor the union nor the people of Harbour Breton knew that they were
going to close the plant until they heard about it in the news over the weekend.
Mr. Speaker, again this minister has not answered the question. We have asked
him seven or eight or ten questions here in the last two days. Maybe he cannot
speak without the Premier's permission, or maybe he has to call his friends at
FPI to ask if he is permitted to do it.
I ask him one simple question: Will you put FPI on notice right here in this
House this afternoon that the quotas attached to Harbour Breton will remain in
that town if the plant closes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You know, for a former provincial Minister of Fisheries to ask a question
like that, it is no wonder that the department did not get anything done. No
wonder that he did not do anything from a policy perspective when he was there.
There is no wonder, Mr. Speaker. There is no wonder. There is no wonder there
were so many issues that were left not being dealt with.
He should know, as a provincial Minister of Fisheries, that the authority as
it relates to allocations rests with the federal minister. Now, that is the fact
of the matter here.
Stop playing politics with the matter. Stop trying to score cheap political
points, and deal straightforwardly and factually with the people of the Province
and the people of Harbour Breton.
The people of Harbour Breton are in a serious situation. The people of
Harbour Breton are in a desperate situation. We are taking it seriously and we
are going to work with them, just as we did with the Member for Bellevue's
community of Arnold's Cove. We worked with them, we found a solution, and we
are going to work with the people of Harbour Breton, FPI and the Fishermen's
Union to find a solution there if it is able to be found.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will be asking the minister some questions today about FPI and the future
of Harbour Breton as well.
One of the concerns I have is the so-called independent engineering study of
the building. Something is just not right about it, and yesterday afternoon a
spokesman for the company, Russ Carrigan, in conversion on a Fisherman's
Broadcast with John Murphy, was asked this question: Let me ask you, if you had
fish to process in the building, could it be used? His comment was: Given the
results of the engineering report that we had, the plant would have to be
modified to be made safe again for a food operation.
The question was put again: But I guess I am asking you, do you know, can the
building be fixed or is a new one required? The answer from the person who was
speaking for the company said: I would not be able to answer that.
My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to funding an
independent engineering study of the building and make the findings available to
the public?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You see the difference in questions when you get them from a person who takes
the situation seriously.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I can say this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member an
answer on whether we would or we would not right now. I will take that under
advisement, but I can tell him this -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: Why don't you just sit down and listen, boys? Just cool
your heels a little bit and maybe you will learn something -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: - about how you should handle the situation, unlike what you
did before. When the parade formed, you said: There go my people; I must get out
in front of them.
Mr. Speaker, as I was going to say, I have already asked the Minister of
Government Services to have occupational health and safety go into Harbour
Breton to conduct a review of the facility and provide us with a report on that.
That is already in the works, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell the House today when
that will happen, but the request has been made from my office to the minister's
office and when that information becomes available I will give it.
As for the other question, I will take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and
report back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We need such an independent study to determine what work needs to be done to
reopen the plant. Will the minister, again, commit to using such a study as a
starting point to see what investments need to be made to reopen the plant
rather than having FPI give the excuse to close it? Will he use the power he
has, under the act, to see that FPI makes investments that are made and the
plant is reopened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member has alluded to, trying to find a way forward in
Harbour Breton is - one of the fundamental pieces to finding that way forward is
knowing absolutely what the status of the facility is. That, as I have just
indicated in my previous answer, we are committed to trying to find that out.
Maybe we will - maybe we will not, I do not know - fund an engineering study on
the facility. No matter what happens down there, there has to be a facility to
process fish in if there is going to be fish produced in that community. So, as
I said, we will look at that suggestion and try and work with the community to
find a way forward there.
Mr. Speaker, let none of us be under any illusion about the problems in
groundfish worldwide. I undertook it myself in the last little while to find out
what the situation was with groundfish, not here in this Province. Let's
forget what is happening with FPI and groundfish here in this Province and look
at Norway, where, right now, Mr. Speaker, the number of processing plants -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to finish the answer quickly.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was trying to say, there is a serious problem with groundfish production
worldwide. There is a serious problem with the profitability of it and that, Mr.
Speaker, affects us just as well as it affects everybody else in the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has asked the people of this Province, and rightly so, to stand
with him as he fights for our rightful share of the offshore resources. The
Premier and the minister should now be willing to stand with the people of
Harbour Breton in their time of need and they are in need.
Again, I will ask the minister: Will this government use the power they have
in the legislation to have FPI make the necessary investments and begin
processing again in Harbour Breton?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition has got to give up the tripe and the foolishness
that he is getting on with, Mr. Speaker, and stop playing cheap politics with
the lives of the people of Harbour Breton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that is what he did
three years ago when it all broke loose and that is what he is doing again now.
Now, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister with the level
of noise in the Chamber. I ask members for their indulgences, and the Chair
recognizes the minister again.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, we will use what authority we have to find a solution in
Harbour Breton, as we will use whatever authority we have to find a solution in
the fishing industry generally.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I hear lots of racket now, but where
was the Leader of the Opposition and everybody else? I do not hear them talking
about Englee, finding a solution in Englee. I did not hear the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: It is the same thing. It is the same thing, yes. We have lots
of authority. We will order everybody to operate plants. Don't be so foolish!
Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem in this industry, and a large part of
it is as a result of the way that they handled government when they were here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Government House Leader in his capacity as Minister of
Natural Resources. At Terra Nova, on Monday morning, we had an oil spill that
was equivalent to two times the total amount of oil spilled on the Grand Banks
since 1997 in over 160 spills.
Mr. Speaker, what is very concerning about this is that it was only detected
by some visual noticing of oil going into the Grand Banks. What if there was fog
and there was nobody noticing it visually? What I want to know is what
confidence does this minister have, and can the public have, in the kind of
monitoring system that apparently requires someone to see oil going into the
ocean rather than have some alarm go off? What kind of confidence does he have
in the monitoring system and in the reporting system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, let me be very clear with the member. The spill did not occur
on Monday morning. It occurred at 3:17 on Sunday morning. At 4:10 a.m.
production was stopped and suspended. So within less than an hour production was
suspended. So, I do have some confidence in the system.
We were informed, as government, early Sunday morning about what had
occurred. I guess the member read the paper, like most other people read the
paper today, in terms of the discussion that took place on how oil spills are
discovered. The early information is that it was a mechanical spill, in terms of
the water separation and the mechanical misfunction that took place. We do not
know that for sure yet.
Right away on Sunday night after production was suspended - which means there
is no oil being produced right now - the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum
did exactly what it was supposed to do. It sent out its lead investigators - two
of them by the way - and an investigation began early on Monday morning. On top
of that, the Canadian Coast Guard went out. I believe Marine associated
organizations are out in terms of impacts upon saltwater sea birds, impacts on
mammals. That investigation is going on right now.
I can say this to the House and to the people of the Province with absolute
certainty, that before any production is resumed with respect to this spill that
we will be briefed as a government and the C-NOPB will do exactly what they are
supposed to do to find out what happened, what caused it, and if there is no
level of competence with respect to if it can be fixed, then there will not be
any production. That is what it means to take care of the environment when a
spill like this occurs, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.
The people of this Province know that regardless of the outcome of the talks
being held today that 100 per cent of this oil will end up in Newfoundland and
Labrador waters, and that is why we are all concerned about it.
Mr. Speaker, if Irving Oil spilled a number of gallons of oil trying to load
a tanker or unload a tanker in St. John's Harbour, or any other place in the
Province, there would be significant fines placed on them as a deterrent to make
sure they prevent this from happening in the future.
Mr. Speaker, what can this government point to in terms of regulations or
enforcement that would equally provide a deterrent to Terra Nova or any other
operator in the offshore, that regardless of fault that the strict liability of
the law would ensure that they would be prosecuted and give them a deterrent so
that they would have a incentive to have proper monitoring systems in place -
electronic monitoring, not visual monitoring - so that this does not happen
again?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let there be no doubt by anybody who has taken an interest in this - and I
suspect there are many in the Province. I know the member seems to be agitated
and angry by it, only unequaled by my anger and agitation by what occurred, and
this government's absolute anger and agitation by what has occurred. But I
will say this to the member, before we decide to act as judge, jury and hang
person in this Province, the only thing that I am going to point to is when the
investigation is complete and the investigative report is on our desk, then we
will take whatever action is necessary against this or any other company who
wants to destroy the environment off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice, unlike his colleague the Minister
of Fisheries who has taken a defeatist attitude with regard to the Harbour
Breton situation. I would point out, by the way, that Arnold's Cove is quite
different. It is a private creation in the fishing industry,
whereas FPI was a
creation of this Legislature, exists because of this Legislature, and will
continue to be controlled by this Legislature if they have the backbone to do
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: My question of the Minister of Justice is: Minister, have
you personally, and your department, been engaged to advise the Minister of
Fisheries as to how, not if, but how the FPI Act can be used to prevent FPI from
closing the plant in Harbour Breton?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Officials in the Department of Justice became engaged today in formulating a
structure to the Province's response to the announcement by FPI. Departmental
officials will review the legal position of the government under the relevant
legislation and legal advice will be provided to the minister, to assist the
minister in his discussions with the company and with the citizens of Harbour
Breton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it cannot be serious what I just heard from the Minister of
Justice, that he today, and his department, have been engaged as of today in
dealing with the issue of Harbour Breton which has been public knowledge in this
Province and probably the biggest millstone that the people of Harbour Breton
have ever had to face in their existence and you just get engaged today. You
told us once in this House a few months ago to stay tuned. When, minister, are
you going to tune in?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, have you got any idea right now that
you can tell us what you are prepared to recommend, as the Minister of Justice,
if, as your colleague says - which I disagree with - that the act is not strong
enough? What are you prepared to recommend to put the sufficient teeth into the
FPI Act so that your minister can have enough backbone to do what needs to be
done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, officials in the Department of Justice are continually giving
advice to all government departments in dealing with the matters that come
before them, including the Department of Fisheries. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker,
the Premier has announced that there will be a free vote in this House of
Assembly concerning the income trust program that is proposed by Fisheries
Products International. That is what the real issue is here, whether that
transaction is in the best interest of the people of this Province and that will
be decided here. It is not a question of legal opinions. It is a question of
what this House will have the fortitude to do by passing legislation which it
has a legal authority to do. That is the real issue here, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have about forty-five seconds, a short question and an equally short
answer.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Conservation. The fact
that a major oil spill took place in Terra Nova, I want to ask him a question:
Does he think that the right procedure is being followed in the offshore?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, for a very short
response.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me be very clear with the member. Were the right procedures followed? At
3:17 a.m. a spill occurred. In less than an hour production was shutdown,
suspended. Immediately, that day two investigators went out who have not
concluded their investigation. As soon as that investigation is complete and the
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is informed, and both levels of
government, both federally and ourselves provincially are informed, we will be
in a position to be able to answer those questions. But, I am not going to do
what most people would, or what the member seems to be asking us to do. I am not
going to prejudge what is going to come out of that investigation. We are going
to do it properly and professionally. We will wait to see what happens and
whatever action needs to be taken to ensure that this does not occur again, I
can assure the member and anybody else, that action will be taken.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for oral questions has expired.
Presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the 2003 Annual Report of the
Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?
The Speaker would like to table the following reports: the Annual Report of
the Chief Electoral Officer on Election Finances for the period January 1, 2003
to December 31, 2003, and the Report of the Chief Electoral Office on Election
Finances of the October 21, 2003 General Election.
I note in doing so that these reports be posted on the Electoral Office Web
site as of this afternoon and will be available on CD-ROM in about two weeks'
time for members who might be interested.
Notices of Motion?
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles
Act," Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," Bill 46.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given?
MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. PARSONS: I just wondered if this was the appropriate
section to do it
under. I raised a question back on our last day of June. We had posed a couple
of dozen questions in writing in the House here in the last session to various
ministers. We have received some of the answers and some of the ministers on
June 8 actually gave me an undertaking that they would provide the answers to
the questions that were on the Order Paper when we left in June. I just notice
we still have a dozen or so outstanding.
In the interest of the openness and accountability and transparency that is
going to be a hallmark of this session, we are just wondering if, under this
section in the days to come, that we might, in fact, have some details provided
to those questions.
MR. SPEAKER: Previous rulings of Speakers have indicated that while all
members are free to place their questions on the Order Paper , and they will be
printed on the day following their submission to the Clerk, and they are printed
once, there is no obligation on behalf of the members of the executive or the
government side to respond to such questions at all, no more than they have to
respond to any other questions that might be asked in the House. While it is an
interesting point, it certainly is not a point of order.
Petitions?
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the
students in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as I gave in the ministerial statement, the
twenty-ninth annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just come to a close.
The sad part for the students in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is that they didn't
have an auditorium in which to go and do what they do best, to get together with
their friends in Labrador and do their plays and their skits.
Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the government which made a commitment to the
children in Labrador and we committed $2.4 million to build an auditorium. The
town council and members of Happy Valley-Goose Bay had $300,000 from the federal
government plus over $20,000 of their own money. Mr. Speaker, this government,
unfortunately, withdrew that money and put it on hold.
Mr. Speaker, the construction season we have in Labrador is very short and
the materials need to be ordered. Even if the government did come out now, I
doubt that the auditorium would be ready for next year. The sad part: I spoke
with some of the student there this afternoon in the airport. They were heading
back home again, and they were very disappointed there was no commitment from
this government to grant them their wish of an auditorium to service of all the
children in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, when this government here talks of making a commitment to rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, then I can say to them that our students in Labrador,
many who live in the most remote areas of this Province, are being denied a part
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ANDERSEN: - or a building that students on the Island....
I can understand, Mr. Speaker, why these people over there on the other side
can laugh and joke about things, but I can tell you it is no laughing matter to
the students in Labrador. The frustration that they feel about this government
is evident, that this government here put on hold the auditorium when children
on the Island portion of the Province, and rightly so, enjoy an auditorium where
they can go and hold their creative arts festivals, but not in Labrador, and
that is the sad part - a government that made a commitment to rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. The students who live in the most remote parts of this Province
are being denied by this government, $2.4 million. That, in itself, is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, every day while this House sits, I will stand in my place and
present a petition on their behalf because I believe - and this government over
there has said it - that every child in Newfoundland and Labrador deserves an
equal chance.
Unfortunately, for those who attended the arts festival in the Upper Lake
Melville area, this government is not giving them an equal chance. I think that
is a sad day for the students in Labrador and it does not hold very well with
all the people who live in Labrador.
I am sure that the Premier and his government heard of how the people in
Labrador over the years have felt that they did not receive a fair share of
monies and infrastructure. I can tell you, I was part of a government that put
new schools on the Coast of Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
MR. ANDERSEN: I am sure that the children in Labrador, as well,
acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition from the people of my District of
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and it has to do with government's decision in
the past year to relocate marine services from Cartwright to Lewisporte;
primarily, the Sir Robert Bond .
The people in my district have seen in the past season, with the
restructuring of that marine service, a loss in business revenue of more than 40
per cent over the summer months, and in the tourism industry alone the
statistics have dropped by about 40 per cent this past year.
Mr. Speaker, just recently I met with the tourism operators in my district.
As well, the Minister of Tourism, when he was visiting the area, met with a
number of the tourism operators, and they explained quite clearly that the 40
per cent reduction in business this year was attributed to a number of factors
but the primary reason was because of government's decision to relocate the Sir
Robert Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte.
Mr. Speaker, because of that, the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay also lost
a very dependable, reliable service of three trips a week that were operating in
and out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Last summer, Mr. Speaker, I received calls
from residents in the Lake Melville area who explained to me that when they were
trying to get reservations on the boat they had great difficulty and they had to
wait for extended periods of time before they could get reservations, and when
they did they could not get accommodations.
I remember one woman from Happy Valley-Goose Bay who called me, who was
travelling with her two children and had to put her children to sleep in the bar
on board the boat because there was no other place to accommodate her and her
children on this trip.
This has not only caused a decrease of business in the Southern Labrador area
but it has also caused a great deal of difficulty for travellers in Labrador who
are depending upon that vital ferry service to operate between Cartwright and
Goose Bay.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this decision was made, because the
decision to move the Sir Robert Bond to Lewisporte by the Minister of
Transportation and Works and the Member for Lewisporte was done so and paid for
out of the Labrador Transportation Fund. Mr. Speaker, that is a fund that is
administered for and on behalf of the people of Labrador. Right now, the people
who are making decisions on that fund are the Minister of Transportation and
Works and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. There is no Deputy Minister
of Labrador Affairs, only an acting minister right now, who would be partial to
what happens with regard to that revenue.
Mr. Speaker, they are using the money to pay for their own political
commitments that they made during the election. That was obvious, because the
minister and the Member for Lewisporte made the commitment during the election,
became the minister, used the money out of the Labrador Fund to fulfill the
commitment that he made to the people, and left people in my district with no
service or little service last year, that caused tremendous hardship to their
businesses and a loss of revenue -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,
1999, Bill 37, now be read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999,"
carried. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 4, to move that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, myself,
ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Revise The Law About
Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Natural
Resources shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine," carried. (Bill
34)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.,
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill
34)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time? On tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 5, that the Minister of Health and Community Services ask leave to
introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.
(Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994,"
carried. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 7, that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing
Board. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs shall have leave to introduce a
bill entitled,
An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. (Bill
36)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador
Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing
Licensing Board," carried. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.
(Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 9, the hon. the Minister of Education to ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act.
(Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall
have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act
To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act," carried.
(Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that said bill be read a first
time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first
time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 10, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to
ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards
Act. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against?
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill
38)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a
first time?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against?
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time, on tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,
Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33,
An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,
Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take some time today to speak to the amendment to the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act that we are putting before the
House.
There was a five-year strategic plan to revamp services down at the Workplace
Health and Safety Compensation Commission. From that report there were a number
of issues that were addressed that needed to be resolved. One thing that became
very apparent when the task force did their report in 2001 was that the
Commission found themselves to be in some very serious financial difficulties.
Over the past three years and continuing on into future years it is going to be
very important that we address the fiscal realities of the Commission. We have
made some gains and we have been addressing the unfunded liability down at the
Commission. In doing so, we also need to make sure that we are progressive in
other areas and that different aspects of the legislation meet with the
progression that is happening with the fiscal realities.
One thing that came to light when I took on the duties of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment in late February, was when the labour component was added
to this particular portfolio with it came the Labour Relations Agency that was
newly developed and also came the responsibility for the Workplace Health and
Safety Compensation Commission. It was when I took responsibility for the
Commission that I realized how many difficulties people and stakeholder groups
were facing with the Commission. I have had representation made to me on a
number of occasions from individuals who have frustrations with the Commission
and with stakeholder groups who seem to feel there are some issues down at the
Commission. One of the major issues that I have been asked to look at, and that
I have been aware of, involved the employers. The employers feel, and they
acknowledge, that they are paying the highest rates in Atlantic Canada and they
are also concerned that at some point it is making the Province less competitive
as a place to come and do business.
What we are trying to introduce and do with the Commission, at this time,
with this amendment to the legislation is to bring in a new employer financial
incentive program. This new incentive program, as you will probably hear, is
often referred as PRIME. PRIME is an acronym that stands for Prevention Return
to Work Insurance Management for Employees and Employers. It brings an element
of fairness to the way that assessment rates are assigned to various employers.
One thing that is noted, for sure, is that employers have not been pleased
and did not feel that the comparison to industry performance was a way that
their rates for compensation should be calculated. What that means, in essence,
is that for any industry there is a base rate and all the Commission rates, that
the employers pay, are based on that industry. What has been frustrating with
that particular concept is the fact that some businesses or some employers do
quite well in the area of occupational health and safety and they feel they are
being penalized because they have to go on the base rate that has been
established for that particular industry.
What this new incentive program is going to address, Mr. Speaker, is that
there will be some annual performance targets. So there will, in essence, be a
target set out for an employer and how an employer performs based on that target
will determine whether or not, at the end of the year, the employer is eligible
for a refund or pays a penalty. The base rate is set, it is varied and that the
industries will then pay their rates based on that rate but their individual
performances will be recognized. What this new system will do, it will not only
calculate the assessment refunds but it will also give the Commission the
jurisdiction to lobby financial penalties for industries that fall far outside
what is recommended as a base rate for that industry and what their rates are
based on. I think that is a real progressive step because, in essence, it puts
the accountability back to the employer that they have to have appropriate
occupational health and safety standards set up in their particular industry.
The emphasis of this particular amendment to the legislation puts the
accountability back to the employer for their practices in the area of
occupational health and safety. One thing that is interesting to note is that it
also involves an early and safe return to work. So, although this amendment
usually goes to the employers and it is employer-focused, when employees have a
safer workplace, and health and safety becomes more of a priority, employees
also have the benefit of this type of an amendment.
This new PRIME program, as I said, will financially reward employers if they
meet certain standards. The whole basis of this new program known as PRIME will
introduce what is known as part one and part two of an assessment phase. Part
one will be based on the fact that employers meet various standards that are
based in the occupational health and safety legislation. They will be required
to demonstrate that they meet these requirements. Now, the argument can be the
occupational health and safety legislation is in law anyway so why are we
financially rewarding an employer for following the law? What in essence we are
doing is providing an incentive and we are going to be doing audits. There will
be checks and balances in place to ensure that the legislation is being
followed. That, in essence, should improve health and safety in the workplace
and provide safer workplaces for the employees.
If a company meets the requirements of part one, they are then eligible for a
refund under part two. Part two will provide the industry-based rate. So, the
rates that the employers are going to pay in will be based on that
industry-based rate. If they fall within the range, they have met their goals.
If they fall far below the range - so if they expect, for instance, that their
anticipated cost could be between $50,000 and $100,000 and they are a large
employer and they fall below the threshold, the bottom part of the average, they
will be entitled to a refund under this new act.
What will also happen, if they go outside the range, so their costs with
regard to occupational health and safety and workplace safety go above the
limits of the range that is set out for that particular industry, they will be
subject to a penalty.
The other thing that this gets at as well, it allows the Commission the
ability to address persistent high injury rates and costs. So, this is not meant
to cause penalties and undue hardship for industry or employers that have trends
of safety but for some reason or another have increased costs in a particular
year. This should help with industries and with employers who have consistent
and persistent problems with occupational health and safety and they are
basically deemed as not living up to the safety requirements that are set out in
occupational health and safety standards.
In essence, what we are doing is we are promoting healthier and safer
workplaces for the employees. We should also see from this change that we should
have better return to work, early and safe return to work practices from the
employers. That will be part of the part one process that they have to go
through in order to get the first initial refund to move into part two. In order
for the Commission to bring in these changes, a legislative change is necessary
and therefore we have to bring it to the House of Assembly.
The other thing to note in this, this is not going to cause sweeping changes
tomorrow for employers. In essence, what we are doing is there will be a
two-year phase-in of the program. So, in the year 2005, the part one assessments
will lead into the refund and the part two in 2006. The refund that is attached
to part one, that monitors the compliance with the occupational health and
safety regulations, can see employers getting a 5 per cent refund of their total
assessments. To some employers who pay exuberant rates to the Commission, this
could mean substantial money for that employer.
What they must do in order to progress from part one into part two is
establish an injury reporting system and have an early and safe return to work
program. Now, there are going to be other policy measures within there for the
employers to follow, but in basis that is the essence of what they are going to
have to meet in order to meet the requirements of part one to this program.
If they pass the part one and get the 5 per cent refund, they will then be
eligible to go into part two for possibly more refunds, based on the system, if
they go below the threshold that is set out as the industry base.
PRIME incentives and this employer incentive program, this financial program,
will be available to more employers than the present incentive program.
Basically, the present incentive program hits about 5,500 employers but this new
program should be available to approximately 13,000 employers in this Province.
Some of the highlights of this legislation that I think make it progressive
and necessary is that employers will be more accountable for what is happening
in their workplace. Mr. Speaker, we can probably all think of a situation and
know individuals who were either seriously injured or killed at the workplace,
and there is no excuse for that. When we set this up and we have occupational
health and safety legislation, this is another check and balance in place to
ensure that employers are co-operating with what is set out for them in law.
For employers who practice safety on a consistent basis but for some reason
have an accident or somebody gets injured, or whatever could happen to increase
their cost for a particular year, this program should be able to account for
that without necessarily driving up their rates to standards that they cannot
meet. As I have said before, this program was brought in to address the extreme
or persistent behaviour of unsafe practices.
What else is important, as I had mentioned, is that the refund and the
charges under this new program will be determined by comparing individual
employer experiences to individual set performance targets, so every employer
will have a predetermined requirement or performance target that they have to
meet. This is a breakaway from the system we are using now where all of the
employers in a certain industry are based on the industry performance. This will
allow employers in industries, where there may be higher rates because some
industries or some employers do not follow the set guidelines, it will allow
them to receive the incentives or the rewards based on their own individual
performance if they fall short of their performance targets which are set out
for that particular industry. There will be an emphasis on compliance. There
will be an emphasis on early return to work for our employees.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that with a
large number of groups and individuals expressing concerns about the Workplace
Health and Safety Compensation Commission, when this program of PRIME was first
introduced and we were in discussion about whether or not we felt this was the
way to move we wanted some assurance that this was what employers wanted in the
community. We held a meeting with some of the stakeholder groups, a number of
the ministers, and we talked about he particular program. At that point in time,
I felt there was support for this particular initiative and that is when we
decided to continue to move it through the process.
As late as this morning, Mr. Speaker, I happened to have a meeting with
Marilyn Tucker of the Employers' Council and some representatives of that
executive. I know that the Employers' Council - and I spoke to a conference
they had last week which was based around this particular program - were very
anxious to see this legislation passed. They are very supportive of it. They
have been working with the Commission to refine the policies so that employers
will be able to follow the policy and will be able to meet what is required of
them under this new legislation. They feel that this a move in the right
direction, to address occupational health and safety and be able to address and
reward employers who fall below the performance standards and who are out there
and who are practicing appropriate occupational health and safety standards.
In
summary, I would like to say that I feel this is a move in the right
direction for occupational health and safety. It is an initiative that will
reward employers who follow the legislation. It is not necessarily a change that
affects employees, however, any employees who work in workplaces that have
enhanced occupational health and safety standards will benefit from that
program. It closely links - this change, this amendment that we are looking at -
to the occupational health and safety legislation which is governed under
Government Services. In essence, what it does, it promotes a healthier and safer
workforce for the employees of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the employers of this Province have asked for changes. They feel
that their rates have not been competitive. They feel that they have high rates
based on industry performance and that there has been no recognition of any
individual industry initiatives to address occupational health and safety. This
program, I feel, will allow employers to be rewarded if they are in an industry
that has a high rate of accidents and injury. If they have exceptional
performance, and they fall below the target standards, they will be rewarded
under this system for their performance.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a necessary change at this time. As the
Commission is addressing some issues down there, it is trying to address the
unfunded liability, but in doing that we also have to recognize that the
stakeholder groups, whether it is the injured workers or the employers, or other
stakeholders who have issues with the Commission, that their issues are also
being heard so that as we deal with the fiscal realities, we are also dealing
with the other issues as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to have a few comments about Bill 33. What the minister is doing
here today, I guess, is the result of many years of work. As we all recall, the
Workplace Health and Safety Commission, over the last number of years, has gone
through some difficult times in terms of being able to manage the affairs that
is going on in the Province with this organization. The board has given
tremendous leadership in this particular area.
As a matter of fact, when we were in government we had a Department of Labour
solely responsible for occupational health and safety and labour issues. It was
a focal point for workers within this Province, but we all know that when this
government came on the scene a year or so ago it decided to span the Department
of Labour and put it into various other departments, which made it a very
fragmented approach to labour relations and occupational health and safety.
Over the last number of years it is interesting to note that this Province
was leading the country, I guess, in terms of innovation and in terms of
occupational health and safety. We have done tremendous work within this
Province and I think we have a pretty good system to make sure that we monitor
the situation within this Province. I guess it is rightly so that employers who
have a good occupational health and safety regime would get a break in their
compensation charges. I think all of us who have insurance policies and who have
car insurance policies are always rewarded if we have a good driving record and
we do things in a safe way. For the employers out there who make sure that they
have safe workplaces, rightly so should get compensated and pay a lesser fee. It
is also interesting to note that because of the work that has taken place over
the last number of years there has been a basic rate decrease in the charge to
employers for workers' compensation.
I guess one of the disturbing things from an employee point of view is that
still the salary cap for compensation is only at roughly around $46,000 a year,
and 80 per cent of net indicates that it is only about $33,000. As you are well
aware, a lot of the people who work in our heavy industries, in terms of the
mining industry, the offshore, the North Atlantic Refinery and various other
workforces around this Province, their salaries are quite a bit higher than what
this is.
MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point about the maximum compensable
earnings that a worker is entitled to here in the Province. Since 1984, the
maximum compensable earnings have been frozen at $45,500 for workers. Last year
the commission made a strong case that they did not want that to increase.
However, this year, Mr. Speaker, according to the regulations it will be
increased based on the CPI which was 1.7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, it is the
intention of this government that the maximum compensable earnings which were
frozen for the last twenty years will continue to increase as per the
regulations.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the minister speaking to a point of order or wishing to resume debate? The
Chair rules that there is no point of order and calls for the resumption of
debate.
MR. BARRETT: I was making a point that there are various reasons why the
figure is that. What I am saying is, it is still not enough. Some of the
industries that we have people working in, you know, it was only the other day I
met with a man who had a serious injury, a fall in Bull Arm. The torture that
this particular individual has gone through over the last number of years, and
the amount of money that these people make and what they get when they are on
workers' compensation - the injury is not the worker's fault. In most cases
it is because there was some problem with the workforce, the workplace where the
worker became injured, and now is getting a substantially lower benefit. We all
know that if somebody is used to making $60,000 or $70,000 a year for an
extended period of time - and all of us, in our lifetime, spend whatever we
make. If you get injured and all of a sudden you wake up one morning and instead
of making $70,000 a year you are making $25,000 a year - what I am indicating
here is that we should have a higher threshold for people.
Yes, it may mean that the employer will have to pay higher compensation but I
think in the end the system is set up for the injured worker and that is the
prime person that should get benefits from this particular organization.
I am not being critical of the minister. I am not being critical of the
government. All I am saying is that we have to make sure that when we bring in
these kinds of things that the worker is taken into consideration.
I guess the other question I have to ask on this particular thing is: How
will the employees be affected and will there be a reduction in the services and
benefits? The minister did not indicate, if we implement this particular system,
would there be any reduction in the service to the employees. If there is less
money coming in, if the rates are up and there is less money coming into the
organization, will there be any reduction in the service and benefits to
employees?
The other thing, I guess, in terms of monitoring, it was indicated that the
Commission would put out a very extensive public relations campaign. So, what is
the budget and how much money is the Commission going to spend on this public
relations campaign that they are going to put on for this particular piece of
legislation?
I think it is very, very important that they use restraint. If they have to
use restraint to freeze the level of compensation for the employees, then I
think they should also be very frugal in their approach to the whole public
relations campaign.
Today, I support this piece of legislation and encourage it so that we make
sure that all of us work together to make sure that we have a good workplace
compensation commission in this Province, because the reason that the Commission
is there is to protect the people. It was put there in the first place to
protect the injured workers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to make a few comments on the amendment to the legislation. I
would like to say to the minister that this is probably a right move to help
employers who are actively bringing in new changes in the workplace to make the
workplace a healthier and safer place to be, and I certainly would support
anything that leads to that. I have seen enough tragedy in my lifetime, in
injuries that people received at work, to know full well the benefits of having
a safe workplace.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we had occupational health and safety within the union
that I belonged to. We had the longest strike in Canadian history on the issue
of occupational health and safety, a strike that took place in Baie Verte in
In 1977, Mr. Speaker, while I was working in the mine in Labrador City, we
had a two-week wildcat strike after having three fatalities in nine days. We had
people go to jail for that, Mr. Speaker, and we had people fired for that, for
taking
part in an illegal work stoppage, but the bottom line is that good things
did come out of the work stoppage. People paid the ultimate price, and other
people paid prices as well, but the end result was that changes came that would
benefit all workers who follow in the footsteps of those who died. I might add,
Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the right to refuse unsafe and unhealthy work
was driven by these two strikes in particular in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I sort of take exception in some respects with some of the
wording that the minister used when she was introducing the amendment, in terms
of rewarding employers who follow regulations. I am not sure if that is an
appropriate way to put things, because people should not be rewarded for
following the law; they should be penalized if they break it. To tell people
that we will let you benefit if you follow the law, I do not think that is an
appropriate way of putting things.
I do have some concerns, though, I say to the minister. The minister spoke
about audits to be done on individual workplaces. I want to ask the minister if
she would respond to: Who will do these audits? What is the staffing levels in
her department that will carry out this work? How are the current employees
going to be able to tackle all of the employers in the Province to make sure
that they are, indeed, in compliance with the laws and regulations that govern
occupational health and safety.
Not that long ago, Mr. Speaker, I raised here in the House a question of the
Department of Labour and how they control the number of employers in this
Province, if they knew how many exactly had joint occupational health and safety
committees that they are required to have by law. The answer was not given. The
answer was not given because the minister of the day did not know. We also
talked about the safety reports that are conducted, audits if you will, by law
in every workplace in this Province, supposedly. They did not have the
information on how many reports that they got in each month. These are mandatory
things that are supposed to happen, that is law that they do happen, but they
are not happening in our Province today. So, I ask the minister how she proposes
to make sure that all these workplaces are audited to the degree that she seems
to be comfortable with when, indeed, the manpower shortage, the number of people
who are allocated in her department to enforce such things is way below the
numbers that will be required to do the job. So, we do have some concerns about
that.
We talk about accountability in the workplace. That is a big issue that a lot
of people in workplaces throughout this Province are concerned about, from the
aspect of proper reporting, proper information going to the workplace commission
when accidents take place, whether or not the forms are being filled out and
sent in as required, and I know cases. I have been involved with workers'
compensation enough to know that in many cases people have accidents at work,
people have injuries, people have near misses that are not reported, that are
not documented, that are not forwarded to the Commission and this creates
problems, especially when an employee has a reoccurrence of an injury that
happened some time in the past. So, all of these things need to be worked on,
but the only way they can be done is having more people in the minister's
department who are going to assume that responsibility.
The previous speaker on this issue, Mr. Speaker, talked about the salary
difference that people make compared to what they get when they are off on
workers' compensation. I say that the cap that was there for twenty years, the
45-5, was inadequate for a lot of workers in this Province. Particularly, as the
previous speaker noted, people who are involved in heavy industry, such as
mining, at the oil refinery, the paper industry and others in this Province.
That certainly does not fit within the income levels that they were used to
prior to being injured. It is a far cry from it many times. By increasing it by
a mere $1,500 or so still does not adequately address the problems, even if
there will be incremental increases going into the future.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I think government should be concerned about,
and there should be legislation covering, is when workers are off work and on
workers' compensation they are getting, sometimes, 80 per cent of a much less
figure than they were used to making when they were working. Equally as
important, there is no legislation requiring employers in this Province to
provide the benefits that go along with people's wages once they are off on
workers' compensation. For example, a worker gets injured and gets
substantially lower income than they would if they were not injured. Supposing
they had a dental plan which they were covered under while they were working, in
many cases, guess what happens? When the person gets injured at work, through a
no-fault insurance program that workers' compensation is, because workers gave
up their right to sue many, many years ago to have workers' compensation
coverage. The employers get a good deal out of this because regardless of how
high the premiums may go it probably would not equate into one successful
lawsuit that may be lodged against them. They are getting a good deal under a
workers' compensation system as well.
Mr. Speaker, when people get hurt on the job and find out they are no longer
covered under a dental plan because they are not actively at work, then that is
wrong. That is an injustice against people who are injured under a no-fault
insurance system. When people find out they are no longer covered for eye care
and they have to buy a pair of glasses or lenses, when they have to purchase
that from their pocket, from their pay at a reduced level already, then that
creates further economic hardship for workers and their families. There are a
lot of things, Mr. Speaker, that are needed to be changed under the Workers'
Compensation Commission in the way they do things. The employers are getting a
good deal on the premiums that they are now paying because, as I said, one
successful lawsuit against employers would add up to much more money than the
total combined premiums that they have to pay to the Workers' Compensation
Commission for coverage.
Mr. Speaker, there are areas that need to be worked on, still need to be
worked on. One is raising the cap so that people get 80 per cent of their net
pre-injury earnings, not some magical figure that is put out there as a cap.
People should receive - it should be legislated that people will not lose
benefits that they negotiated with their employer. They will not lose these
benefits if they happen to be involved in an industrial accident and it causes
them to take time off work and while they are on compensation. It should be
mandatory, Mr. Speaker, that these benefits still be provided by the employer.
Mr. Speaker, while I acknowledge the minister is bringing this amendment
forward, it will be a step, I think, in the right direction. Many employers are
good employers who have spent a lot of money investing into health and safety
programs, safe work practices and safer workplaces. They should be acknowledged.
They should not be lumped into an industry standard where other employers may
not be as proactive as they are in terms of reaching health and safety targets
and figures and creating a safer workplace.
There is a two-sword approach on this, I guess. One is not whether - there is
a question of whether or not employers should be rewarded for making the
workplace safer and having these programs, versus whether or not employers who
do not should pay more. It is sort of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other
approach, but I do not see anything wrong with what the minister is proposing
here. As I said, I think it is a step in the right direction and we will
certainly support any initiatives by this minister or any minister that makes
life better for the working people of this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say a few words on this legislation. My colleague from
Labrador West, who has a tremendous amount of experience in the industrial
workforce and with unions and representation of workers, has a great deal of
knowledge about the technicalities of how the system works and the problems with
the benefits that have been given to workers and the deficiencies of that
system.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things that have
happened here in this Legislature in the last period of time, that I have been
here, when we have been dealing with the five year reviews. Every five years
there is a review of the worker's compensation legislation as required by the
act and we have seen some pretty significant things happening over the last
number of years in these issues. I want to put what the minister is suggesting
today into that context. It certainly doesn't hurt to say that workers'
compensation legislation is extremely important to working people in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It results from a legal circumstance that required
reform going back nearly a century ago when workers could not effectively get
any compensation for workplace injuries, because of what the courts had done by
way of raising barriers to compensation, making it very difficult to get
compensation even in the event of pretty clear negligence by an employer in
terms of an unsafe workplace. I will not go into the details of that, but as a
result of a whole series of studies something came about which was called the
great compromise, that the workers would lose the right to sue an employer even
for negligence in the workplace in return for a guarantee of compensation that
would make sure that they were able to replace their income and were not going
to suffer a total loss of livelihood, and in some cases losing their homes,
losing their families, losing their livelihood, as a result of workplace injury
without some form of compensation.
Mr. Speaker, there was a circumstance in this Province when we had a higher
level, a more comprehensive level, of workers' compensation that got changed,
and it got changed in this Legislature because of something called unfunded
liability. What the previous government did was take back and lower the level of
compensation in order to solve the problem of unfunded liability.
That was very, very strongly opposed by me and our Party in this Legislature,
because it destroyed the balance and the compromise that had been reached. What
we had talked about at that time, Mr. Speaker, was the very type of system that
is now being brought into legislation: that the reason there was such a high
level of unfunded liability was because there were so many accidents because the
level of safety, or lack of safety, in the workforce was so high that workers
were experiencing accidents without the kind of safety enforcement that was
necessary, with unsafe practices. In fact, the assessments were not covering the
costs because there were so many accidents.
What we said was, instead of lowering the benefits to workers, what
government should be doing is increasing the level of safety in the workplace so
that workers did not get injured in the first place. It was injured workers
whose costs of benefits was driving the system up because there were too many
people being injured.
Now we have seen workplace injuries go down. One of the things that was
happening at the time - and I remember raising, for example, the case of the
City of St. John's. The City of St. John's introduced a workplace safety
program involving education, involving committees, involving a tremendous amount
of work. I do not know if the Member for St. John's Centre was there at the
time, but I remember being very proud to see what the City of St. John's did
in reducing the number of workplace injuries. I think they cut them in half. I
think they cut in half the number of workplace injuries by introducing a
program, a fairly vigorous program, of safety education, safety monitoring,
safety committees, and taking safety seriously. As a result, of course, the cost
of workers' compensation, the workers' compensation costs incurred by people
working for the City of St. John's, or by the City of St. John's as a
employer, went down by almost 50 per cent, but the assessment did not change.
The assessment did not change. So, while it was very laudable to see what an
employer, like the City of St. John's in this particular instance, had done,
it did not affect their cost for workers' compensation even though they had
saved a lot of employees injury and possibility death, they had saved the system
a tremendous amount of money but they were still paying exactly the same premium
or assessment as somebody who was ignoring the safety rules, not getting caught,
and ending up having their workers injured.
Mr. Speaker, that was one of the problems with the system that we had before,
and that is one of the problems with this particular type of legislation, this
particular type of scheme that we are talking about here, which would allow the
Commission to look at the employer's record, the risk, the cost or injury
experience, as one of the factors in setting the assessment rate to be paid by
that employer. That is a very positive step because it will provide some
incentive. I will not use the word reward, but it will actually show that, by
behaving in a more progressive way, in a more safe manner, by insisting on
safety, by doing the job properly and insisting on safety precautions, that less
people will be injured and, of course, the system would have to pay out less in
benefits; but, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we will have safer workplaces, we
will have fewer injuries, we will have fewer people in need of workers'
compensation benefits. That is the goal, I think, that we should all be striving
for.
The point that I think needs to be make is, one of the areas that has amongst
the highest levels of workplace injuries is the construction industry, and there
are reasons for that. There are a lot of people in the construction industry who
come and go, who are not necessarily set up properly. They do jobs, they engage
in activities, and they may be able to undercut other people who are doing the
job properly. You could have an employer in the construction industry who comes
in and offers to do a job, undercuts, underbids somebody else, or even without
bidding, without tenders, can do the jobs cheaply because they are not set up
with all the requirements of incorporation perhaps or workers' compensation,
registration and all of those things. Yet, when they have access, the workers'
compensation system has to pay the price.
One of things you often hear from the construction trade unions, Mr. Speaker,
the Building Trades Council, is that unionized workplaces are safer than
non-unionized workplaces. I believe that is true, Mr. Speaker, and I think
experience has shown that, that in the unionized construction industry you have
trained, experienced workers who understand, as my colleague from Labrador West
says, the right to refuse unsafe work for one. They understand how to do the job
properly, they have better training, and they have more knowledge of safe
practices and how to do the job and more experience, and they can do a job in a
safer manner.
What happens, Mr. Speaker? You have a competition between unionized
workforces and non-unionized workforces. If you are going to run a job with less
safety precautions, with less safety training, with less of these types of
protections for workers and for the system, then you can probably bid the job
cheaper. If you are going to take shortcuts on safety, if you are going to take
shortcuts on equipment, if you are going to hire people who have less training
because perhaps you can get them cheaper, and you can undercut somebody else on
a public tendering job or some other job, you might get the job. The unionized
employer who is doing the job according to the books, according to the rules,
according to a union contract, according to safety procedures, according to the
rights of workers, they end up losing the job to somebody who is taking
shortcuts and doesn't put the same amount of activity protection into the
workplace.
What this legislation will do is assist to level the playing field a little
bit, Mr. Speaker, because workers' compensation costs for people running
unsafe workplaces should end up being higher than for those who are running a
proper job, who are running a safe workplace with trained workers in the
construction industry. At least, Mr. Speaker, the unionized workforce and the
unionized employers will have a better opportunity to participate in the jobs
that are available.
I think this is a very important point, and it is a point that is made
sometimes by the building trades council but it is not well known to the public
that this is the fact and this is the case.
These are two reasons why I think that this bill, in principle, is a very
good one. We have to restore the balance in workers' compensation. I do not
think that we have achieved that yet. That is why we have so many people
complaining about workers' compensation in many ways, because they are not
getting a proper level of benefits, that these benefits should be restored. We
do not want to see injured workers paying the price of unsafe workplaces because
the lack of safety has driven the cost of workers' compensation so high that
we have a high level of unfunded liability.
This is a system, Mr. Speaker, that the workers have to benefit from and the
employers have to pay. Quite often you hear that, well, the employers are paying
the total cost of workers' compensation. Well, so they should. So they should,
because it is a system that is put in place to protect workers that the employer
would otherwise be liable for a lawsuit by a worker who is injured on the job.
So, we recognize that the cost of the employer doing business includes the cost
of paying the damages and paying the compensation through the system of workers'
compensation when an employee is injured on the job.
If an employer can run a safer job site, if an employer can, by training, by
adhering to the regulations, by complying with proper audits, proper rules and
proper regulations, run a safer workplace and thereby reduce the consequences
that are inherent in any job situation - there are always some risks; there are
always going to be some accidents, but - if they can reduce that appreciably,
then a reduction in assessments that goes along with that, I think, is
appropriate.
Now, there may well be some fine tuning required by the workers'
compensation commission to make sure that the system adequately provides some
incentive for greater safety and at the same time provides - I guess my
colleague from Labrador West was referring to the carrot and the stick approach.
There is a little bit of a carrot and a little bit of a stick, and it is up to
the workers' compensation commission to get the balance right, and we
certainly hope that they do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this legislation will
serve to allow that to happen. Therefore, for these reasons, the NDP in this
House support this approach. As was said, it is a step in the right direction.
We hope that it works, and we hope that one of the results of it will be safer
workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador and fewer people injured or killed on
the job, because that is something that we do not have a great record for in
this Province. We have a tremendous number of people who are injured on the job.
We have had industrial diseases that have gone uncompensated. We are still
seeing people fight for recognition in Baie Verte, for example, as a result of
asbestos mining and the results of what has happened there. This is something
that we need swift action on. I know that certain steps have been taken. These
are baby steps towards a proper solution, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly has
started so we have to see that happen.
What we really want to have is a situation where the number of accidents, the
number of consequences of workplace safety are kept to a minimum. When we start
talking about that, Mr. Speaker, we should also talk about issues of workplace
safety that may come before this House this fall - I hope they do, Mr. Speaker -
in terms of people working in bars. What about people working in bars being
subjected to toxic second-hand smoke? I know if the workers of IOC in Labrador
City were subjected to the kind of toxic fumes that are present in every single
bar in this Province, this Legislature would act, Mr. Speaker. Yet, we see each
and every day workers who go to work in bars in this Province who are subjected
to second-hand smoke, who have rates of lung cancer higher - I have seen some
advertisements saying two and three times higher - than the general average
because they are working in bars.
We have to recognize that this is a workplace health and safety issue, that
is something that must be addressed. We cannot allow the supposed interest of
bar owners and the so-called entertainment industry to trump workplace health
and safety. Profits in industry never trumped workplace health and safety when
the truth was known, and there is no need and no reason why it should not trump
workplace health and safety when it comes to the operation of bars in this
Province, or restaurants or other places of public employment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this minister, and if it is not this minister, as
the minister responsible for workplace compensation, i