Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 November 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 46)
2004-11-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 24, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 46
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we would like to welcome some student visitors. They are from
the school by the name of Solutions Canada in the Port de Grave district. There
are twenty students, with their teacher, Darren Butt, and group leaders, Connie
Ryan and Lorie Ralph. I am sure members would like to extend a warm welcome to
these young people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: We have the following members' statements for this
afternoon: the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member
for St. John's Centre, the hon. the Member for Bellevue; the hon. the Member
for Trinity North; and the hon. the Member for Exploits, and Leader of the
Opposition.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a tremendous Newfoundlander and
Labradorian who passed away recently. Mayor Claude Garland of Carbonear passed
away last month just days shy of his fifty-sixth birthday.
Mr. Speaker, service to the community and love for his family will be how
Mayor Garland will be remembered. Claude Garland was first elected to the
Carbonear town council in 1985. During his nineteen years of unbroken municipal
service, he won five consecutive municipal general elections, serving twelve
years as councillor and deputy mayor and the past seven years as mayor. Mayor
Garland was the longest serving member of the council in its fifty-six year
history of the municipality, and was the first to die in office.
Mr. Speaker, tributes have been written from leaders province wide.
Archdeacon Iliffe Sheppard sums it up best when he described Mayor Garland as a
"people person and a sacrificial leader in all areas of political, civil,
civic and social life. He had a heart for the people and their needs." One
Carbonear citizen paid tribute to Mayor Garland by saying, "When I needed
his help and support Mr. Garland was there for me."
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with Claude Garland for over a decade during my
career in politics. He has always been an individual who represented his town
and indeed himself with dignity, strengthen, professionalism, and the grace that
is necessary to be a successful leader.
Mr. Speaker, Claude Garland will be missed and never forgotten. I ask all
members of this hon. House to join me in expressing my condolences to his wife
Cairine and the Garland family.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine
who has been recognized for years of volunteer service. St. Bernard's-Jacques
Fontaine Mayor Calvin Smith has been awarded a provincial government long-term
service award recognizing twenty-five years of municipal service.
Mr. Smith received the award during the annual provincial Federation of
Municipalities Convention in St. John's this past month. The award reflects
Mr. Smith's quarter of a century as a councillor, deputy mayor and mayor of
the community.
The mayor was the recipient last year of the Queen's Jubilee Medal for his
contribution to his community, his province and his country. The town, on behalf
of its residents, acknowledged and congratulated Mr. Smith recently at a local
ceremony.
Mr. Speaker, service to one's community should never be disregarded and I
am very happy that Mayor Smith's twenty-five years of volunteer work has been
officially recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Mayor Calvin Smith on his twenty-five years of volunteer service to the Town of
St. Bernard's-Jacques Fonatine.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I am very pleased to be able to comment about and acknowledge a great
celebration I participated in on Monday past. A lady, Mrs. Fanny Short from Old
Bonaventure, celebrated her 100 th birthday on Monday past.
Mr. Speaker, Monday's celebration was a very joyous occasion for Mrs. Short
and the many family members and friends who were so happy to be there with her.
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Short originally came from British Harbour and moved to
Catalina under the Centralization Program in 1968, but from there moved to Old
Bonaventure in the late 1980s. She currently resides in Blundon's Personal
Care Home in Hickman's Harbour and still has a very keen memory of a very rich
history and is able to talk very vividly about her early years in British
Harbour and Bonaventure.
Mr. Speaker, Fanny, as she is known to her many friends, was blessed with
having eight children, twenty-three grandchildren, forty great-grandchildren and
several great-great-grandchildren, in fact. Many of those people were with her
on Monday to celebrate her 100 th birthday.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all the hon. members in this House to join with me in
celebrating 100 glorious years as a very strong contributor to the history of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits and Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a national champion from the District of
Exploits.
Mr. Speaker, Paul Andrews, a native of Point Leamington, competed in the
lightweight division of the Canadian National Arm Wresting Championship in
Portage La Prairie, Manitoba on September 12.
This year, Mr. Andrews accomplished something truly, truly remarkable in the
arm wrestling community. After winning the national championship with his left
arm in years past, Mr. Andrews won this year's national championship with his
right arm - an accomplishment never before achieved in his weight class in
Canadian history.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Paul went on to compete in the World
Championships in Durban, and while he did not finish first he performed
extremely well.
Paul is the son of Ed and Paulette Andrews and has certainly made his parents
and the community of Point Leamington extremely proud of his accomplishments to
date.
I ask all members of the House in joining with me in sending our
congratulations to our ambidextrous two-armed champion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House and all citizens of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador of a new volunteer-based recycling
initiative that has been started recently. This initiative is called Freecycle.
Freecycle provides a network that connects people who have stuff to throw away
with people who need stuff. It works along the adage of: one man's garbage is
another man's treasure.
This initiative helps people who have stuff that is too good to throw away,
but no longer of any use to them, to find a home for it with someone who has a
need for this type of material. It helps reduce the amount of trash being
deposited in our limited landfill space, it helps charities, schools, and
volunteer-based organizations and individuals by allowing them to exchange goods
between people who want to dispose of a commodity and people who need that
commodity.
Freecycle is a Web-based message board initiative that can be found on the
Internet at www.freecycle.org .
The local site can be accessed from the main site by following the Canadian
links. This initiative is cost free, Web-based and good for our landfills, and I
encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to visit the Web site and
participate in this initiative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
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, I rise today to express my pleasure that the 5 Wing Goose Bay
Military Base has been cleared by an environmental assessment to engage in chaff
and flare activities. Chaff measures are meant to simulate an aircraft. Chaff
packages are released, burst open, and act as a decoy to radar seeking missiles.
Flare measures create an intense heat that is used to confuse missiles with
infrared tracking. This environmental clearance means that practicing aircraft
can now use these defensive countermeasures.
I would like to recognize especially the support of the Upper Lake Melville
area of Labrador for this project. Concerned citizens have promoted the use of
chaff and flares as another aircrew training option in air defense
countermeasures.
Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador Affairs, MHA John Hickey, is a strong
advocate for increased foreign military training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. He, too,
should be acknowledged for his dedication to the interests of his constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: So he should. Right on.
Chaff and flares training measures will present increased opportunities and
will make the base more appealing in attracting potential clients. These
measures will meaningfully contribute to further activity in foreign military
flight training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. It is anticipated that half of the sorties
flown at 5 Wing will deploy chaff and flares once the opportunity is provided.
Updated services and military training opportunities will encourage ongoing
allied training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. This will have a positive impact on the
socio-economic environment of the Labrador region, ensuring continued employment
at the military base. Moreover, military flight training has been, and will
continue to be, carried out in an environmentally responsible manner.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Premier Williams has indicated that 5 Wing Goose
Bay is one of his top priorities and has worked very hard to ensure the
sustainability of the base. As a government, we are working diligently to ensure
the base's longevity for the future prosperity of Labrador and for the
Province as a whole.
As Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, I am proud of the recent
outcomes with respect to 5 Wing, and look forward to continued success on the
long-term sustainability of this military base.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I certainly won't
make any remarks as to who should have a job or who shouldn't, but this is a
good news story for the Upper Lake Melville area.
I have lived in the Upper Lake Melville area since 1974, and certainly 5 Wing
Goose Bay means to the Upper Lake Melville area and other parts of Labrador as
what the fish plant means to Harbour Breton. So, I say to the minister that
anything that is done with 5 Wing Goose Bay, we on this side, and certainly I,
as a member for Labrador, will fully support.
This is a good news story, and for a lot of people, the coalition and the
people in Labrador who have worked so hard, along with the MHA for Lake
Melville. It is a good story and one that we fully support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
We, too, support the initiative that has been taken and are glad to see that
things are in place that will add to the security of 5 Wing Goose Bay. What
happens at 5 Wing Goose Bay very much is what will happen to the Town of Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, and it is very important that the base that is there today
continue for many, many years to come.
The previous speaker mentioned about the plant in Harbour Breton being
similar to the base in Goose Bay. It is, Mr. Speaker, in many respects. I am
glad to say that myself, along with the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member
for Lake Melville and the concerned citizens group, sat - the three of us, as
MHAs in Labrador - on a tri-party committee to help and facilitate whatever can
take place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to make sure that the long-term future is
secure.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to provide hon. ministers with an
outline of government's plan for funding of municipal capital works for 2005
and beyond.
Development and maintenance of municipal infrastructure continues to be a
high priority for this government. It is our objective to assist local
governments with costs relating to water treatment, sewage treatment, waste
management, roads, fire protection, recreation facilities and other needs. Mr.
Speaker, expenditures on municipal infrastructure are good for the environment,
good for the economy, and good for municipalities and the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Infrastructure investments require sound financial and engineering plans.
Cities and towns need time to plan ahead to ensure that projects are undertaken
in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason
that we will not be waiting until the 2005 Budget Speech to announce our
municipal infrastructure strategy. Cities and towns want to know now how much
funding will be available, and I have had a number of discussions with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, with the engineering
firms and with the construction industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Early
announcements mean better prices and more effective spending of taxpayers'
dollars. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make the following announcements:
The Multi-Year Capital Works Program is targeted primarily at infrastructure
needs in larger centers. Capital Works project are cost-shared on a 50-50 basis
between provincial and municipal governments. The total provincial-municipal
expenditure under this program during the next three years is estimated at $85
million.
The Municipal Capital Works Program funds projects such as water and sewer,
municipal buildings, recreation facilities, fire trucks and roads. Expenditures
are cost-shared between provincial and municipal governments. Expenditure under
this program in 2005 is estimated at $25 million.
The Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program focuses primarily
on water and sewer projects in small to medium size communities. Expenditures
are cost-shared between federal, provincial and municipal governments. 2005 will
be the final year of this federal-provincial agreement. Total expenditure in
2005 is estimated at $30 million.
Mr. Speaker, these three programs will combine to invest a total of
approximately $140 million in municipal infrastructure, and create approximately
90,000 person weeks of employment throughout the Province. In addition, we will
be proceeding with negotiations with the federal government towards concluding a
new Municipal Rural Infrastructure Agreement. This new five-year agreement
should provide for a further investment of about $85 million in municipal
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, we are achieving a balance in our municipal infrastructure
investments. Funding is available to larger centres to help meet the challenges
which come with continued economic growth. Funding on favourable terms is also
provided to small and medium size communities to enhance their long-term
sustainability.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I am
pleased to see that the minister has carried on with the three programs that
were there when I was minister just over a year ago.
The first one, in particular, the Multi-Year Capital Works Program is a good
program. Towns like Torbay, in the minister's district, already participated
in that - the City of Mount Pearl; the Town of Gander; Grand Falls; CBS;
Paradise, all participated. What it does, it gives those towns the ability to be
able to plan ahead instead of not really knowing what they are going to get from
one year to the next. So that is a great program.
Capital Works, of course, is for the other programs for many of the smaller
communities, amounts are allocated. The Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador
Infrastructure Program is a good program. I look forward to seeing the minister
be able to bring that to fruition with his federal counterparts as well.
The statement is also good because many of the smaller communities - I see
the minister is still recognizing the need that many of the smaller communities
cannot afford 50-50, whether it is 80-20, 85-15 or whatever. That is a great
program. I am glad to see the minister has proceeded with that.
The only thing that I will be looking forward to in the Budget after we sign
the Atlantic Accord is that the minister might come in with a supplementary plan
where we might be able to double or triple it for the municipalities over the
next number of years.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of the things in the announcement by the minister are certainly good
news and allow communities to provide their planning for the year to come. Mr.
Speaker, there are many communities in this Province that do not have the
ability to make improvements. There are towns around this Province, from one end
to the other, Mr. Speaker, that have to continue to mortgage their future as a
community in order to provide the basic needs of their citizens today. Mr.
Speaker, that is hardly fair to them.
One of the other problems that I have been hearing about in recent days as
well, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that some small communities are unable to get
loan guarantees from the Province in order to provide such basic things as water
and recreation facilities to their citizens. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister needs to address, and the government needs to address as
well, because a lot of the smaller communities in this Province in the rural
areas are not able to provide for their citizens, because of their smaller
population, what larger centers are able to offer in the basic things that we
need in life.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?
Before I call Oral Questions, I wanted to note that my usual practice in
welcoming students is that I mention the name of the community that they came
from and their district. I do believe I forgot to mention these students are
from Harbour Grace and the beautiful and historic district of Port De Grave.
Again, we welcome them to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all media reports indicate that significant
progress was made during yesterday's detailed negotiations and hopefully a new
deal may be signed in the not too distant future, and I congratulate the Premier
and his team in making progress.
Now that the Premier has publicly discussed some of the major aspects of the
meetings that took place with federal officials, I would like to ask him to
clarify a question that I raised in this Legislature on Monday. I would like to
ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he could advise the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador if there will be a retroactive date for the new benefits, because I did
not hear that as being an outstanding issue, and, if so, when will these new
benefits start to flow? What would be the effective date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and his
congratulations.
If I can, one issue that was raised in Question Period the last time I was
here, which was two days ago, was the issue of something being put to writing,
and I just want to clarify it for you. There is an excerpt from what I said at
VOCM, and I made reference in my answer to note takers. What I said in that
particular interview was - you know, what was interesting today was myself,
Premier Hamm and Prime Minister Martin were in the room but there were also two
note takers, people who actually took detailed notes on the discussions from our
perspective and from the federal government's perspective. So, just to clarify
that, there wasn't actually a written agreement or anything in writing. I just
want to get that on the record.
With regard to retroactivity, basically I stayed away from the answer as such
leading into negotiations yesterday because this is a chip that could be played,
obviously, in the negotiations. Retroactivity is not something that was agreed
to in the proposal of June 5; so, in all fairness to the federal government and
to the Prime Minister, retroactivity is not on the table. It was discussed
subsequently. It was something that we put to the federal government both before
and after, but, in all fairness to the Prime Minister, the agreement that was
entered into on June 5 did not include retroactivity and I would not be in a
position to hold him to that; nor would I attempt to do so.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, so we will probably assume that the affective date would be June
5, but I am sure it will be clarified a little later.
Mr. Speaker, one of the two outstanding issues described by the Premier
publicly is the notion that a review of the equalization formula in two years'
time could impact on any new deal with the Atlantic Accord. Could the Premier
explain further to the House, and to the people of the Province, what the nature
of this concern is, if we already have an agreement that, regardless of how
equalization is calculated in the country, our equalization will not be
diminished in any way, shape or form in any event?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that is a point with which we took issue yesterday during the
negotiations. Our position is quite clear, and it always has been, that this
agreement was entered into, it was concluded, it was finalized on June 5 when
the discussion took place between myself and the Prime Minister. As a result,
our argument, of course, quite clearly is that if anything happens ex post
facto after that particular point in time certainly is not binding on us. It
is a transaction that the federal government decided to enter into with the
provinces and that we would not be prejudiced by it.
This was an issue that has been on the table for some time. Our position is
very, very clear, that we want to be made whole coming into any equalization
reform if there is anything or if there are any recommendations coming out of a
panel. So, as we go in we should come at a 100 per cent basis and be
indemnified, is the term that we have been using. Whether it is in fact an
indemnification at the end of the day or some other document or some other term,
the same principle applies. But, it is an important point, because technically
if we agreed to that we would be agreeing to a two-year agreement, because this
agreement would only go on until the panel actually reported. So, if we had a
commitment on 100 per cent of our revenues, which we do, if the Ontario cap was
gone; however, if this was up for review in two years then really we have been
on a fool's errand; it has been a waste of time because in twenty-four months
or thirty-six months, whenever that panel reported, then it could all be turned
upside down, so that is a point which we have stuck on and we are firm on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We appreciate the clarification.
Mr. Speaker, the other outstanding issue described publicly by the Premier is
the review of the time limit, eight years from now, I understand. I would ask
the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If the right deal is presented to Newfoundland and
Labrador, even though it does not meet all of the requirements that Nova Scotia
might have, because we are in this together at this point, would the Premier be
willing to sign on our own if it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we will always do - this government will
always do, and myself and the minister and our negotiating team will always do -
what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I made it even very
clear to Premier Hamm, when he came in here for the first time, I guess about
two weeks ago, I sat down with him and said: John, look, we are in this
together, but if at some point you feel that you need to get off the train or
you need to go and do something that is in the best interest of your province
and do it on a stand-alone basis, then I respect you for that and I respect that
you have to honour the best interests of your province.
That is certainly a reciprocal arrangement, but we are standing together, we
are standing united, we are standing strong. We also realize if at some point
during this negotiation - because they have a different Accord than us; they are
in a very different financial situation than us, a better financial situation,
although it is still not one of the better situations in the country - then at
that particular point if we had to do some diversity in the conclusion of this
matter we have certainly agreed to do so. But, we are strong, we are united, we
have stood together and we continue to stand together.
I must say, just so that the Legislature knows and the members of the House
know, the bond here has been marvelous. We have supported each other. When we
needed support, Premier Hamm was there and Nova Scotia was there. When they
needed support, we were there, and that actually occurred yesterday as well. So,
it is a good mutual arrangement and it keeps a good strong united front in order
to deal with the federal government.
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 think I speak on behalf of certainly everyone on this side, and I believe
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in saying congratulations to date and we
wish you speedy success with the conclusion of the discussions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on and ask the Premier a couple of
questions with respect to another very important issue in the Province today,
which is the FPI situation and the pending closure of the Harbour Breton fish
plant.
Mr. Speaker, last spring the Premier told the House of Assembly that he was
all over this particular issue. It was raised by our Fisheries critic. He said
it is in good hands, we are on top of it, we are all over the issues with FPI.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier, could he please update the House of
Assembly and the people of the Province as to when the last time he was in a
meeting personally with representatives of FPI prior to the announced closing -
the unexpected, apparently, announced closing - last Friday? When was the last
time before that, that the Premier himself was involved in meetings with FPI
officials?
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 have indicated to the House over the past couple of days, and certainly
the Premier has indicated publicly also, we, as a government, have been
intensely engaged in this situation as it relates to Harbour Breton, as it
relates to FPI, and as it relates to the groundfish operations on the South
Coast.
Meetings on behalf of the government with FPI happen, at the very least, on a
weekly basis, and certainly there have been, over the past week or so, I would
say there have been discussions on this matter on a daily basis and sometimes on
several occasions in the run of a day. The Premier is kept fully apprized of
what is going on. Sometimes I am engaged in the meetings, sometimes the Premier
is engaged in the meetings, and sometimes our senior officials are engaged in
the meetings, Mr. Speaker.
All I can say at this point is that negotiations are ongoing and we hope that
we can find a satisfactory conclusion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am a little bit surprised as to why the Premier is hesitant to speak about
FPI and the Harbour Breton plant for himself. He usually has no trouble speaking
for himself with respect to these issues. Yesterday in this House - and I would
suggest he should get more involved. There was quite a bit of confusion between
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Justice yesterday
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we highlighted the significance of
section 2.1 of the
FPI Act in this Legislature, which states that a company - that company, because
it is very different - cannot make decisions which create - and this is the
phrase that is in the act - undue disruption to the historical pattern of
harvesting and processing in the Province.
It is right in the law. I didn't make it up myself.
By sitting quietly by, Mr. Speaker, and allowing the Harbour Breton plant to
close, is the Premier agreeing that investments in fish plants are a thing of
the past and investments in factory-freezer trawlers are the right way to go and
that he agrees with FPI and that change in direction?
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 everybody knows, there is still a resource problem as it
relates to groundfish in this Province and in this country. Now it is impossible
to escape that fact, for anybody who has observed the Atlantic Canadian fishery.
That is the single, biggest challenge in groundfish in Atlantic Canada and in
Newfoundland and Labrador today.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not subscribe to any views that would support
the move towards factory-freezer trawlers for our groundfish industry around
this Province. We certainly support the development of our processing sector on
shore. We have remained strong to that. We have remained committed to that over
the past twelve months (inaudible) since we formed the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as a further case in point, just to reinforce
that, I think our investment in Arnold's Cove, the $3.5 million to secure the
quotas there to ensure that it did not go somewhere where it would not end up
being caught by a factory-freezer trawlers speaks volumes about our commitment
to that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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, the resource problem is a constant problem. The announcement by
the company, which the minister keeps apologizing for and explaining, did not
say they closed because of resource problems. It said: because the plant was
unsafe and it needs an investment.
Mr. Speaker, last spring in the Legislature the Premier stated he could not
talk about FPI because it was a private company. I would like to ask the
Premier, does he really believe, does he personally, really believe that FPI is
just like any other private company, or is he finally going to stand up, get
involved, and let them know that they are a creation of this Legislature and
they must operate by the rules that he effectively sets as the chairman of the
board by virtue of being Premier of the Province?
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 record on FPI, and this government's involvement in FPI, is very clear.
Last spring when the Premier made the comments that he did on our public
statements on FPI was in the context of a proposed income trust transaction that
had not been divulged publicly by FPI at the time. There were security
commission concerns at that time, and we could not speak publicly on it until
after the company had made a public statement, Mr. Speaker.
Since then there have been some public statements and we have made some
public statements. The discussions with FPI are continuing. FPI certainly knows
this government's resolve as it relates to upholding the FPI Act. That is why
there has not been a move to this date by FPI to move with their income trust
transaction because we have said that we have differing opinions on how that
respects the FPI Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we are still in discussions with FPI on that
matter and on Harbour Breton and we hope that we will find a satisfactory
resolution to it.
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.
My question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Yesterday,
the minister was asked by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he would
assure the people of Harbour Breton that FPI's quota would remain in the
community if FPI ceased operations permanently in the community. I know that it
is not his responsibility, as the minister said, but we all know the minister
has some influence in these matters if he chooses to exercise it.
Would the minister recommend to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that
FPI's historical quota for Harbour Breton remain with the town?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries Aquaculture, and Labrador
Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said yesterday, the matter of quota allocations and movement of quotas
is a federal responsibility. However, I can assure the Member for Fortune
Bay-Cape la Hune and the people of Harbour Breton that we will do what is in our
power and what is within our moral suasion - in our abilities in the context of
moral suasion, I suppose - to influence the outcome in Harbour Breton. We will
have no problem supporting the people of Harbour Breton in trying to secure
quota for that community.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it is really too early to prejudge what is
going to happen there. We are still working with the company, we are still
working with the town, we are still working with the union. There will be a
working group committee meeting tomorrow. We will see what comes out of that. As
I had indicated yesterday, we are going to have an occupational health and
safety inspector go into the facility and review the situation. Then, Mr.
Speaker, we will see where we go.
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 very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the minister then, after making that statement - it has already
been asked him - that while he was in Opposition this is what he said: The only
way we would accept layoffs is if the union and employer mutually agreed to them
through negotiations and the collective bargaining process. It is a
straightforward, clear and simple question. Is the minister now saying that he
will keep his commitment to the people of Harbour Breton?
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, my commitment to the people of Harbour Breton is the same as my
commitment was to the people of Arnold's Cove last year this time, the same as
my commitment to the people of Englee, and the same as it is to the people of
the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will do what I can in my capacity as
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province, and this government
will do what it can in its capacity, to try and find sensible, logical,
practical solutions, long-term, not short stop-gap measures like we have seen in
the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: We will, Mr. Speaker, work with everybody involved in trying
to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. In that we will leave no avenue
unexplored and no stone unturned.
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: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment.
Within a few weeks more than 200 of FPI's workers in Harbour Breton will
have no income, and there has already been a ripple affect in the community on
that. Have you or your colleagues initiated a plan to deal with this immediate
crisis?
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, we are aware of the situation that the plant workers may find
themselves in early in the new year. At this point, no, we don't have a plan
to deal with that, but, Mr. Speaker, last spring I can say that we were
confronted with a similar situation and we responded. All I can say at this
point is, if that situation unfortunately develops, which it looks like it may,
then we will work with the people involved to try to find a solution to the
short-term situation.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the big issue here is the long- term situation and that
is what we are focusing on in the short term right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible). The short term comes first. You are going run
out of money first.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The public are very concerned about the continued confusion surrounding the
significant oil spill over this past weekend at the Terra Nova floating
production platform. My question is for the Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
Currently, Hibernia and Terra Nova are producing, White Rose is expected to
come on stream soon, and others to follow. In light of the fact that we have a
spill that is at least four times larger than originally reported and the slick
continues to grow, do you feel that the response, recovery and cleanup
procedures are adequate to protect our precious marine ecosystems?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his
question.
I have been advocating for years for greater response cleanup to this issue.
It is an issue that I have been dealing with the previous federal Minister,
David Anderson, on, and the current federal Minister, St phane
Dion. Myself and the other Atlantic Ministers have also had several meetings
regarding the CCME process, looking for additional resources for this region of
the country to deal with the possibility of an oil spill. We hope that never
occurs, but if it does we have to be ready. We are looking for that extra
capability. Hopefully, we will have that capability in the near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
This morning we learned that the companies have all but given up on
recovering any significant amount of the oil. They say it is virtually
impossible to recover oil and do a cleanup in three metre waves, which is the
average in the winter months. In essence, we learned this morning that for eight
months of the year there is no ability to clean up oil spills, that the oil
companies have no plan. What is this minister doing to ensure that this
deficiency is addressed, or is he just praying that spills only occur in the
summer months?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, for five years, when I was Opposition
critic, I fought for the Liberal government to fight Ottawa for extra additional
oil spill response capability. I find it rather ironic now that they have had a
change of heart. Now they are fighting for the very thing that I fought for with
the federal Minister of Environment, St phane
Dion. My Atlantic counterparts have been fighting for the same thing.
The weather conditions in Atlantic Canada is something that I do not control,
unfortunately. If we have a spill, we have to have the capabilities to respond
to that spill. I have been looking to the federal minister to provide additional
resources for those capabilities. Whether the wave conditions are three metres
or two metres or one metre, we have to be ready. If, unfortunately, because of
our weather conditions, we are not able to respond, unfortunately that is Mother
Nature. If you have an ability to control Mother Nature, I would like to hear
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: The minister just mentioned that he made a lot of noise when
he was over here and sat on this side of the House, about ensuring there was an
effective mechanism in place for immediate cleanup response if there was a
significant oil spill in Placentia Bay.
As the minister is aware, with both transhipment facilities in the Come By
Chance refinery located at the head of Placentia Bay, is he satisfied that the
resource as a response plan for a tanker related oil spill in Placentia Bay is
adequate, or do we have to wait for another ecological disaster to learn that we
are not prepared?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I thanked the minister when I first got up
for his line of questions. I have been waiting a full year for him to ask me a
question. I will give the same answer to this one that I gave to the last one.
I have been asking for this oil spill capability for Placentia Bay for our
offshore oil production. It is hopefully going to grow. We do need that oil
spill capability. As you know, when I was on that side of the House, I fought
for this for five years. It was your government that told me, time and time
again, 10,000 tons of capability to respond to an oil spill within seventy-two
hours is good enough, when the oil tankers that are out there carry in excess of
100,000 tons. It was your government that said we were fine. I fought for it. I
am still fighting for it. I hope that we get it. I would ask that you co-operate
with us while we fight for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, Campaign 2000, a national organization fighting child poverty,
disclosed that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate in the country of
child poverty, with nearly 22 per cent of children living in poverty,
representing 24,000 children in this Province. Even more shocking is the report
that almost half of these children have at least one parent working all year
long.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The number one recommendation of
Campaign 2000 is to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Will he and his
government respond by taking a first step towards this and raise the minimum
wage to $8 an hour immediately, on the road to developing a minimum wage that is
actually a living wage for people in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the rate of poverty in this Province is frankly
unacceptable. There are a number of measures that can address poverty, but all
of these measures have to be taken together. We have to be able to progress with
our economic and our social policies together. The minimum wage is one aspect.
It will not solve the poverty issue here in this Province.
As we are required every two years - and this month we are reviewing the
minimum wage. We do not have the minimum wage review completed at this time. We
do have a number of submissions that have been made through various means
regarding the minimum wage. Once we are able make that decision and review the
minimum wage, we will be making an announcement at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador that this government is committed to reducing the rate of poverty
in this Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My supplementary is to the Premier.
We do know that the minimum wage is something that this Province does have
control over, and that not all of the expenses go to government. Children are
poor because their parents are poor, and an increase in the minimum wage can
change that. Even people working in this building, doing the cleaning in this
building, some working for sixteen to eighteen years, are making the minimum
wage. Does the Premier not think that it is important for this government to
take a substantial, immediate, step to increase the minimum wage to $8 an hour,
on the road to having a living wage for anybody working in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that
question.
The minimum wage is presently under review. We have conducted a review in a
very different way this year. We have opened it up through various sources.
People have been able to phone in with their comments, write in, fax and e-mail,
but we have opened it up to everyone in this Province so they could have equal
access to participate in such a forum.
Mr. Speaker, we went that way because I had received some feedback from some
groups, particularly within the women's community, who felt to have a big
public forum where people who were living in poverty had to come in and stand
before a microphone and identify themselves and talk about the issues that they
face because they were living in poverty, they felt that it would be a better
means if we opened it up to the public in a private, confidential way, but yet
we could get everyone's opinion.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are continuing to put together the results that
have come in through that means of collecting information. We have one group
that has asked for an extension. We have given that extension. Once all the
information is in, we will be doing an immediate review and we will be making an
announcement on the minimum wage.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, with a very quick
question.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very quick.
My question is for the Minister of Finance who, when he was the Opposition
Finance critic, stated that he would put 2 per cent of gambling revenues
immediately into the treating of addictions for people with gambling problems. I
want to ask the minister, now that he is the Minister of Finance, when you said
that without qualification, are you prepared now to put 2 per cent of gambling
monies that you take in as a government back into addiction treatments with the
view of raising it to 5 per cent, as you indicated when you were in Opposition?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I said, when I was in Opposition, that I feel we should start where we are
now and work up to achieving 5 per cent overall to deal with addictions. I said
up to 5 per cent, not 2 per cent, and at the time, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they want me to answer the question I will
answer it; if they don't, I will sit down.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked and we have to provide ample opportunity for the
minister to answer.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to make a couple of facts clear. Number one, roughly 6 per
cent of what is taken in, in VLT revenues now, is used to deal with addictions;
not all of which are to deal with addictions from gambling. It is difficult to
break down exactly the total amount which is allocated for that, but I will say
the previous government agreed several years ago that 1 per cent of revenues
that come from those lotteries are going into it, put in by the users, by the
people with the machines, that was $150,000 at the time. Government agreed to
match that. The previous government, they matched that to $150,000. That 1 per
cent is now going to $300,000. The previous government did not put in one extra
penney. This government, this past year, put in $100,000 on that amount, almost
equivalent to what they are putting in. We are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, with
gambling addictions, and we are working closely with people in the field to be
able to address those concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Premier.
Premier, the Twenty-ninth Annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just
been completed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with schools from all across Labrador
attending. A major setback to the children in Labrador again this year was not
having an auditorium in which to perform their skills. Talks or indications are
that because of no commitment from your government to build such a facility,
that the Creative Arts Festival may be in jeopardy of continuing on next year.
Premier, will you commit today to the people of Labrador, and it is far more
important to the children of Labrador, funding to build this facility?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that last year in the budget, with the financial
situation we found ourselves in, that the facility was deferred. We understand
the importance to the people of the area and the need for it. All options are
being looked at, at this point in time. The whole situation, from our
perspective, will be reconsidered in the upcoming budget review.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountain. You have time for
one quick question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is almost like in Kindergarten - button,
button, who got the button? - because we do not know who is going to answer the
question.
Minister, you and your government, and your Premier -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period is rapidly expiring. I ask the member
to get to his question very quickly.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you, your government and your Premier talked of supporting rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the children of Labrador, who live in poverty in
most rural parts of this Province, are being denied by your government what
students on the Island portion take for granted, and rightfully so.
Minister, yesterday and today students from all across Labrador are leaving
the Upper Lake Melville area wondering if they have attended their last Labrador
Creative Arts Festival. What a shame, Mr. Minister! What a shame to you and your
government. What a disappointment to the children of Labrador.
Minister, will you and your government, in the spirit of doing the right
thing - with the festive season rapidly approaching - today commit to the
students in Labrador funding for their gift, their auditorium?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Affairs. Time for
just a brief answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to his commentary leading into the question, the
Minister of Education could not be in the House today. He is off on Her Majesty's
business, so I am the first alternate.
With respect to the question itself, Mr. Speaker, we understand the situation
in Labrador. We are committed to rural Newfoundland and we have shown this over
the past year, more so than the previous Administration. And, with respect to a
commitment for funds for that, with respect to a commitment on that, we will
commit to reconsidering our stance in last year's budget.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for question period has expired.
Presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees?
Notices of Motion?
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I am standing to give a Private Member's Motion on the revised
budget, which I would like to read into the record.
Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS government revised the 2003-2004 Budget so that they could describe
the financial situation in a manner that served their political purposes; and
WHEREAS government has received new revenues based on new health care
funding, equalization adjustments, higher than expected revenues from gasoline
taxes and higher than expected royalties due to high oil prices; and
WHEREAS budget estimates are inaccurate due to the public sector strike and
departmental, health and education restructuring;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the tabling of
a revised budget to provide a more accurate measurement of the present financial
situation of the Province and to lay out new spending initiatives in health
care, education and provision of public services to the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice of a motion.
WHEREAS second-hand smoke is a health hazard that has caused serious health
problems, death and a strain on the health care system; and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities have
called upon government to enact a provincial ban to see 100 per cent smoke-free
environment in public buildings, including bars and bingos; and
WHEREAS community groups such as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Music Industry Association,
the Federation of Labour and other organizations have been calling upon
government to implement a ban; and
WHEREAS government has already banned smoking in schools, hospitals, daycare
centres, public buildings and restaurants;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support a ban to provide
100 per cent protection from second-hand smoke in all public places, including
bars and bingo halls.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.
Answers to Questions for which Notice had been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on behalf of the most
important people in Labrador, our youth, to present a petition on their behalf
asking this government to give them an auditorium.
In the response to the question that the Minister of Municipal Affairs gave,
I can only say to him that I was the Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal
Affairs who went to my government and got a commitment for $2.4 million. We were
told time and time again by the minister over there that the money is still
there in the account.
MR. J. BYRNE: That is not true.
MR. ANDERSEN: You did. You told us time and time again that the money was
in the account. You told that to the Town Council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and
other people.
Mr. Speaker, before they get all excited again and start laughing, the way
they did yesterday, I think it is only fair that this government give the
children in Labrador the auditorium they so rightfully deserve.
As I mentioned in Question Period yesterday and today, students are returning
home from the Upper Lake Melville area, and again, for the first time, there is
doubt as to whether the Creative Arts Festival will go ahead next year.
Mr. Speaker, after twenty-nine years of Labrador taking pride in its
students, and giving them the chance to show their skills and their talent, I
think it is totally unfitting that the money that was allotted by the previous
government was put on hold.
Mr. Speaker, the government can talk of restraints, and maybe in many cases
they are right, but when it comes down to providing the basic needs, especially
to our children, then certainly the auditorium is due to the children in
Labrador.
So, Mr. Speaker, again tomorrow and all next week, every day, I will rise
again to speak on behalf of the children in Labrador, because someone needs to
speak for them and for their concerns.
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 on behalf of the communities in my
district, with regard to government's decision not to clear snow from the road
between Red Bay and Lodge Bay.
Mr. Speaker, people in my district are absolutely appalled with government's
decision to not do that. This is a very vital transportation link between
communities in my district. It covers approximately ninety kilometres of road
access, and people in the northern end of the district depend upon many of the
services that are provided from the southern end of the district.
Mr. Speaker, people are very upset by the fact that government made the
decision, but even more upset by the fact that there is money in the Labrador
Transportation Fund, a fund which earned an interest of $2.9 million in the past
fiscal year, and they know that the ability is there to be able to clear the
snow on this
section of road.
Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such a situation implemented in any other
part of our Province. In the past year, despite the fiscal realities that the
government claimed they were being faced with, they didn't choose to close
roads in any other parts of the Province that were vital transportation links
for the people in that region.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the right place.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Lake Melville, who fully
supports, from his comments, government's decision to close that
section of
road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay, but the Member for Lake Melville, who spent
a good many years in Labrador - most of his life, if not of all of it - should
know the dependency that people have on that road connection. They lobbied for
twenty-five years to have this road. That is what they did. Now that they have
it, they have become accustomed to using that access, and now that has been
taken away from them because the Minister of Transportation and Works and the
government opposite decide that they do not need it any more. As a government,
we cannot afford to pay for it. We are not going to provide a service to people
in this part of the Province.
That is shameful! That is what it is; it is absolutely shameful! - and to
have any member on that side of the House looking over here at me, laughing and
making fun, and supporting such an option. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker,
any member in this House, I am sure, would not want to have a vital
transportation link in their district closed down, not having transportation
access for the people of their district.
I see the Member for Gander over there laughing. I am going to tell you, the
Member for Gander laughed all yesterday when we talked about the closure and the
layoffs of people in Harbour Breton -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: - and he is laughing again today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: It being three of the clock on Private Members' Day, in
accordance with Standing Order 63.(7), the Speaker will now call the Orders of
the Day.
I believe we are debating a motion of which notice was given, and we have the
motion by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This is a day, as I said on Monday, that I never thought I would be doing in
the House of Assembly: calling on FPI to reopen its fish plant in Harbour Breton
and restore confidence and trust in the community.
I will read the motion that we are putting forth today, and then get into
some comments. I am sure there will be other people here in the House who will
make comments on it as well.
WHEREAS Fishery Products International (FPI) is a critical part of the
fishing industry, provides economic and social well-being and contributes to
stability and prosperity in many communities of this Province; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador refused to lift the 15
per cent share restriction that is forcing an end to the NEOS Seafood bid to buy
all outstanding shares of FPI; and
WHEREAS in correspondence with government and reports in the media, John
Risley said in May 2001 that "None of FPI employees have anything to
fear" and " We are going to do this..." - and this is what it
said - "...(expand the company) by investing in the company, not laying
people off"; and
WHEREAS in a Proxy Circular to Holders of Common Shares of FPI in April 2001,
Mr. Risley stated, "(We) do not intend to close any of FPI's processing
facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere."; and
WHEREAS in 2002 when FPI was preparing to implement an investment strategy
which would have resulted in more than 600 job losses in the three groundfish
plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, government undertook to ensure
that FPI lived up to previous commitments on employment related issues,
resulting in legislative amendments to the FPI Act to protect processing
workers; and
WHEREAS in January of 2003, FPI and its unions reached a tentative Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for the company's groundfish operations in the Province's
South Coast, which promised significant capital investment while protecting
workers and enhancing plant productivity; and
WHEREAS FPI is a creature of the Fisheries Restructuring Act and later the
FPI Act; and
WHEREAS FPI announced that it will not be reopening the Harbour Breton Fish
Plant, rocking the entire Province, shaking the industry and devastating FPI
workers, families and communities along the South Coast;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call on the Provincial
Government to demand that FPI make the necessary investments to save the Harbour
Breton fish plant and restore confidence and trust in the community.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that the people in Harbour Breton,
the Town of Harbour Breton, the community of Harbour Breton, is reeling these
days. Never in their wildest dreams did they think they would find themselves in
a position where their plant would be closed down and FPI indicating that it
would not re-open. Nobody but nobody ever thought that would happen.
What that has done, Mr. Speaker, is put a blanket of gloom, if you wish, over
the whole community. Last night the Principal of the school, Terry Baker, whom I
know very well, says that he can feel the effects of it in the school, and I can
imagine. You have students there who are high school - Level I, Level II, Level
III, and even in Junior High - who understand the complexity of what is
happening here, knowing that both parents, as we said earlier in Question Period
today, within the next month or so will have no income. That has to play havoc
with these young people. There are no two ways about that, and the whole
community itself.
One of the young ladies whom I know very well, Tiffany, was interviewed and
explained what it meant to her to be able to go to school, get a good education
and further her education without knowing that the family would be in a
financial situation as it is here. I want to say right at the beginning, there
was no need for it. It should never have happened.
Now, we are not dealing with a company, Mr. Speaker, that needs any
short-term assistance when it comes to, for example, make-work projects. Do you
know what their gross sales were last year? Their gross sales, as a company, was
$596.7 million. That is what the gross sales for FPI were last year, and did
they make a loss? Absolutely not! Do you know what their profits were?
Twenty-two point four million. Now, we are not looking at a company here that is
a mom-and-pop operation. This is an international company.
We can all remember in this House here a couple of years ago - I was here as
a part of government and when the government people were here in Opposition they
recognized it too - that the FPI Board of Directors was changed and one, Mr.
Risley, through a group call NEOS, wanted to change the whole operation of FPI.
It really sent a shockwave through people in Harbour Breton, Marystown, Fortune
and Bonavista. Obviously, what it meant to these people that for the first time
- they never, ever thought that this would happen. But, the CEO of the NEOS
Group says: You don't have to worry - as it says here and I have already
mentioned it - we are not in the process of closing plants. We are not in the
process of laying people off. We are going to reinvest in plants. We are going
to be hiring people.
Do you know what, because Newfoundland people like us, we are ordinary
individuals, believed them and believed the company and believed that was what
was going to happen to them. Today, what do we find? That the word that these
people gave they did not honour, and they also had it written down. They signed
a Memorandum of Understanding with the workers of those communities and said: We
will reinvest. We will not lay you off. We will grow the industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. But I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that they did the
talk but they did not do the walk. I am telling you, it is about choices. FPI
has made choices and I will tell you what, they have made choices of money
versus people. They have no social conscience, and I am telling you that their
dollar line and the dollar for the people who have invested in FPI have come
before the social concerns of the communities of Harbour Breton today, probably
Fortune tomorrow, Bonavista the next day and who knows about Marystown. They
have made a conscious choice.
Now, I recognize, as a minister has said, that there is a shortage of
resource for these plants but let me say this to you, shortage of resource, they
did not invest in Harbour Breton, they did not invest in Fortune, they did not
invest in Bonavista. What did they do? They went out and bought two
factory-freezer trawlers, and one was only questioned a little while ago. The
two of them cost $40 million. Why would you invest $40 million into a company if
there was no resource? I can tell you why, and before this particular speech is
up I will let you know why they did it. I have already said it in the House, and
we will go through that and see what happens.
They have really insisted, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want to do what FPI
has done over the years. When Vic Young was president of the company, and we
have seen it, and I am sure the Member for Bonavista North, Roger Fitzgerald -
and I am not supposed to name him by name but I did - he understands, too, with
FPI. When the groundfish operations, like you have in Harbour Breton and you
have in Fortune and you had in Marystown, when times were hard and they needed
some dollars to sustain or to prop up these particular primary industries, where
did they get the money from? They got it from the other arm of the company, the
marketing arm. That is where it came from. One subsidized the other. It was a
matter of conscience because they recognized that these particular people, these
plants in these communities, they had a commitment to them but not anymore.
It is not a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, that seven months ago
they decided to ask the provincial government if they would allow them to try
and diversify and to, in a sense, take a portion of their company called the
marketing arm, create a separate entity down in the United States called Ocean
Cuisine. That is the marketing part of it, not FPI, Ocean Cuisine. And where did
they do it? In Delaware. I said here one day - I think it was on Monday - that
in Delaware they have some of the laxes corporation laws that you could find.
Why do you think they wanted to go to Delaware? They wanted to get under the FPI
Act. That is what they wanted to do so that they would not have any commitment
to Harbour Breton and no commitment to Fortune or Bonavista or to Marystown.
Just think about it. That is the part of the company that makes a profit. That
is a part of the company that sustains these communities and they want to sell
it off. What do you think happens then when you sell off the profitable arm of
your company and the primary processing part of it in Harbour Breton, Fortune
and Marystown need some extra dollars to be able to cash over until the times
improve? Where do they get it from? They get it from the marketing arm. What
about if it is sold? Who is going to profit up then? It is a conscious effort on
their part to do so.
I will make a prediction, I said it on Monday, ten years from now, if the
provincial government decides to do that for them, I will venture to say that
you will have no plant in Marystown, you will have neither plant in Bonavista,
you will have neither plant in Fortune, you will have neither plant in Harbour
Breton because FPI will then not be able to maintain it. It will then go under
because there is nothing to sustain it.
I wrote the Premier, and he recognized that I did. I said to him: If for some
reason you decide to allow FPI to go through with it, would you make one
commitment for me? Make sure that we have a new plant in Harbour Breton. He
wrote back and said: We will take that under consideration. Because it is
important. If you sell off the profiting part of your company where are you then
going to get the money to invest into the plants? It is not going to happen. It
is just not going to happen.
So, Mr. Speaker, I recognize - and, by the way, when I talked about the gross
sales that they had and the profit they had, it is not a figmentation of my
imagination, it was part of a press release from FPI, a news release earlier
this year. I am not sure what the date - October 26, 2004. Anybody can look at
it. Anybody can look at it and can see it. They are not my figures. So, what are
we saying then? A company that has had gross sales of just about $600 million, a
profit of $22 million, and then want to close down a plant in Harbour Breton.
I will tell, you can never trust these people, and I will tell you why. Up
until a number of meetings that we had, they recognized, of course, that the
plant in Harbour Breton needed some major renovations - and I am glad that the
minister yesterday decided to send in the people from Occupational Health and
Safety to take a look a second look at it.
I am telling you, just imagine if you were the mayor of the town, if you were
Don Steward, and you said to FPI: Show me the engineering copy, show me the
engineering plan that you have to say that our plant is not fit for people to
work in. He said: Oh, no, you cannot have it. You cannot see it.
Then he says: Okay, that is fine, you do not have to show it. What about if
we, then, as a town, contract an independent engineering company to go in and
see for ourselves the condition of the plant, something to counteract. No, no,
you are not allowed to do that either.
Now, just think about that. I am telling you, they used the plant as the
condition, the structure of it, to close it down. If you then go in and show
that the plant could be made up to standard and you could reinvest in it, guess
what they would come back next to say? There is no resource.
You cannot win, because what it happening is that they are shifting the goal
posts on you from day to day to day. It is very difficult to deal with, when you
have that type of thing happening.
Like the minister said, I have been a part of the meetings with FPI. I
remember one day in particular that we were at an FPI meeting and I was asked to
leave because there were some confidential things to be talked about. I said: I
have no problem with that. I am not here for Oliver Langdon's sake, for Oliver
Langdon to get credit or to do something. This is above me; and, as the Premier
said, it is above party politics.
You are talking about a town, you are talking about people's lives.
Twenty-five hundred or 2,600 people live in the Town of Harbour Breton. It is a
flagship for the Connaigre Peninsula. We had a subdivision, I think last year,
where about twelve new houses were built. There was another new subdivision
about to take place. I talked to one of the people in one of the stores, and
people are coming in and saying: We had layaways on for Christmas. We are not
taking them now. We cannot take them because we do not have the money.
Can you imagine the distress, the needless stress, the needless pressure,
that a company without a social conscience can put on the people in a community
like Harbour Breton? A company that had annual sales of $600 million, a company
that made profit of over $23 million, and says: Oh, no, we cannot go there.
What is next? It is the tip of the iceberg, as I see it. If they are allowed
to -
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. LANGDON: It might be, I do not know - in reply to what the Government
House Leader says - but I will tell you this: If they are allowed to get away
with Harbour Breton, if they are allowed to close there, what do you think would
happen next? If they can get away with this, is it Fortune? Is it Bonavista?
I am sure the Member for Bonavista South, when they come out and the company
says that Bonavista plant is a fire trap and we cannot open it any more, then
what? I am telling you, the government is in a position where they have to hold
FPI's feet to the fire, and they can do it because this particular Legislature
here created the act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: They are not like the plant owner in Hermitage. They are not
like the one in Gaultois. They are not like the one in Arnold's Cove. It is a
creature that was created by this House of Assembly, and this House of Assembly
has to make sure that FPI's feet are to the floor. Reopen, reinvest, so that
the people of Harbour Breton can go back to work again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, want to stand today and say a few words to this resolution as put
forward by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and I compliment the
member. I compliment the member for putting forward such a resolution and for
standing up for the people in Harbour Breton and standing up for the people in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure the hon. member, before I go any
further, that he has lots of friends on this side of the House over here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a little bit about my
knowledge of Fishery Products International, and I am not going to stand here
today and tar and feather them, I can guarantee you that. I worked with FPI
myself for thirteen years. I worked for a year out of the head office over on O'Leary
Avenue. I worked in Harbour Breton, I say to the member for Harbour Breton, for
one year, or one winter, and worked five winters with them down in Gaultois. The
rest of my time was taken up around other plants, so I know full well and I know
some names to attach to the job losses and the positions that the Member for
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune refers.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was only the night before last I was listening to the
Open Line Show. I went to bed with a bad back and put the telephone in my ear,
the speaker in my ear, and I heard this lady come on and talk about her concern
after now being threatened with a job loss there. She went on to say that she
was fifty-five years old and that she went to work with Fishery Products in
Harbour Breton when she was fifteen. Well, Mr. Speaker, by my calculation that
would mean that she has forty years seniority with the fish plant in Harbour
Breton. Now, tell me where somebody fifty-five years old, who went to work with
an employer at fifteen years old, worked there for forty years, is going to find
a job?
Mr. Speaker, this is not about a warehouse closing down in Donovans
Industrial Park, or WAL-MART deciding that they are going to move from the
Avalon Mall to another box store outside on another street in St. John's. In
fact, this is not only about the 350 people who work at the Harbour Breton
plant. This is about the whole Town of Harbour Breton, this is about survival
for a town, this is about a way of life for every resident in the Town of
Harbour Breton and many others who make a living from the spinoffs from those
jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is probably nobody else in this
Legislature who has spent more time in the boardroom of Fishery Products
International than this member here. I was there as recently a two weeks ago,
going up and talking about the problems that we have in my own district. We are
fortunate enough to have two fish plants. I have had to fight to get them open.
I refer to Port Union which is a shrimp plant closed just after the moratorium
was announced, Mr. Speaker, stayed open until that year, 1,400 people laid off,
didn't have a job. Over fifty-two businesses moved out of the communities of
Port Union and Catalina. Bonavista once employed 700 people. Today there are 180
to 190 people who manage to get twelve or fourteen weeks work a year. Mr.
Speaker, in Port Union where 1,400 people lived, today there are about 180
people who find enough work to get employment insurance. Charleston, another FPI
plant, today is a sawmill operation. A local sawmill operator uses the facility
there to store lumber. Over 2,000 jobs taken from the District of Bonavista
South in processing alone.
Mr. Speaker, we know there is a problem with the resource. We all know that.
We don't need to be told it. When this announcement was made it talked about
the non-safety of the plant in Harbour Breton. Well, let me ask members present:
If the plant is an old plant in dilapidated condition who allowed it to be in a
dilapidated condition? What happened to the profits? Where did the profits go?
Surely, if you are running a reputable company and if you are making profits you
should invest them back to maintain your plants. It is not enough, Mr. Speaker,
to allow plants to disintegrate, to allow them to reach a stage and then
announce that we are closing the plant because it is unsafe. We are closing the
plant because it is old, it is dilapidated. That does not cut it, Mr. Speaker,
not only with the people in Harbour Breton but with anybody else in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: We are talking about a different company here as well. We
are talking about a different company, not only Fishery Products International.
We are talking about any company, any fish processing company, that has been
fortunate enough to have had a licence to be able to go out and buy cod, crab,
shrimp, or any other resource that comes from the sea, and process it and sell
it at a profit.
We are talking about a common resource here, Mr. Speaker. It is not a
resource that Fishery Products or the Barry Group or the Beothic Fish company
down in Valleyfield had to go out and invest money to hatch or to grow or to
feed. This is a common resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It belongs to the people in Harbour Breton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: It belongs to the people in Bonavista. It belongs to the
people in Wesleyville and Badger's Quay. It belongs to the people in Gaultois.
It certainly does not belong to a company because they had the deep pockets to
be able to go out and start up a processing industry to be able to go out now
and dictate the life of a community or the closing down, or be the god and the
Saviour Almighty to decide whether that community lives or whether it dies.
That is what we are faced with here today. That is what we are talking about.
We are talking about the death of a community. The questions that are asked -
and I compliment the people, the members from the other side, in asking
questions. They should ask them, but I say to them very cautiously: Let's not
turn this into a political football.
I compliment the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Premier who
has said that we will do whatever is humanly possible to have this plant
reopened and provide the people in Harbour Breton an opportunity to be able to
go to work and continue to work as they have in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: There is no lack of commitment on this side of the House
over here.
I will recall, I say to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune, a few short
years ago when our numbers were much smaller and when we sat on that side of the
House, when we had meetings with the NEOS group. I remember meeting them in our
caucus room, and we all asked the questions that needed to be asked, but there
were no answers. It was almost like, trust me, trust me, and we will do what is
right for you and what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, they were leaving our caucus room then and it was a big rush
because they were going down to Port Union and they were going down to Bonavista.
They didn't have any idea what they were going to do or what they were going
to announce when we asked the questions in the caucus room.
I picked up the phone that night and called a friend of mine who works down
in Bonavista. I said: Boys, how did the meeting go? Well, he said, boy, hold
your tongue. One fellow went in there, and I will not mention any names, and he
took out his wallet, big wallet that thick, and laid it on the table and said:
Trust me. You want a new fish plant? You got it. In fact, if you allow us to
take over this company, and if you support us, that old fish plant down on the
waterfront in Bonavista, we are going to bull that out in the harbour. That is
gone.
I can guarantee you, that was a true statement. That was a true statement.
Not only did he make the statement, but he would have; he would have bulled the
plant out in the harbour, no doubt about that, but I can guarantee you there
would not be 180 people working there today. The plant would have never, ever,
been built. Then they left Bonavista and went over, twelve miles away, to Port
Union, and announced another big project there. They are going to build you a
(inaudible) plant here. It is going to employ I do not know how many people, but
here was a plant that was closed and they were telling the people what they
wanted to hear. They were selling hope and expected people to fall for it. It
did not happen, Mr. Speaker. It did not happen because they were not trusted.
For anybody here in this room today to think that those people are gone away,
that they are not back, that they are not playing a part behind the scenes on
what is happening here, then I am telling you we are dreaming in technicolour,
because they are. They are. They are still the people who are trying to take
over this company.
Now, we might want to compare Vic Young with the people who are there today.
Well, I can tell you that I had lots of differences with Vic Young as well. I
had lots of differences with the way things happened and how long it took to do
things, and expressed them to him, but it was always a situation where, whenever
you went into the office of Fishery Products International, you always heard the
worst scenario. When you left that office that day, then you could expect to
hear at the worst what you heard, but most of the time it was something better.
Having said all that, there are new people at the helm of FPI, and I cannot
stand here today and condemn them. I am not going to do it. I am not going to do
it. I have had many meetings with them. I do not agree with the decision that
they have made here, but I am not going to stand here and lambaste them and say
that they are bad people or their decisions are all wrong and they are not
interested in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had some good meetings with
Fishery Products International, and we have many challenges in the District of
Bonavista South, I can assure you, but I believe that we have to work out a
solution with the company, with the union, with the town, with the Minister of
Fisheries, with the Premier, with the member, everybody involved. I think that
it is the way to approach this problem that we have in Harbour Breton, Mr.
Speaker. We cannot allow the Town of Harbour Breton to die. We cannot allow the
people in Harbour Breton to have to pack up and move out. Like I said, Mr.
Speaker, many of those people find themselves now - because they had a job and
they could go home for dinner every day - every day they could get aboard their
car and go home for dinner - and they are all making decent money, I can assure
you. There is decent money being paid at Fishery Products International, but how
do you go and tell somebody fifty-five years old that they do not have a job any
more, that there is work for them in St. John's or there is work for them in
Toronto? Mr. Speaker, that is not an option. We cannot go there. It is not an
option for some of those people. It is a terrible place to find yourself. I lost
my job back in 1992. I was fortunate enough to land on my feet, but a lot of
other people today are certainly not that fortune and are certainly struggling.
I have one community in my town - and that is why I can relate to what is
happening in Harbour Breton - I have one community in my town today where there
are approximately 150 people. Five people get up in the morning and go to work
from that town. Those were people who always had a job, they always worked. Some
years it was seasonal, but they always knew where they were going. They were
dedicated workers, left school, a lot of them, at an early age because they had
a job. They made good money and now find themselves without a job, without an
education, and many of them have had to go and access government funds or
government projects in order to survive. We are talking about proud people here.
We are talking proud people.
Just a few short weeks ago we heard Fishery Products International wanting
government to come onside and other people to support them in this income trust
fund that they were going to create. It was selling off some of their arms that
were profitable. The idea was - or as it was explained to me - to raise money to
put back in plants like Harbour Breton. I heard Harbour Breton mentioned
specifically. It was sad. Then I heard - even before this was allowed to be put
out there to decide who was going to support it or who was not - all of a sudden
the decision was made to close the very same plant that was being put forward as
the plant that would receive benefits and would be upgraded to realize benefits
from that income trust fund.
We do not know what is happening here. We do not know where FPI is taking us.
We do not know, and you cannot trust the comments that you hear any more. That
is why, I guess, we are so confused.
The member talks about Bonavista being next, or Marystown being next. I do
not know who is going to be next but I will tell you what, whichever community
is affected by decisions by Fishery Products International, especially
communities where there is a resource, then I can tell you that each member
here, including this member, will stand up and ask the questions and bring
forward the concerns and do what we are doing here for Harbour Breton because
this is the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: We get all caught up, Mr. Speaker, and so we should, with
what is happening offshore, important. It is going to make the difference of
this Province being able to provide a good health care system, a good education
system, a good roads network.
Mr. Speaker, the income from the offshore will never, ever generate the
income that has been and will be achieved from the fishery in Newfoundland and
Labrador. This is the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why
our communities have been established. That is the way they will survive and it
is heartbreaking, it is heart wrenching to turn on your radio and listen to
another community die.
It is something that we people over here on this side of the House will
support this resolution, I can assure you. It is something that we believe in. I
say to the people down in Harbour Breton and to the group that has been formed
in order to look after bringing their case forward, that they have thirty-four
friends on this side of the House of Assembly right here, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: We are not about to let Harbour Breton die without a
fight. We are not about to allow somebody to go in and ride roughshod over the
community. We will stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and fight for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, fight for Harbour Breton, and fight for every other
community that we feel is not getting a fair shake or not realizing the full
benefits from the resource that we call ours, a common resource that belongs to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Shame on anybody, whether it is FPI or
any other company, that we allow to go in and take advantage of us by using what
they should have done to be a whip as an excuse to close something down or to
become more profitable. Certainly -
MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Just one second to clue up, I say to the Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. FITZGERALD: I say to people opposite, while FPI is a public traded
company, they are funded by shareholders. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the
shareholders in Fishery Products International, for the most part, do not give a
hoot about the people down in Harbour Breton. They do not give a hoot about the
people in any other community. They are there and their money is invested to
make money. Well, I will tell you what, most of the people in those communities
do not give a hoot about shareholders either. While they go to work and while
they are profitable, and they do an honest days work in order to make the
company profitable - because what is good for the company is good for them - we
should not allow the shareholders of FPI, or any other company, dictate what
happens to the life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in this
case, Harbour Breton.
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 am very pleased to take a few minutes to participate in this private member's
motion today. I listened intently to the introduction to the motion given by the
Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and also to the comments, which I am sure
are very warm to the ears and the hearts of the people of Harbour Breton from
the Member for Bonavista South, in knowing that there is an understanding of the
broader implication of this closure.
I will make a few comments with respect to how and why Fishery Products
International and Harbour Breton, Fortune and Bonavista is different than a
place like Arnold's Cove, because it is different. They are all equally
important in terms of devastation in Arnold's Cove, or devastation in Harbour
Breton. It is devastation nonetheless, but there is a difference with respect to
FPI.
I will mention this, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Bonavista South talked
about being involved in meetings in Bonavista with FPI, recently in the last
little while, because they are talking about the future of that particular
operation as well, and describes it as being good meetings. I do not necessarily
want to be too hard on FPI because there has been a lot of good work done over
the years, but we are at a position now where a stand has to be taken. I
understood that is the position taken by the member opposite, and is certainly
the position taken by the mover of the motion and a position that we support,
and I am glad to hear support for it.
The most disheartening part was that the working group in Harbour Breton has
been in those meetings as well. They were driving home on Friday from what they
thought was another good meeting - now that is the problem with it. They thought
they were having good meetings too; constructive meetings, meetings about the
future of the plant, meetings about the future of the community. They had left a
particular meeting and did not even get back to the community before a press
release comes out that they heard on the radio. I heard the mayor, I think, and
the union rep., Mr. Day, in the media in the last couple of days saying they
were driving back to Harbour Breton after a meeting and heard the announcement
on the radio that their plant was closed due to structural problems.
Here was a group that in good faith were participating in good meetings, only
to be shocked with the announcement, late on a Friday afternoon while they were
going home to update the people of the community as to what might be going to
happen next. Thinking much as the group were doing with the working group on 5
Wing Goose Bay - having good meetings, they were making progress, thinking they
were going home to report some progress, to hear the announcement on the radio:
the plant is closed.
Imagine the shock for the Member for Lake Melville, if the working group had
come out of a constructive, good meeting on the way to brief the members of the
community only to hear DND saying: 5 Wing Goose Bay is closed - despite your
good meetings. So, that is the backdrop, Mr. Speaker, of this one which makes it
very difficult.
I was glad to hear the Member for Bonavista South talk about the linkage to
FPI's request for the establishment of the income trust; selling off the most
profitable part of their company in the United States, the marketing arm, to
establish an income trust. I can tell you what we have hear about it, Mr.
Speaker. We have heard that the company was not at all pleased with the
reception they were getting from the government, that the government was not
being friendly enough to the notion, even though they were suggesting they were
going to raise the money to put the investment back in these plants, but the
government was not agreeing right away. It was not being done quickly enough.
What we are told, actually, is that they were trying to pressure the
government to come onside and agree with it, rather than check and see whether
it contravened the act. The government, to its credit, did not come onside
quickly enough and that now closure of a plant in Harbour Breton is another
pressure tactic to try to get this government to agree to the transaction that
the board of directors want to increase their profitability, and then maybe they
might even come back to the table and say: Well, if you agree to the
establishment of the income trust fund then we will give you a commitment that
will put some investments back in Harbour Breton and change the decision that we
announced last Friday.
I do not know if these are the facts or not, but that is what our members are
told, that there is a little bit of a pressure tactic here, high stakes poker
and blackmail being played with the government. That is why it is important for
any government that is put in that circumstance to take a very strong stand
against it. You cannot be forced into circumstances. You cannot be blackmailed.
It has to be done for the right reasons. If it is the right thing to do, examine
it, do it and agree with it for the right reasons, but not be forced into it or
blackmailed into it by a pressure tactic from a company that - by the way, in
checking all the annual reports - we should never misunderstand - Fishery
Products International is still reporting profits. They are still making money
as a company and there is still government money involved in it, that was put
there to help it get established and has never been recovered by a government on
behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is very different than a circumstance in Gaultois, which used to be an FPI
plant, they walked away from some years ago. Now they have had private operators
in there. The private operator, a truly private operator with its own money,
walks away because they could not make any money. They have others who might be
interested to go there, but Fishery Products International is making money. It
might not be making money right in Fortune every single day, or right in
Bonavista every single day, or right in Harbour Breton every single day or every
single quarter, or every single year, but the whole operation of the company
accessing the people's resource, the fish of Newfoundland and Labrador, has
been making money for years and is still profitable.
The other
part is this, a couple of things that the people of Harbour Breton
are puzzled about. They have had all the commitments that their member listed in
this motion. They have seen the representatives of FPI come to their town, been
to meetings with them right in their home community, and say things like this:
None of the FPI employees have anything to fear about a change in the board of
directors and in Mr. Rowe taking over from Mr. Young. None of you have anything
to fear. That was said right in a public meeting in Harbour Breton. It was said
in a public meeting in Fortune. It was said in a public meeting in Bonavista.
The people sat there, who had worked for the plant - the woman that the Member
for Bonavista South describes for forty years - and said I believe these people,
they just told me outright. You are an employee, you have nothing to fear from
us. You have nothing to fear.
Just last year, in 2003, they signed an MOU. Fishery Products International
signed an MOU with the union saying there would be no layoffs folks. There are
not going to be any layoffs. There will not be. It is signed. They did not just
say it in a public statement. They signed a Memorandum of Understanding saying
there would not be any layoffs. Not only that, they also committed to some
reinvestment in the plants. That is pretty recent stuff. That happened after the
all-party committee changed the legislation to make it stronger. I can
understand why the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would feel
confident as the Opposition critic in saying: If we become the government we
will not allow any layoffs unless they are negotiated between the company and
the union. I can understand why he made that commitment as the critic because
they had just signed an MOU saying that. So, all he was going to do was make
them live to their written commitment.
The disappointing part for me and for the people of Harbour Breton, and for
the people of the Province, that we can't quite understand, is why, when he is
asked today and yesterday and on Monday in the Legislature to say that out loud
again, just like he did a year ago, and just like he should have because there
was a written memorandum from the company, why won't he say it today. Why won't
he, as the minister today, stand up and say the same thing, that I am just not
going to tolerate it? This is a company that is a creature of this Legislature,
established with public money.
Let me again read the aims in the act. This is worth noting.
Section 2 of the
Fishery Products International Act. "The purpose of this act" - and
this then guides everything else that is in the legislation - "(
a) to
recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland
and Labrador; (
b) to continue the company as a widely held company that can act
as a flagship for the industry..." That is what the purpose of the FPI Act
is, so it can be a "...flagship for the industry whose objective is the
growth and strengthening of the fishery of the province;" - not the
diminishing of it, the growth and strengthening - (
d) to ensure maximum
employment stability and productivity through employee participation..." We
had employee participation through the union, with an MOU, and based on that,
the then critic, the now minister, said: We will never allow any layoffs unless
the union agrees because that was already signed. He was saying the right thing
for the right reasons.
Then, of course, this one, the last of the purposes, (c) "to recognize
the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and
commercial decisions...". Now, stop there for a minute, but that is not the
end of the sentence. If that were the end of the sentence, then you could see
where the company would say, well, if I can't make money in Harbour Breton I
have to close it, because the law says I can close it. Let me read it again. Let
me read the full sentence. The purpose of this act is "to recognize the
need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial
decisions without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and
processing in the Province." They have the right to make sound business
decisions as long as they don't disrupt the traditional pattern of harvesting
and processing. What is the traditional pattern of processing? A plant in
Harbour Breton that has been there for forty years. Do you think closure is a
disruption? I would call it a disruption. I think everybody in this House would
call it a disruption. I think everybody in the Province would call it a
disruption.
Guess what the act says? They are allowed to make a decision but they are not
allowed to make it if it is going to cause that kind of major disruption. The
act says they are not allowed to do it, which is why we have been asking the
questions for three days as to why the minister and the government is not taking
a stronger stand. There was no choice but to have discussions in Arnold's
Cove, because Arnold's Cove is not governed by
an act of this Legislature.
Arnold's Cove was not established by
an act of this Legislature. Arnold's
Cove did not make commitments to the people of the Province. Arnold's Cove
does not have to answer in the same way at all to the minister and to the
Premier and to the government, as Fishery Products International does. It is a
very different kettle of fish in this particular case. What we have now is the
minister unfortunately saying: Well, the best I can do is to do like Arnold's
Cove, have a chat with them.
Well, the best you can do is a lot better than that. You can tell them, and
the government can tell them quite clearly under
section 2, that you are not
allowed to do that kind of disruption because the act prohibits it. There is no
bigger disruption than a closure, and it is not permitted under the law of the
land.
So I am asking - and I think the member presenting the petition and others
say - be stronger, be as strong on this issue as the Premier is being with
respect to the Atlantic Accord. Take a firm stand. Don't just say we will have
a chat to see what we can do. Let them know that what they have announced is not
acceptable. The Premier let the Prime Minister of the country know that what was
announced about the Atlantic Accord was not acceptable. He walked out of the
meeting, and now they are negotiating, by the way, on the terms dictated by the
Province. That is what should be happening in Harbour Breton. They should be
coming to the minister and the Premier, dealing with the conditions being laid
down by the Province, not us standing there as the government, through the
minister, saying: Oh, let's see what we can do. Let's figure out if we can
save the day here.
They need to be told that if they have $40 million to invest into a factory
freezer trawler, which is not the traditional processing and harvesting method
in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they should have $40 million to put into
plants like Fortune, like Harbour Breton, like Bonavista, because the act says
they are not allowed to do it if it is going to cause disruption to the
traditional patterns, and factory freezer trawlers are not the tradition in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The landing of groundfish and the processing of it in
land-based plants, that is the tradition, and this government has the ability to
tell them that, and so far they are like the reluctant bridesmaid; they do not
want to get in there and really do the job.
I am just urging today that we be a little bit more definitive. The only
other thing that I will say, not to be political at all, but I am personally and
I think the people of Harbour Breton are personally somewhat surprised that the
Premier himself does not want to seem to get involved in this. He does not seem
to want to get involved. He has been asked direct questions: When did you last
personally meet with FPI? He does not want to answer that question. Why not? Why
not? He and members opposite, by the way, took great fun in commenting when I
met with those groups.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
By leave, just for a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think there would be a very strong message sent to Fishery Products
International if the Premier, himself, made a few statements along the same
lines but more forceful than what the minister is saying, saying that we have an
act, you are a special creature of the Legislature, you are a different kind of
company and we want you to make some investments in the traditional methods of
processing in the Province and not destroy rural communities by thinking you are
just any other private company.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am
encouraged by the fact that members opposite have indicated that they plan to
vote for the gist of this particular motion, and I would hope that the debate
today helps, aids and assists, in getting the right decision made in Harbour
Breton; because, if the wrong decision gets made in Harbour Breton, which is the
one that has been announced, never mind the reason, it is Fortune or Bonavista
next, one or the other after that, Marystown soon after that, and the rest of it
for FPI will be a couple of factory freezer trawlers, no work onshore for
anybody, and no traditional processing in Newfoundland and Labrador at all by
the flagship company that was established by this Legislature to make sure that
it stayed representative of what happens in the fishing communities of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you for the extra time, I say to the members opposite, and thank you
for the opportunity.
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 have a few comments this afternoon on the private member's resolution put
forward by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, a member whom I have a great
deal of respect for, and have had a number of conversations over recent days and
recent weeks on this matter and on other matters prior to that as it related,
certainly, to aquaculture and the situation down on the Connaigre Peninsula and
Bay d'Espoir, St. Alban's area.
Mr. Speaker, the situation that has confronted us became more public, I
suppose, and became more serious last Friday as it relates to FPI and its
Harbour Breton operation. I am not going to go into any great detail. Everybody
in Newfoundland and Labrador knows the situation that our industry has been
through, our people have been through, and our communities have been through
over the past twelve or fourteen years.
I hear comments from the other side of the House, and I do not know that it
helps the situation at all to be accusing anybody, whether they are on this side
of the House, in the general public, or wherever they come from. I certainly
take offence to it from my own perspective, that you have no connection with
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you forgot your roots, and all of this kind of
stuff, especially from certain individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten what happened to me in 1992. I have not
forgotten what happened when the Northern cod fishery closed down. I have not
forgotten that in 1991 I started to build a house in Gunners Cove, and I
completed it so I could move in the night after I got married, in September,
1992. In July, 1993, because the situation was looking so desperate in our area,
I stuck a For Sale sign out in front of it and walked away from it. Mr. Speaker,
there is nobody in this Province who has any ore experience than I - still
living in the Province, that is. I grant you that there are many expatriate
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are living outside of this Province who
have felt a lot more frustration as it relates to the situation that we have
been exposed to and experienced since the late 1980s and early 1990s. There is
nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker, who can lecture me and tell me about what it
feels like to have to leave your house and your community with a young family
and not sure where you are going to pitch; a house that you just cut your own
logs for, built on your own, and owed nothing for. Quite frankly, the only thing
I owed when I left Gunners Cove - or just before I left Gunners Cove - was for
the carpet that I had on the floor in the house that I built myself. I owe a lot
more money than that today, unfortunately.
Mr. Speaker, I understand what the people of Harbour Breton are feeling
today. I understand the uncertainty that they feel, and the concern they have
about what their future holds. I do not need anybody - whether it is the Leader
of the Opposition or the Opposition Fisheries critic - to tell me what it feels
like, or that I do not know what it feels like, to be confronted with
out-migration. I have been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and I have not
forgotten what it feels like.
Back to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, Harbour Breton. I can only say this
on this resolution: We will support the resolution and I support the resolution.
We will do whatever is within our power to find a resolution for the people of
Harbour Breton.
I have to say, that it is not as simple as the Leader of the Opposition says
from time to time, to just jump up here in the House or run up to O'Leary
Avenue because we have an FPI Act, and we do have an FPI Act, we do have
substantial powers associated with the FPI Act, and we do have things that we
can do. We can, as amazing as this sounds - and I still cannot believe it - that
when the Newfoundland Lynx was tied on here in St. John's several weeks ago,
if we wanted to we could go down and change the locks on her, take her
ourselves, and because we have a privative clause in the FPI Act they cannot
even sue us. Now that is bazaar as far as I am concerned, a $25 million piece of
equipment and we can take it if we wanted to and they cannot even sue us. The
shareholders have no recourse against us.
That is an extreme amount of power, an extremely powerful piece of
legislation, but with extremely powerful pieces of legislation, like with
extremely powerful weapons, you should use them guardedly and you should use
them responsibly and you should use them in a way that serves the best interests
of the people of the Province or wherever you happen to be. That, Mr. Speaker,
is what we are going to do. We understand the power that we have in the FPI Act,
we understand that we can, probably, order FPI to spend $10 million in Harbour
Breton, but we also understand that for every action there is a reaction. That
is something that we all must never forget.
We all must never forget that, yes, we can say that the shareholders of FPI
do not care about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all that kind of stuff.
Maybe that is true, maybe it is not true. The fact of the matter is, the share
price of FPI supports the investments that are made in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We do not want to send a company into a tailspin and a share price and
jeopardize the future of all of its Newfoundland and Labrador operations and all
of the companies in Newfoundland and Labrador who use FPI for the marketing of
their products. Certainly, everybody knows that FPI markets a substantial volume
of shrimp and crab and other groundfish for other processors here in this
Province. We have to be careful what we do.
Having said that, does that mean that we have to sit back and do nothing? No,
absolutely not. It does not mean that we are powerless. We are not paranoid, we
are not scared to death of the share price, we are not scared to death of what
might happen to FPI, but we are concerned about making sure that the company is
strong so that it can make the appropriate investments in the fishing industry
and the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a responsibility and
an authority that we take very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago
saying that, no, we did not have
an act in Arnold's Cove. We did not have an
act to hold over the heads of National Sea and National Sea High Liner and Bruce
Wareham and anybody else, Henry Demone. No, we did not. Absolutely, we did not,
but we have one here. We were forced, he said, to negotiate with National Sea.
Well, we were not forced to negotiate with National Sea. He says we had to go
and have a chat with them. Mr. Speaker, I suggest we did more than have a chat
with them. We had a long chat; we had a chat for about ten or eleven months. We
had a very serious conversation, and, at the end of the day, we found a
solution. Madam Speaker, we will have a very serious conversation with FPI, and
we have had some very serious conversations with FPI over the past six months,
and we will have a few more over the next six days, I expect, and a few more
over the next six weeks, if that is what is required, and over the next six
months, if that is what is required.
I would have to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and to all involved,
that if we were able to achieve success in Arnold's Cove in a viable,
practical, reasonable, rational way, then maybe there is hope to find one here.
I cannot come here today in all honesty and stand up in front of the people in
this Legislature, the people of the Province, or the people of Harbour Breton,
as much as I might like to and as much as they might like me to, to say that,
yes, there is a solution for Harbour Breton, that I know exactly what it is, and
I know that it is simple and all of that. If it was as simple as that, it would
have been done. I would have had it done and we would not have been here talking
about this now. The company and the union would have figured it out by now, I
dare say. They would not have to wait for me to come up with the idea.
As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to suggest that a year-and-a-half
ago the former government, who are now sitting in Opposition, who knew that the
facility in Harbour Breton was in a mess - it was widely known. It was known
when we were down there three years ago, I guess it is now, it will soon be
three years ago, as part of the all-party committee. It was known then that the
facility needed to be replaced.
I am not condemning anybody for doing anything or not doing anything. This is
not what this is about today. We can play politics as much as we like. I am not
trying to play politics with this today and I do not think that anybody else
should. So the bottom line is, if there was a magic solution here, somebody
would have found it before today. There is not a magic solution. Is there a
solution? I hope there is and we will work towards it and we will put our
shoulder to the wheel just as we have, just as we did in Arnold's Cove, just
as we did with the aquaculture industry. All things are not easy in the
aquaculture industry yet. It is not all sorted out in the aquaculture industry
yet, but from a fin fish aquaculture perspective we did find a way of fixing the
feed financing issue that they had, by the way, in the District of Fortune
Bay-Cape la Hune.
I just want to say this also, that just because - and I hope that nobody
thinks this, because there is certainly nobody in this government who thinks
this way - people live in what we commonly refer to as districts by Party line,
in a Liberal district, that we