May

7, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start regular proceedings, the Chair would like to inform the House

that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North is celebrating his birthday today so

we offer him all the best for the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Happy Birthday!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail; and, the hon. Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Torbay Volunteer Fire

Department on its thirty-five years of service to the Towns of Torbay and

Flatrock. The fire district served by the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department is

the home of 8,000 residents and many businesses.

Organizations such as fire departments are the very heart of our communities.

Their unselfish dedication to the protection of lives and property day and night

is recognized by everyone in the area.

Firefighters give their time freely to ensure the safety and well-being of

our neighbours and their property. Firefighters are motivated only by the desire

to serve their community and provide the necessary fire service for their fellow

residents.

There are two original members who are still with the department today. Chief

Mike McGrath and Mr. Bill Woods Sr. have been with the Torbay Volunteer Fire

Department since day one. Chief McGrath and the department have a full fire

prevention program with emphasis on pre-fire planning, fire inspections, and

they conduct fire drills in the two schools in the area.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Torbay Volunteer

Fire Department for thirty-five years of service, and thank them for their hard

work and dedication to the people of Torbay and Flatrock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 2009, the Mount Pearl 2008 Citizen of the Year

ceremony was held. This event was sponsored by the Kinsmen Club of Mount Pearl

and the City of Mount Pearl, and was held in conjunction with the 2009 National

Volunteer Week.

This year, Mr. Speaker, Ms Rosalind Pratt was selected as Mount Pearl Citizen

of the Year for 2008. Mr. Speaker, Rosalind has spent most of her life

volunteering for many worthy causes. She has been involved with the Girl Guides

for twenty-two years. She has been a Brownie leader and a Guide Leader and has

held the position of Avalon Area Commissioner for five of those years. Rosalind

is presently the Deputy Provincial Commissioner for the Guides. She has taken

Guides to national camps, attended National Guide Forums in Toronto, and in 2003

became the Girl Protection Advisor for Guiding in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For her dedication she was awarded, for twenty years of service, the Silver

Merit Award and the Provincial Medal of Merit. Rosalind is also vice-chair of

Kirby House. Rosalind's work with Habitat for Humanity included ten full days

working on the first "all women build" in Mount Pearl in 2007. She is

also member of the Family Selection Committee.

Currently, Rosalind serves as secretary of the Mount Pearl Citizens Crime

Prevention Committee. She was nominated by the Mount Pearl Citizen Crime

Prevention Committee for this award.

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

Rosalind Pratt on being selected Mount Pearl Citizen of the Year for 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the birthday wishes, first of all. I also want to take the

opportunity to wish the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture a happy birthday

today. He is also celebrating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

achievements of a resident of Mount Pearl and former student of Mount Pearl

Senior High School. Tracy Dyer has been known to many of her peers and educators

as an academic and athletic powerhouse.

When Tracy graduated high school she was awarded approximately $16,000 in

scholarships, one of which was a Premier's Athletic Scholarship Award. Tracy

participated in many sports as a high school student, including soccer,

basketball and track and field, to name a few. She also participated and served

on many committees, including the Safe Grad Committee for her graduating class.

Tracy then went on to excel at university, both academically and

athletically. She joined the Lady Seahawks Soccer team at Memorial and is an

active member of their roster.

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

Tracy, and commend her on her hard work and dedication that she displays as both

a student and an athlete. She is certainly a wonderful role model for all

students and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as a government we have made a long-standing

commitment to improving communications and identifying opportunities for

collaboration among business, labour and government on issues related to

improving the Province's competitiveness.

Over the past five years, the Strategic Partnership, led within the

provincial government by the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development, has heightened the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration. In

fact, it is worth noting that the Strategic Partnership is North America's

only successful collaborative approach that bridges business, labour, and

government.

The Strategic Partnership is led by a council of senior representatives from

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Business Coalition, and the provincial government who identify

challenges and opportunities to stimulate social and economic development. More

importantly, the partnership provides the platform to formulate consensus-based

recommendations and to help shape policy and actions.

Over the past three years, the partnership's Labour Market Committee

examined the Province's ability to increase labour market participation,

attract and retain workers, along with enhancing the quality and use of labour

market information. Their work contributed greatly to many of the new programs

offered by the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment that were

introduced in Budget 2008.

Additionally, its Employment Relations Committee, in collaboration with the

Labour Relations Agency, was prominent in the new labour management legislation

passed in April 2008. All partners agreed that changes were necessary to the way

arbitrations were handled in Newfoundland and Labrador and worked collectively

to achieve consensus on a model that serves the best interest of all parties.

Recently, the partnership has broadened its focus to investigate any

opportunities for its involvement in such areas as innovation and transportation

and information communications.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring the success of the Strategic

Partnership, and I am very happy to report that the level of trust and respect

amongst the membership is at an all-time high. There is a strong willingness on

everyone's behalf to deliver positive results for the Province.

On behalf of the hon. members of the House of Assembly, I would like to take

this opportunity to thank members of the council and its associated committees

for their valuable contributions. Their work is one more example of how, through

collaboration and partnering, we can seek opportunities to grow our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

good to see of course that we have a continuation of this Strategic Partnership.

It started, by the way, back in January 17, 2002. It was an initiative that was

announced on that date by Premier Grimes and I believe the representative of

labour who was present at that time, was one Elaine Price, of course, who was

highly involved in the labour industry. There was a gentleman, I believe,

Michael Wilson, who was at that time Chair of the Board of Trade for the city.

It is great to see that we do have this council and that this government is

continuing with this council because it gives a great deal of feedback.

I know when I was in INTRD myself for some months actually attending one of

their meetings, very beneficial. When you bring government, you bring business

and you bring labour in this Province together. Not only do you know what the

challenges are but you get a good round-table discussion about how we can

possibly solve some of those challenges.

As the minister says, whether it is determining what the quality and use of

labour market information is or the way that arbitrations in this Province work,

you need to have this feedback from the people that are on the ground, directly

involved, so that government can take these ideas back, formulate legislation

that can deal with these issues and hopefully make it a better place and a more

economic and socially stable place that we live in.

I encourage the minister to continue with the program, the Strategic

Partnership. It came, by the way - it originated with the Celtic Tiger idea that

came out of Ireland some years ago. I guess the tiger is a bit subdued now in

these economic circumstances but in any case this was certainly a good

initiative that we in turn adopted from them and as a Province we have been

making good use of ever since 2002.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The

Strategic Partnership is probably one of the most important programs I think

that we have going in the Province because it is a model for how government

workers and business need to work together.

I think that many countries in Europe have learned, especially in the Nordic

countries, have learned how to sit at the table together and bring all of the

different opinions together. I would like to see this model, for us, to find a

way to have it to work in other ways as well. While here it is working in a

general way with regard to business, government and labour, it would be really

good to see us work more cohesively in individual industries as well in the same

way so that we are less confrontational in trying to come up with what is good

for the people of the Province, and more collaborative.

I congratulate this government on continuing this program, and I think it is

something that should certainly remain in our Province as a real mark of the

efforts that we are making to work for the good of the whole people.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to update residents of the Province on the

2008-2009 Home Heating Rebate Program.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth consecutive year that our government has

provided assistance to individuals and families associated with the high cost of

heating their homes.

Since our government assumed office, we have both increased the amount of the

home heating rebate and expanded the number of people eligible under the

program. The program has been expanded to include electricity, and the income

threshold has been increased to $40,000 or less. Approximately 76,000 families

are eligible for the rebate, as opposed to over 10,000 families who qualified

for the rebate when our government took office.

Mr. Speaker, despite the lower cost of home heating fuel last year as

compared to 2007, our government maintained the rebate at the same levels as

2007. The rebate was increased for Coastal Labrador communities due to the high

costs associated with home heating fuel in that region.

Under the program, Mr. Speaker, eligible residents receive up to a $300

rebate for households which use heating oil, stove oil or propane, up to $200

for households which use electricity or wood, and up to $500 for those living in

Coastal Labrador communities. Families with a net income of up to $35,000

received a full rebate. The rebate gradually decreases as income levels rise to

$40,000, with no eligible family receiving less than $100.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise hon. members today that approximately

67,000 applications have been approved, with a value of $15.3 million processed

to date.

Mr. Speaker, the home heating rebate is one way our government is working to

put more money back into people's pockets. Other examples include $776 million

in cumulative tax relief over the last three years, the reduction of motor

vehicle registration fees, enhancement of the seniors' benefit, and the

elimination of the sales tax on insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, our government is also committed to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. As recently announced in Budget 2009, beginning next year

administration of the Home Heating Rebate Program will be relocated to the Grand

Falls-Windsor area, providing seasonal employment opportunities for residents in

the region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. It is indeed

good to see that we have the continuation of this rebate program. The

government, of course, last year, certainly made substantial dollars off our

offshore royalties. Everybody in the Province has some source of heating cost

throughout the year, and it is great to see that this is putting something back

to these people, all of us who quality, to help with their heating costs,

whether it be electrical, propane, stove oil or furnace oil. It is great to see

that.

In fact, the offices around the Province, I know in my own office in Port aux

Basques, for example, we get a lot of people walking in who want the

application. Some people need help filling out the applications, so it is a

great program to have, and it is great to see that the government did indeed

continue with it.

I am just curious, and maybe the minister some time would be able to respond

to it, I notice that the program was down. Last year there was a take-up of

76,000 people in the Province and this year there were 69,000 people who availed

of the program. When I checked the announcement from last year it was $17

million that it cost the government to do this,

whereas this year it was $15.3

million. Obviously, it is less because 9,000 people less took up the program.

I am just wondering if the minister at some time might elaborate on why 9,000

less people took up on the program this year than last year, if there was some

reason that we are not aware of. Was it not properly advertised, or people are

making more money and they did not qualify and so on? It seems like a

substantial number, when you have 12 per cent or 14 per cent who did not take up

the program. It would be nice to have an explanation on that just for

clarification purposes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Obviously, I am very pleased that this year the government maintained the

same rebate levels as in 2007 and 2008 despite the lower prices. I think we all

recognize that the rebate helps a bit, and keeping it, maintaining it at the

same level even when prices go down is very helpful to all families who benefit

from this rebate.

I was also glad to see something that the minister does not have in his

statement and in this year's Budget, and that is the Residential Energy

Efficiency Program. Introducing that is extremely important and it is something

that we have asked for here on this side of the House.

I understand that for this year the program is already booked. A 1,000

households are already - that government has more than 1,000 applications in. So

I really look ahead you know, Mr. Speaker, always looking forward. So I ask the

minister to be ready in the Budget for 2009-2010 to increase the number of

people who will be able to benefit from the Residential Energy Efficiency

Program.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

St. Patrick's Mercy Home is a long-term care facility in St. John's that

has 214 beds; we received information that St. Patrick's has an asbestos

problem. The individual contacted our office has informed us that past staff and

patients have not been contacted and the public has not been advised of this

problem.

I ask the minister, if you can confirm that there is indeed an asbestos

problem at St. Patrick's Mercy Home and to what extent it exists?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to dismiss the significance of

the question or the significance of the issue that she is raising but yesterday

we had a similar question in the House talking about a crisis at the Janeway

cancelling surgeries. What she was really talking about was a day in the O.R. at

the Janeway where there were four O.R. lists booked and one had to be cancelled

because of nurses being off sick for an extended period of time and there were

two cases involved and we get a question in the House, the place is falling

apart. The O.R.s are being cancelled, we have a crisis in nursing, have a crisis

in the O.R. at the Janeway.

Today we have another phone call, mysterious phone call to the Opposition

office wondering about the asbestos in St. Patrick's nursing home. I say, Mr.

Speaker, many older buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador may have asbestos in

them. As I understand it, as I understand the whole process of managing

asbestos, is it is safe within buildings to have asbestos as long as the

building is not being renovated or the asbestos itself is not being disturbed.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister wants to read Hansard he will find out that the question

yesterday said one of four of the surgery lists at the Janeway. Obviously, he

does not listen.

Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health was given directives by Occupational Health and

Safety to disclose this information. Since 2007 an asbestos plan has been in

place for the building but those who were there before that time have not been

advised even though they know the seriousness of the prolonged exposure of

asbestos in these buildings.

I ask the minister: Why were not past staff, patients and the public advised

that such a problem exists even though Eastern Health knew that people were

exposed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about

listening to answers to questions all she has to do is just pay attention to

some of the answers I gave yesterday, and she will not go out into the media

today and try to marry two answers from two different questions as if they are

one and the same.

With respect to the issue at hand and the question she is posing, the day to

day maintenance of buildings is something that each of our four health

authorities are responsible for. If they are undertaking some maintenance or

changes in a building as a part of their normal maintenance program where they

need to give consideration to the protocols around asbestos abatement, then that

is an issue that they would deal with on a day to day basis I say, Mr. Speaker,

and that is something that I ordinarily would not be involved with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister would not be involved because he does not want to be involved.

This is a minister who claims he knows the answers to everything and yet knows

nothing. If there is a public building in our health care system that has an

asbestos problem and there has been a report since 2007, minister, you should

know about it.

I ask you today: What plans are in place to deal with this problem, have they

been outlined to your department or have you even consulted with Eastern Health

to find out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If Eastern Health is undertaking some work at St. Pat's

Home, I will undertake to find out if there is an issue that they need to deal

with, with respect to asbestos, but let me reiterate, Mr. Speaker. There is

asbestos in many buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know the date,

but many years ago to insulate with asbestos was pretty standard practice. As I

understand the protocols in and around this, my colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Works may be able to enlighten me even further, but as I

understand the whole protocols around asbestos is if it is left stable, not

disturbed, there is no hazard, there is no risk. As soon as you start to disturb

it, then there is a process but there is a protocol in place, I think it is

called the asbestos abatement protocol that you trigger when you start to do

some renovations or modifications to a building that has asbestos. Other than

that, it can be in a building for fifty years and not have posed any health risk

to the residents or to the employees I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A Quebec judge has ruled this morning that AbitibiBowater no longer has to

make special payments to its underfunded pension plan while the company is under

bankruptcy protection. This means that some workers or their survivors will no

longer receive pension cheques for the foreseeable future, if ever.

I ask the government today: What contingency plans do you have in place to

assist these workers and their families that are impacted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, there was a judgement handed down today in a

Quebec courtroom respecting an application that was made by AbitibiBowater on

Friday, I believe it was, of last week , whereby the company itself indicated

that it did not want to continue to top-up the unfunded portion of the pension

plan, given that it was in creditor protection.

The judge ruled today that AbitibiBowater, in fact, does not have to top-up

the unfunded pension plan, but all of those pensioners who are receiving pension

cheques will continue to receive them. There will be no effect on the people who

are pensioners of that company. They will continue to receive their cheques, and

the amount of those cheques will be the same as they always were. There has been

no reduction in the amount of the cheques. AbitibiBowater still continues to

contribute to the pension plan, they are just not topping it up while it is

underfunded, given the market conditions that we face today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister telling me today that none of these workers that are

pensionable or the survivors that are receiving an income, will have their

incomes impacted at all and that they will continue to receive cheques as they

did in the past, because that is not our understanding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the court ruling today, that ruling referred to

registered pensions that AbitibiBowater has. They have many thousands of

employees who are receiving pension cheques from that pension fund, and the

ruling today states that AbitibiBowater does not have to top-up the fund. There

is a legal, legislative requirement that over a period of five years, that fund

must be kept whole. The court now has removed that requirement from

AbitibiBowater. The cheques that were being sent out to the pension holders will

still come, they will still be for the same amount, and the company will

continue to contribute to the pension plan as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification, I want to ask the minister if that includes the

widowers that were affected as well, if they will still continue to be paid?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are dealing with is a very

complex one and there are many pockets of people, I guess is what I would say to

the hon. member. When she refers to the widowers, I am making an assumption you

are referring to those people who are receiving the early retirement allowances,

is what they are actually called, and those are separate from the decision that

was made today.

The decision today is strictly about the registered pension funds and those

employees and former employees of AbitibiBowater who are receiving pension

cheques from the registered pension fund. Those who were receiving early

retirement allowances or work force reduction program special payments were not

a part of that ruling, and are separate and distinct from that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A group of former AbitibiBowater workers in the fifty-two and under age

group, which is the group the minister just referred to, also proposed an

economic stimulus package that would benefit the Central Region while providing

benefits to those same workers who were unable to access any kind of a pension.

I ask the minister today: What progress has government made on evaluating

this proposal and when can these workers expect a response from government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have made reference in this House before to the submission

that I received. I indicated at that time that that submission is under review.

Since I received the original submission I have talked to the person who sent

that to me. That individual indicates that there is supplementary information

that they have available. I have indicated that I would like to see that

supplementary information. I have asked the individual to send that to me. I am

awaiting receipt of that information, and I will be corresponding with that

individual as well in the very near future.

It is under review. There is more information that the individual says that

he has. I have asked him to provide it to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government is clear in their statements that they will deduct severance

payments from any eventual compensation packages that are paid out to the

company for expropriated assets, but we have certainly not seen any timelines

around when this could occur.

I am asking today: What are the obstacles to government providing those

severance payments sooner rather than later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House of Assembly, there are

processes in place that we must abide by. There are court processes that are

currently ongoing. We are not going to jeopardize our position, as a government,

or the position of anybody who is intervening on behalf of the workers in these

court processes, by taking any intervention.

The severance and pensions and all of those things are AbitibiBowater's

responsibility. We are going to do everything we can to ensure that

AbitibiBowater lives up to that responsibility. One of the ways in which we are

doing that is through the court process that we have now, and we will see what

those court processes bring to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Within the Town of Botwood there is a large storage tank. The tank was built

from forty yeas ago and it was used by AbitibiBowater to store caustic soda.

Caustic soda is a highly corrosive and highly reactive material that is used as

a bleaching agent in paper making.

We have been told, Mr. Speaker, that this tank, which is only 500 metres from

the school, is showing signs of deterioration.

Now that the company has ceased all of its operations in the Province, has

government inspected this tank to determine whether it is safe, and to ensure

the contents of it are safe?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak specific to that one. If need

be, I will get some information on it, but all of the environmental liabilities

associated with the Abitibi case here are under review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I guess one of the questions we have is: Would tanks and

properties like this have been any part of the expropriation deal of assets that

government did as a result of the legislation in the House, or would those

things be completely outside of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are environmental liabilities and they have to meet the stringent

guidelines and regulations; and, as such, they will be treated in the most

serious way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Has government determined who has the liabilities for

properties like this? We are talking about a tank, now, that we have been told

might be unsafe, located next to a school. Has it been determined who has the

liabilities for those properties or for any environmental damages that are there

at this stage that need to be cleaned up immediately as opposed to a longer

period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this particular time, all of the environmental liabilities are still the

responsibility of Abitibi. Despite that, assessments are being made and reviews

will be made, and then decisions will be made accordingly as they unfold.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicated earlier that the Province was doing an inventory. I

would like to ask when the inventory will be completed, and a full report of all

the environmental hazards that have been left by AbitibiBowater.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that with me, but certainly I

will undertake to get that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation stated last

month, in the hon. House of Assembly, and in Estimates since that time, that

there were no changes to the summer maintenance program this year. The calls

that I have received tell me something different, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Will there be any layoffs this year in the summer

maintenance program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition member should be running a

recycling depot, because that is the third time that I have had to answer that

question.

No, Mr. Speaker, there are no changes from the summer maintenance program of

last year and the year before. The staff complement will be the same. The budget

is the same. The depots that were closed last year as part of our summer

downsizing exercise that has been going on for the last four years will close,

and those that were open last year will be open this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that there will be no job

losses this year. This past week I had workers from the Bay Roberts depot in my

office and they state that the summer maintenance crew in Bay Roberts will be

two to three workers short this year versus last year. I have had calls from the

Trinity Bay area that in Whitbourne they will be one or two workers short of the

maintenance crew last year.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm if this would be layoffs or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon. member is that the budget for summer

maintenance is the same as last year. From the departmental executive

perspective, all things are basically the same as last year.

Now, if there are regional supervisors who are making decisions on how they

move their staff complement around, that I cannot speak to but I will certainly

undertake over the course of the afternoon to find out exactly what the member

is talking about and get back to him on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the two individuals I met with, in the winter

program they are operators. In the summer, for the past three or four years,

they dropped back to be carpenters. They also tell me that there were only two

positions as carpenters last year on the full Avalon and this year there will be

nobody in those positions as carpenters.

I ask the minister why this is, or is his department contracting out the

carpentry work of last year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to contracting out, we have a

collective agreement with our unionized employees. We cannot contract out work

that would otherwise be done by our unionized workforce, so it would not be a

decision that we would lay off people and contract out. Any contracting out

would have to be over and above the normal work that would be done by our

unionized employees; but, again, if we he identify those individuals I will

certainly look into it and report back to him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I will consent to that, Mr. Speaker, because there are only

two on the full Avalon and the two of them came from that area so I will

definitely let you know that.

Mr. Speaker, this government, back a few years ago, closed down thirteen

depots. The union at that time, from my understanding, took government to court

and they won their case. Then government appealed that decision. It is my

understanding from the information that I have received that the judge involved

in the case apparently made a ruling on that issue in the fall of 2008.

I ask the minister: What was the ruling by the judge? Did it take place at

that time, and will he table that decision today in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, can you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. There was a question asked and an

answer about to be given.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Protect me from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very

much for that favour.

Mr. Speaker, as late as last week I inquired of the Deputy Minister of

Transportation and Works as to the status of the court case. It is my

understanding that it is still with the judge and that no decision has been

made. Again, I will reconfirm that this afternoon but that was the information

that was provided to me when I inquired on it last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Minister of Health and

Community Services, those were not anonymous phone calls. They were real live

individuals who sat down in my office.

MS JONES: Real people.

MR. BUTLER: Real people, real workers.

I thank the minister for his last response. I know he said he will check that

out. When he does, I am wondering if he will let me know, if he has a report

back - because we heard that the report was there - what is the monetary figure

attached to the decision; and, if so, will this money be paid to the workers in

that particular case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I am not aware that there is a report so I would not be able to

give him any monetary figures that might be associated with a report that I do

not know exists.

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find out the answers on that, and I can

assure the hon. member that if there is anybody in this House who wants to bring

closure to the issue at hand here it would be me. The faster we can get a

decision from the court and get it reviewed by the Public Service Secretariat

and by Treasury Board and our department, that will be in the interest of all

involved, including the government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked some questions yesterday of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. Because of time, of course, I did not get to ask them all.

Just to continue, Minister, we know that only "qualified tourist

operations" can obtain a sign under the new TODS program that the

government is about to implement. If an operation is not approved under TODS

because they are not within your definition of "tourist operation"

will there be any other way for anyone to advertise at all along our highways?

I use as an example here - there was one in the media - the Jiffy Cab, for

example. If that does not qualify as a "tourist operation" will there

be any form of advertising, other than what the government specifically designs,

possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what we are involved in here is directional

signage. I think the first thing we have to recognize is that our highway

corridors are not advertising signs for businesses such as Jiffy Cabs, the

infamous cab that is out there. As such, in our TODS program what we are looking

at is a national and internationally recognized set of symbols that we will be

continuing with. As to other types of establishments, from my perspective we are

trying to unclutter the highways not to re-clutter the highways, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know there will be fees associated with this program in terms of the

placement. In other provinces, for example, there is a one-time, non-refundable

standard application fee, a one-time sign fee based upon the number and type of

approved signs, and an annual renewal fee based on the number and type of signs.

How does your cost - and what cost do you have in mind with respect to this

program - compare to what anybody who has a sign under the current legislation

pays? What is the fee structure going to be like?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that at this

particular point we will be - as of June 8 we will be dealing with illegal and

non-compliant signs. We have a committee that is going to be established that

will take a look at implementation costs and overall costs, but I can tell you

that, at present, an individual in this Province can buy a fingerboard sign - I

believe it is at $142 - so I do not see that changing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A year after an open house was held at the Colonial Building in November 2005

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation announced plans for the

restoration and development of this important historic landmark for the Province

and said they were underway. Since then, the government has taken zero action

with respect to that plan. The building is still closed to the public, and no

restoration work has been done.

I ask the minister: Can you provide us with an update on where we are right

now with that intended restoration project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, $3 million we as a government are investing in

the Colonial Building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Second to that, Mr. Speaker, interpretive work has been

done, design work has been done. We are in the process now of reallocating

workers within the Colonial Building so that we can start phase one, the

structural type of work that needs to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report that the work at the Colonial

Building is progressing quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been no money allocated to the refurbishment of the Colonial

Building since the 2006-2007 Budget. Time may have stopped for government but,

of course, it has not stopped for the deteriorating building. It has

deteriorated even further. The minister is well aware that the site has turned

into an open-air drug market, a blight on the neighbourhood and an eyesore for

the city, instead of a tourism highlight for our visitors.

I ask the minister: What are the timelines to get this project done and

completed so that it will have the respect and be the tourism attraction that it

ought to be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, a $3 million investment shows quite a

bit of respect for the building. We recognize it as a significant historical

site. Second to that, as I have just alluded to, we have the interpretive and

design work done. We are moving the workers out. We are doing phase one, which

is the structural soundness and other types of stuff that has to be done before

anything else can be done. Then, the second part of it is to restore the

integrity of the building, Mr. Speaker.

I think that speaks to progressive work which the department and government

is committed to doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and his

officials met with stakeholders on February 4 when the Fish, Food and Allied

Workers brought up concerns about the global economic crisis and the effect it

may have on this year's fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the union wanted to know what kind of contingency plan the

government had in place, so government and industry would not be caught in a

bind. I am told the minister and his officials downplayed the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister: Why did the government ignore the

warning signs which would have given him ample time to get ready for the current

situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I remember well the meeting of February

4, where we did bring the players in the fishing industry together around one

table to look ahead, to see what we could do as a government, what they could do

as an industry to prepare for this recession that is global. It was a good

discussion. Suggestions about slowing down the season, making sure that we were

all on our Ps and Qs, that we were all ready to start the season and we left

that meeting with a challenge for us to put together some working groups if the

industry certainly wanted to. At that particular point we did not get any

follow-up.

So, again, we are where we are today, fighting against a recession throughout

the world that is not only affecting the fishing industry but other industries

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Well I would like to point out to the minister, it might be

affecting other parts of the world but it is not affecting Nova Scotia where the

fishermen yesterday were getting $1.65 a pound for their crab, which equals

about $1.50 here, when adjusted.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a storm brewing now over the crab fishing

industry in this Province. Yesterday we heard from the Fisheries minister that

only 20 per cent of plants are still processing crab. Mr. Speaker, that means

that about 80 per cent of plants are not working. Harvesters already have their

pots in the water and there are many plant workers who may not get the fourteen

weeks they need to apply for EI.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Is he going to have an

emergency meeting with all the same stakeholders he had at the meeting on

February 4, to overcome the current condition of the industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the hon. member across the House, you have to be

very careful about comparing and making statements about other jurisdictions

because you are very much comparing apples with oranges in this particular case

and it is statements like that that can send ripple effects, as I pointed out

before.

As well, I would remind the member that even as we speak that the industry

are working with the price setting panel and bringing forth what conditions are

on the go right now and trying to find a way to making sure that this season

continues, that it continues in a way that is in the best interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the workers involved in this

particular industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I point out that I asked why not all the

stakeholders are working together because that is not happening.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment

said that she had a meeting with one of the processing groups in the crab

industry. Mr. Speaker, the minister's seafood industry and review issued in

March, 2009 says that the crab fishery brought in approximately $179.6 million

last year.

So I ask the minister: If he is so concerned about the industry, why was he

not at the meeting with the Minister of HRLE and the processors, the meeting

that she talked about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I have to chuckle because again, both myself and the

Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, both of us have

been accessible to any of the groups that want to meet with us. I have met with

the processors, I have met with the harvesters, I have met with both of them

together. The minister has followed up. We are doing everything that we possibly

can to work with this industry to make sure that this season continues on. We

have 25 per cent of the crab already in. We do have people, enterprises that are

out on the water. This is the dance that goes on every year. It is no different

than any other year, except the markets right now are not where they were last

year. We are trying to settle on a price, and even as we speak there are

hopefully deals that have been made that will break this blockade and move us to

where we need to be with the completion of the season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the Social Service Committee have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have

passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditures of the Department of

Education; the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department of

Justice; the Department of Municipal Affairs; and the Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment, respectfully submitted, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the District of Ferryland, the Chair of

the Social Services Committee, reports that the committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have approved certain estimates and recommend that

a report be concurred in.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by Standing and Select Committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births,

Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events. (Bill 24)

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province. (Bill 25)

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Provide Change Of Name. (Bill 26)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to present my sixth petition on behalf of the

people of Southwestern Newfoundland with respect to the dialysis needs that

exist in that region.

I am not certain if the minister has the actual submission now, because

besides the request that has been going on for years to have this dialysis

satellite at the LeGrow Health Centre, there is actually a formal proposal being

submitted to the minister, through Western Health, from the nephrologist there

in Corner Brook and the chief of staff in Port aux Basques.

Of course, it seems to be very strange when you have a petition for a

dialysis satellite on something that is so straightforward. We already know the

numbers of people who use it right now. We have nine people in need of dialysis,

who are currently travelling from their homes in places like LaPoile, Burnt

Islands to go to Corner Brook three times a week to get this service.

Whereas,

the equipment that they need to get this done in Port aux Basques in the LeGrow,

the people of the region are prepared to buy the equipment. They will pay for

the equipment. So it is not an equipment need.

The training that is required for the nursing staff, they are prepared to

undergo the training. It takes about six weeks training of a nurse in order to

be competent and prepared and capable of handling this dialysis equipment. They

are committed to undergoing that training.

So we have a situation where the need exists, the money is there for the

equipment, the staff are there prepared to undergo the training to use the

equipment, yet we cannot get the Minister of Health to even look at the

situation and tell us why that cannot be done.

Now, they have to pay the nurses, as I understand it anyway, if they are

going to be working. We are paying all kinds of costs out of the government

right now. A lot of these people, for example, they are low-income earners who

do not have the money to get to Corner Brook three times a week. The government

is footing the taxi bill three times a week times nine. Twenty-seven taxi bills

that go out over that highway three times a week for twenty-seven trips. Now

that is not cheap. You go back and do the math on how long the government has

been doing that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is

much cheaper to do this in Port aux Basques that it is to pay these costs.

By the way, it is not only the taxi fare. Because whether you do the

treatment in Corner Brook or Port aux Basques, somebody has to do it. It is a

cost to the Department of Health to have nursing staff and trained technicians

doing this. That cost is there. That has not changed. You have to feed these

people, and in a lot of cases they don't go alone. They have travel companions

because of their health situation. Guess what? The government foots the bill for

those as well.

We have a situation where it doesn't make any practical financial sense for

the government to continue this, as it currently is. The equipment can be

purchased at no cost to government, the training can be done, and yet this

government, in its wisdom we can't even get the Minister of Health to

respond with a letter. They met with councils out in the Corner Brook area last

fall, and, would you believe it, they have been waiting six months to even get a

letter back from the minister. Surely there are enough people in the Department

of Health who can write a letter for the minister saying why this is not

possible or why we can't get on with this.

We talk about reports sitting on shelves gathering dust. You have to question

what is going on here when we can't get one simple letter from the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my left if they would take their conversations outside. The

Chair is having extreme difficulty hearing what is being said here. There are

far too many private conversations ongoing.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the residents from the

Pilley's Island area, Robert's Arm and Triton and so on, Mr. Speaker, with

regard to the request for the construction of a fixed link between Long Island

and Pilley's Island and Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that back some time ago, in 2003, they were told

they would be able to have this Long Island causeway, and we know the reasons

why it didn't go ahead at that time. The people there now feel that their

concerns are not being addressed. They had a ferry service for quite a number of

years and they agree that this ferry service was adequate at the time, however

they have encountered problems over the last several years. Now they are asking

for a replacement ferry or a fixed link.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, goes on to say that they believe the fixed link

is the most feasible for them and this is what they are requesting.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have ever so many petitions. I think I have

them doubled up or tripled up today, trying to use them up while this session is

open. We still get calls from the Long Island Causeway and Transportation

Committee, expressing the concerns of the residents. I know they have written

their MHA, the Member for Grand FallsWindsorGreen Bay South and I think he

has been sent along petitions as well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the concerns that they have, I know I have mentioned

this before, is with regards to the time frame when they do not have a ferry

service, is to get to the hospital, which would be eliminated if they had this

fixed link. The same with the transportation up there; students, the product

from the fish plant in the area, and many other issues. Those people, I believe,

deserve better. They are living on this island and many times in the winter when

it is isolated they are unable to be able to get to the mainland on time.

So the petition that I have here today is on behalf of the residents, asking

government to reconsider their decision and that they would look at the

possibility of constructing a fixed link between Long Island and Pilley's

Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to present my sixth petition on behalf of the

residents of Ramea, Grey River and Franois, with respect to the lack of

nursing capability and services at the clinic in Ramea. What happens at the

present time is the station is in Ramea. There are supposed to be two nurse

practitioners there, running that service for the people. They do frequent

coastal visits down to Grey River and to Franois. What has happened is in the

past numbers of months, and it has gone on for months, I have to say, we have

been down by one nurse practitioner. So the key is: how do we get one back there

to put things back on a stable track? When you have one, that person cannot work

twenty-four seven. That person needs some time off. Of course, when there is

time off, what do we do to fill in? Most often there has been nobody.

We were very fortunate; we had a special event there the weekend with the

provincial convention actually for the Orange Lodge. There was an extra 200

people in town and they managed to send over a nurse, an R.N. from Burgeo to

cover off for that particular event, but a community should not be dependent

upon an adjacent community every time you need services for medical assistance.

The nurses of course who work in Burgeo, they were hired to work in Burgeo. They

do not have any commitment and cannot be forced to go to Ramea to work, nor down

the coast.

Now I have made the suggestion to the minister as well, that the solution

we just did not pose a problem in petition and petition to have it corrected. We

actually proposed a solution, and that is that government take its already

existing recruitment and retention policy and instead of having it apply only to

new graduates or to people from outside the Province, why would they not change

the policy in the case of rural communities who cannot attract these individuals

as easily, why do they not make that recruitment and retention policy applicable

to any nurse practitioner who wants to avail of the opportunity? That seems to

be a fairly simple solution. You can make templates for everything else, but yet

when it comes to solving a problem that you do not want to deal with you always

say: well, we cannot do that because we would be setting a precedent, or that

would not be good.

Well, we have yet to have any explanation from the Department of Health or

from the minister as to why that solution could not work. We do not even have a

response to it, and that is what is so frustrating to the people, when you do

not even get a response from the minister who is involved here to deal with

these issues, and people in the Province are seeing this. They are seeing and

realizing that you can get up here in the House this is my sixth time on

this issue and we do not even get a response from the minister, not even a

letter to say: well, thank you very much, I listened to you in the House and we

are going to give it some thought or we will give it some consideration. It is

like it falls on deaf ears. Never mind just bringing the problem to their

attention, we bring the solutions to their attention, and they still do not pay

any attention to it. Is it a cost factor you cannot do it? Is there some reason

you cannot do that? Why doesn't somebody tell the people and the residents of

these three communities why this cannot be done?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will be back again and again because, obviously,

somebody has blinkers on and they are not hearing things, no matter how often it

gets said. As I said earlier, as long as I am going to be here and as long as

these petitions keep coming from these residents I will be up on my feet in this

House during petition time presenting it, because this is not a case where it is

a lot of money involved, it is not a case where it is an arduous task or problem

to solve. The solution has been made there, at least attempt it. If it does not

work, fine, you can say you tried, it did not work, sorry we will have to look

for another option, but right now, this government, this minister, has a closed

mind around this issue and does not even want to give his attention to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will call today from the Order Paper, Order 2,

Concurrence Motion of the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Report of the Resource Committee be

Concurred in.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Chairman of the Resource Committee, I am pleased today to be able to speak

on the review of the Estimates that had been conducted earlier over the past

four of five weeks, with respect to the departments that came under the Resource

Committee.

Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and

acknowledge the members who served on the Resource Committee. They were: the

Vice Chair, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame, the

Member for Port de Grave, the Member for Labrador West, and the Member for the

District of Lewisporte.

In addition to these members, Mr. Speaker, we also had substitutes that

filled in for some of our regular members that were absent. I would like to

recognize these members as well. The Member for the Bay of Islands, the Member

for Baie Verte-Springdale, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the Member

for Cape St. Francis, and the Member for St. John's East.

Also, I would like to thank the ministers and the officials, and observers of

the six government departments whose Estimates were reviewed. I thank them for

their participation and their co-operation during the debate. I would also like

to thank the members of the House of Assembly staff who helped us out

considerably during the Committee Estimates.

I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman, by giving sort of an

overview of some of the discussion that took place while we were dealing with

each department. I would like to begin first with the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. The mandate of that department is to support economic

growth and employment in the tourism industry; to preserve the Province's

cultural heritage; to support our arts program, and to promote recreation and

sport activities for the benefit of the people of the Province. They fulfilled

that mandate through the operation and establishment of historic sites around

the Province, through visitor information centres, arts and culture centres,

recreation facilities, arts and heritage sectors, and marketing Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The total estimated budget for the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation this year is $69,575,000. That is an increase of $19,440,000 over

last year's budget. Some of the areas where this money will be going this

year, and one area which is really important, is the area of marketing our

Province as a tourist location. Since our government brought down its first

Budget in 2004, that department has increased its budget by $1 million every

year. So, this year now in marketing alone that department is up to $13 million.

That is more than double the $6 million when we started back in 2004. Mr.

Speaker, I think it is evident, as well, the positive results of that major

investment.

Some of the areas where there is additional funding this year in the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I would like to mention some of

these now. In the area of Special Celebrations and Events, throughout the

Province this year there is an increase of almost $4 million, and some of that

money will be going in the following areas: the celebrations at Cupids will cost

$1.4 million; the Olympics that is coming up, $1.9 million; the Juno Awards,

which will be held in our Province next winter, $800,000; and the Bartlett

celebrations, $150,000.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation will receive and

increase of $1.75 million, and $1.5 million of that is a special project which

is the filming of a twelve-part series by CBC called Republic of Doyle .

All of that new film will be done here in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I understand that, generating from that $1.5 million, we expect to

receive approximately $11 million in return for that investment.

In Community Sports Facilities there is an increase of $7.5 million. That,

Mr. Speaker, is in conjunction with a federal contribution and it will be

distributed later on, as soon as the details have been worked out, also in

conjunction with the Department of Municipal Affairs.

In our Historic Sites Development there is an increase of approximately $1.25

million, and that increased money will be used to upgrade infrastructure

throughout the Province. Also under that sector, and the minister just referred

to it, there is a $3 million investment in upgrading of the Colonial Building.

In the area of Recreation-Operations there is an increase of almost $1

million, an increase for different programming, an extra $200,000 for seniors'

recreation programs, an extra $200,000 for our provincial sports organizations,

an extra $200,000 for community programming.

In the area of Culture and Heritage there is almost half a million dollar

increase, a $350,000 increase for ongoing revitalization of provincial historic

sites and a $150,000 increase for cultural economic development programs. In

addition to that, the Province is also providing $250,000 for cultural export,

and that covers a gap that had been left last year by the federal government

when they refused to contribute to that cause.

The Department of Business, the mandate of that department is to promote

business development, especially to attract foreign business to the Province.

The budget for this year in the Department of Business has increased from $12

million last year to more than $39 million this year, and $35 million of that

department's budget is being spent on business attractions: trying to bring,

as I said, new business into the Province. That department has reported and did

report in the Estimates Committee that they are having some success with that.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture was also considered. The mandate

of that department, as you are no doubt aware, is to promote the ongoing

development of marine fisheries and the aquaculture industry. Emphasis is placed

on technological innovations, resource management and development, scientific

support, quality assurance and value-added processing. Appropriations have also

been made for the Fishing Industry Safety Council, the Workforce Adjustment

Program, the cod moratorium or demonstration farm in Bay d'Espoir, and the

minister announced a couple of days ago a $1 million investment this year into

aquaculture-related projects on the South Coast. That is part of a $5 million

investment that will be done over the next two years. Also, in addition to that,

the federal government is contributing an additional $5 million.

Aquaculture in the Province, Mr. Speaker, just to give you some idea of the

importance that is becoming, aquaculture production last year grew from 8,300

tons to 11,545 tons. That is an increase, Mr. Speaker, of more than 39 per cent.

In the Department of Natural Resources, that department is responsible for

the management and development of the forestry sector, the agrifoods sector, and

mines and energy. Total department Estimates for this year is $355 million. To

give you some idea where some of that money will be spent: almost an $11 million

investment in the silvaculture program; $4.2 million, plus $1.6 million from the

federal government in our forest resource access roads.

There is a $9.5 million investment in forest industry diversification. This

money, Mr. Speaker, will be provided to the provincial integrated sawmills and

the value-added manufacturers of wood products in the Province. They will use

that money to diversify their products, to modernize their facilities, and to

access new markets.

Three million dollars will be used for land development in the Province. That

money will be used to construct new agricultural roads and to acquire farmland

in the Province. After that is done, these lands will then be resold to the

farmers in our Province.

There is almost $7 million for the production and marketing activities of the

Agrifoods Branch. This, Mr. Speaker, is an increase of $4 million over last

year.

Almost $11 million in the joint federal-provincial Growing Forward framework

agreement. This is an initiative, Mr. Speaker, to enhance the long-term

stability of the Province's agrifoods industry. Actually, it is part of a

five-year joint $30 million federal-provincial agricultural program.

In mineral resource management, there is an increase in that budget of almost

$8 million over last year's actual expenditures.

In the area of the management of our energy resources and industrial benefits

sector, there are appropriations in excess of $248 million, and a large part of

that is in the development and formation of Nalcor Energy. That company will set

up as an arm of government to facilitate participation in oil and gas activities

and all energy-related areas throughout the Province.

The Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: This department is

certainly responsible for the strengthening and diversification of our

provincial economy. The total expenditures of that department this year is $49

million, and that is an increase of more than $10 million over last year's

expenditures.

Most of the increases in that department help provide for regional and

sectoral economic development, and diversification initiatives and projects

throughout the Province, especially projects that leverage funding from other

sources. I know a lot of the small businesses that access this money also

receive money from agencies such as ACOA.

The Department of Environment and Conservation: This department is

responsible for the protection and enhancement of the environment management of

the Province's biodiversity, endangered species, our wildlife, our inland

fish, water, climate change and Crown Lands resources. The net expenditure this

year of that department is $35,836,000, an increase, Mr. Speaker, of $6 million

over last year's spending.

There is an allocation of $1.3 million in this year's Budget towards the

development of tools, policies, and strategies to help communities adapt to

climate change. There is an amount of $750,000 for a joint review panel for the

environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation

Project. This panel, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the harmonization of the

federal and provincial environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill project.

The department is also continuing with its ongoing support of the five-year

scientific and management strategy for the island woodland caribou population.

It is also continuing with its four-year $4 million Parks Renewal Program,

and this year we will see an implementation of a recycling program in all of our

provincial parks. There will also be monies spent on more scenic attractions and

ecological reserves throughout the Province.

In addition to the six departments, Mr. Speaker, that our committee reviewed

the Estimates for, we also looked at the Women's Policy Office, the Rural

Secretariat, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council.

The Women's Policy Office has been given a mandate to provide for policy

research and development on issues that enhance the economic and social status

of women in the Province and prevent violence against vulnerable populations. It

provides support for Aboriginal women's issues, grants to women's centres,

Aboriginal organizations, violence prevention and other activities. The budget

for the Women's Policy Office this year, Mr. Speaker, has been increased from

$4,383,000 to $4,528,000.

Included also in this year's appropriations for the Women's Policy Office

is a new $100,000 grant for the Multicultural Women's Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a $110,000 operating grant for each of the

eight women's centres located around the Province, for a total increase for

these centres of $45,000 over what they had available to them last year. There

is also an increase of approximately $30,000 for the Provincial Advisory Council

on the Status of Women. That brings their total expenditure for 2009-2010 up to

$441,000.

The Rural Secretariat; the mandate of that Secretariat is to promote

sustainable economic and social development and to ensure that rural history

issues are considered throughout the provincial government. That Rural

Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, is a direct link between the rural areas of our

Province and our provincial Cabinet. Its appropriations are increased from

approximately $1.5 million last year to $1.75 million this year.

The last one that our committee reviewed, Mr. Speaker, was the Newfoundland

and Labrador Research and Development Council. This Council is involved with

strengthening all aspects of research and development in our Province. Their

budget this year has been increased from $11.5 million to $25 million this year,

and that is in view of the fact that the council now will become a Crown

corporation, and that will be done as soon as enabling legislation is

proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, that pretty well concludes the overview of the departments and

the agencies that our committee reviewed during our committee meetings. There

will be other speakers following me, because we do have up to three hours to

debate this in Concurrence.

So in accordance with Standing Order 76, I move that the report of the

Resource Committee be concurred in by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, there was a point

of order raised yesterday, and I would like to give a ruling on that. It is a

ruling on relevance.

On May 5, the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order respecting the

application of the requirement for relevance in debate. The hon. the Government

House Leader spoke to the point of order suggesting that a ruling on the subject

of relevance might be helpful as a guide for all members.

This question arose in the last session of this Assembly. The circumstances

were very similar in that bill being debated as it was a pension bill as well. I

refer members to the ruling made April 28, 2008 which referred to a point of

order raised by the Government House Leader concerning the relevance of comments

of the Opposition House Leader during that debate. That ruling cited another

made on December 12, 2006 which dealt with the subject and which in the Chair's

opinion are still valid.

As the Speaker said in the ruling of April 28, 2008 it is often stated in

this House that debate on a money bill can be wide ranging. We have not been

able to pinpoint the source of the practice which is somewhat more liberal than

that observed in other jurisdictions. I do not think I can improve on what the

Speaker said in the most recent ruling on the subject, in which I quote, "it

is important to remind hon. Members that not every bill which can be said to be

remotely related to money is a money bill. Practically everything government

does requires money, but not every bill that government introduces is a money

bill. I think it is fair to say that bills which have as their sole objective,

the appropriation of money, such as supply bills, and the raising of money

through taxation and loan bills, constitute money bills."

There is a comprehensive definition in Erskine May, the twenty-second

edition, at pages 806 and 807, which quotes the Parliament Act, 1911 of the

United Kingdom as follows: "a money bill' is a public bill which in

the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only previsions

dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition,

repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for

payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund

or the National Loans Fund, or on money provided by Parliament or the variation

or repeal of such charges; Supply: the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or

audit of accounts of public money, the raising or guarantee of any loan or

repayment thereof, or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of

them."

While the definition may not be the last word for us in this Chamber, it does

seem to the Chair that it is instructive and it is indeed useful. Mr. Speaker

Hodder ruled on December 12, 2006, that bills relating to supply and the budget

admit a wide-ranging debate.

I think it is clear to all members on a go-forward basis what would

constitute a money bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure my colleague will appreciate your ruling today.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to certainly have a few words on the concurrence debate

around the Estimates for the Resource Sector Committees of the House of

Assembly. Mr. Speaker, for many of us who are in and around the House of

Assembly, we call all of these meetings Estimates meetings, where we deal with

the actual expenditures of every government department across the board. They

are broken down into several categories, and they are: the Resource Sector

Committees, the Government Services Sector Committees, and the Social Services

Sector Committees.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular session of committees we dealt with the

expenditures of government departments for a number of resource sector

departments; one, of course, being the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

others being the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods, which is contained within

the Department of Natural Resources, also the mines and energy sector of that

department, and the oil and gas sector of that particular department.

Mr. Speaker, we also dealt with expenditures relative to the programs and

services of each of those particular departments, and what that contained. Mr.

Speaker, I am going to start off talking about the Department of Fisheries. I

guess there were a number of issues that surfaced in the Department of Fisheries

while we went through these particular Estimates. One of the issues, I guess, is

an issue that we have been dealing with in the last few days, and that is issues

related to the licensing commission of the department.

Mr. Speaker, when the commission was set up, or the board was set up, to look

at the renewal of licences, processing licences in the Province, to look at

eliminating processing licences, or renewing and extending new licences, it was

done as

an act of the Legislature which was meant to be non-partisan,

non-biased, and this particular processing committee, the entire purpose of it

in the minds of government opposite was to remove politics from the licensing of

the fish resources in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that committee was established for a number of years, actually,

since 2005, and that committee dealt with a number of requests for either

licences, for the expansion of new licences, and they also dealt with the

revoking of licences that had become inactive in plants across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I went back and looked at every single case that the Fish

Processing Licensing Board had to deal with over the course of that five years.

There was very seldom any issue of controversy. In fact, most of the requests

were from operators who wanted to transfer a licence from one of the plants they

owned to another plant, and those licences were not the controversial licences

such as the processing of crab or shrimp. Most times it was other licences for

underutilized species, or for pelagics, or something of this nature, where it

would not be as controversial. In fact, I think a lot of them were for sea

cucumber, for whelk, sea urchin, and species like that where we do not have an

overabundance of processing going on in those particular sectors in the Province

anyway.

A lot of those licences were either granted or the requests were refused

based upon certain information, but they were never intervened upon by the

department. The decision of the panel stood. The decision that they made after

evaluating their own criteria in setting and making these

decisions was adhered to by the department, until recently when we had a

situation where Beothic Fish in Valleyfield had requested to this licensing

panel that they would be granted a shrimp processing licence for the Valleyfield

operation. It went before the committee. They evaluated it, they weighed it out,

as they did with the dozens and dozens and dozens of other requests they had

dealt with since 2005, and they made a decision that they would approve the

shrimp processing licence for the Valleyfield plant.

The problem came when it landed in the Department of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. When the senior bureaucracy and the minister got wind of this, they

gave it an outright denial; the only actual licence since 2005 that has been

overturned through the political mechanism, which is the power of the minister

to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this company, the workers, the hundreds of works in the

Valleyfield plant - because some of them I have met with; in fact, I have had

discussions with some of them - I can tell you that they were very disappointed,

simply because they need the employment and they need the work.

People might say: Well, what about the plant down the road or what about the

plant on the other side of the Province, or what about the plant in the next

community? But, Mr. Speaker, they feel, and they strongly feel, and so do the

owners and operators of this particular plant, and so did the processing

licensing board feel, that capacity was not an issue. They felt that capacity

was not an issue. In fact, if you look at the amount of shrimp that is allocated

today in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tonnage of that shrimp, and you divide

it up amongst the number of processing facilities that we have in the Province,

you will find that we are at the threshold levels. In fact, the increases of

only a year or two ago put us at the threshold levels that we needed to be at in

order for Valleyfield to get this licence.

Mr. Speaker, there are many who feel that this is more about strong lobby by

big companies to the government, and that is how they feel, and one of those

companies being the baby of the government. The government, when FPI failed,

they needed someone to pick them up by their bootstraps and bail them out of the

mess that had been created in the fishing industry in this Province. When FPI

walked out and they were going to shut down all their plants, close their doors,

the government was in a pickle. They were a new government and they were in a

pickle. They did not know what to do. They did not know how they were going to

deal with the situation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker a fish company in the Province waltzed in and bailed

them out, bailed the government out. Because if they did not bail the government

out you would have seen plants close in this Province overnight; you would have

seen hundreds of people out of a job. So they did a deal with this company. They

did a deal with this company, but the deal went beyond the initial takeover of

the FPI operations.

The industry, Mr. Speaker, feels today that because that company bailed the

government out that they now have particular influence over decisions that are

being made, and there are processors in the Province who feel that this company

was the driving force to influence the minister to make the decision and

government to make the decision they did to deny the shrimp licence in

Valleyfield, because it would have been that company that would have been

directly impacted by the decision - and that was the reason.

I say to government, there is a difference between doing a deal and creating

a partnership than selling your soul forever. It is almost as if you sold out

the entire industry by doing this, and I hope that is not the case, but if every

single processing operation and every single plant worker in this Province in

the industry has to be at the mercy of decisions being made by a big company who

bailed the government out of a tight situation, then I guess they are going to

be the ones running the fishing industry, and the only ones running the fishing

industry, and that is not acceptable.

In fact, today I feel for the people in Valleyfield because I happen to be

familiar with that company. They are one of the companies, Mr. Speaker, that

have worked hard to build their industry. They have kept their nose clean. They

have stayed out of a lot of the bidding wars and the foolishness that have went

on in the industry over the years, and they tried to build a good, home-based

operation employing local people and doing the best they could in that area, and

now they are being kicked in the teeth for that and that is not right. It is not

right.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the processing licensing board - because it is a

farce; it is a farce - whether it is one licence of controversy that gets

overturned or whether it is ten, it is not providing for the intent that it was

meant to. When that board was set up, it was to take politics out of

decision-making of fish licences in the Province. It was to remove the political

aura around giving licences out to processors who support governments or

government members. That was the whole idea, Mr. Speaker. It was the idea of

letting an independent board, through individual legislation in this House, make

decisions that were in the best interests of the broader public in looking at

how impact could be mitigated, how benefits could be derived, and at the end of

the day you would have a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is what this board had attempted to do. This is

what they had attempted to do. They went out and they made their recommendation;

but, as I said, the recommendation was overturned by the minister and by the

government simply because they were being lobbied and enticed by a big fish

company in this Province who did not want that licence - did not want that

licence - to go to Valleyfield plant because it would affect their own bottom

line.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that a lot of these other decisions were not

considered? For example, let us talk about La Scie for a minute. Mr. Speaker,

there was a licence transferred from St. Joseph's to La Scie, it was approved

by the board and the committee and it was sanctioned by the government. Why?

Because it was the biggest single issue on the Baie Verte Peninsula in the

middle of an election. In the middle of the by-election in August it was the

single-most controversial talked about, lobbied about, issue on the ground on

the Baie Verte Peninsula. I know, Mr. Speaker, because I was there. I spent time

there. I knocked on doors there myself. In fact, I was in La Scie twice during

that by-election campaign and I can tell you that this was important for the

people in that community.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day the processing licensing panel decided

they would allow for the transfer and that St. Joseph's would close down, the

shrimp plant in St. Joseph's would close down, and the licence would be

transferred to La Scie.

Well here we are now, Mr. Speaker, going into the next fishing season in this

Province and not one thing has happened. In fact, it was only a few days ago I

talked to people down in La Scie and I talked to people down in Baie Verte, and

nothing has happened, not one thing. There has been nothing at all with regard

to reactivating or building or opening a new shrimp plant in that community.

I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that government is not leaving these people with a

false sense of hope, in telling them, because it was a big issue in a

by-election when they were trying to win a campaign and win another seat in the

House, that we are going to make sure that you are going to get this license and

so on. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, already landing shrimp in this Province again

today and nothing has happened, and no movement happening. Mr. Speaker, we are

going to monitor this. We will see what happens. We will see if the people in La

Scie, if their word is being kept to them, if this license will be transferred,

and if they will indeed see their shrimp processing plant.

Mr. Speaker, there have been other decisions made as well, other decisions

that could be considered to be controversial, that could be considered to have

an impact upon capacity in the industry, such as the crab license that went to

Conche. The government didn't intervene there. They didn't intervene in that

decision and say, no, we are not going to reactivate a crab plant or a crab

license in Conche, because it could have an impact on the capacity in the

industry, because it could take crab from this plant or that plant or another

plant, because it wasn't politically opportunistic for them to do that, Mr.

Speaker. There was not a political opportunity for them to do that, so they

allowed for that transfer. They said nothing about it. In fact, they were really

pleased about it, and so was I, to be honest with you. The only surprise for me

is that it didn't go in Englee. I thought it was going in Englee as opposed to

Conche, but when I looked at the poll numbers I noticed that the member for the

area didn't poll that great in Englee in the last election. I guess that is

the reason it went in Conche and not in Englee. Anyway, that remains to be seen.

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that there was no issue around capacity. When

these licenses were transferred, when these licenses were reactivated, there was

no issue. The issue came in one case, and that was the case of Beothic Fish and

their proposal to put a shrimp plant in Valleyfield. I am not the only one who

feels this way. The member for the area feels this way. I have all of his

transcripts from all of his interviews, who figures he was done in by his own

government, figures he was done in by his government. How sad is that, Mr.

Speaker? What is sadder, he is sitting around to take it. That is what is

sadder, Mr. Speaker, sitting around to take the punishment, because I certainly

would not be taking the punishment.

Mr. Speaker, the people in that area feel that way. They feel that government

has been unreasonable in dealing with a number of their issues. This is not the

first issue in this area where people started to pin their hopes on a new

industry. They were pinning their hopes on a cranberry industry and where did

that go? Nowhere! New Brunswick the next plant is going, not in Valleyfield.

They pinned their hopes on a new shrimp plant, where did that go? That got

squashed and put in the garbage can as soon as it entered the executive office

of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. That was the end of that issue.

So you talk about building industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You

talk about encouraging businesses to go out and do something, and when they go

through all of this, go through all of the process, then they get squashed, then

they get turned down, they get sent away. So it can become very discouraging,

there is not doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of other things going on in the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, one of the departments that we dealt with in the

Estimates. The licensing processing board is just one of those issues. The other

issue that we are dealing with this week is the price of crab. There are people

out there in the industry who say the final selection process for the pricing of

raw material in the fishery in this Province was the proper way to go, but it

got scrapped. It got scrapped by the government opposite about a year or so ago

when we went to this new process, this pricing commission for the pricing of

fish products in the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem right away.

So much so, that the processors in the Province, a number of them, I do not know

how many of them, I only know I have talked to three myself. So I know that

there are at least three that are very upset by what is going on, but I

understand that there are many more. You look at three of these processors that

may operate 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the processing capacity

in the Province as well. Mr. Speaker, they are not happy with the way the prices

have evolved.

If you talk to the fishermen, because I have had calls from harvesters as

well, and they are not happy with the way the pricing has evolved. They do not

think they are getting paid enough money. They think that the people who went

out and fished in the last month and got $1.55 a pound got the best deal or the

better deal in the crab industry. Now we are getting down to a lot of the

smaller fleet under forty-five, under thirty-five foot fleets that are getting

ready to go out fishing and they certainly feel that they are being taken for

granted, that all of a sudden I have to go out and get a lower price for my

product. So there is no doubt about it, there is no one on either side of this

argument, when it comes to the pricing of crab in the Province today, who is

happy with it. I am sure the minister is not happy with it. I am sure he is not

happy at all, probably not even happy with the pricing commission that made the

decision because they have left the problem directly in his lap to deal with. It

does have to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

Almost every year in this Province we run into this problem, run into a

problem with regard to the start up in the industry with regard to the prices.

Whether it is on shrimp, whether it is on lobster, whether it is on crab, it

seems like, Mr. Speaker, as sure as a pan of ice is going to move off the shores

in this Province that we are going to have a war on prices in the fishing

industry. That is the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the other side of it is this; we have a very short season when

it comes to crab. We have a short season to land it on the shores. We are

restricted by DFO regulations and therefore, if it cannot be fished and landed

in that period of time, it is the plant workers in the Province that suffer. It

is the plant workers that suffer. They are always caught in the middle of the

disputes between the union represented fisherpeople and the processing sector. I

absolutely sympathize with them, Mr. Speaker, I do. I do sympathize with them

because it is almost like they are caught in the middle of the war and they are

held hostage all the time until solutions can be found in that industry.

I know today, Mr. Speaker, that there are plant workers in this Province that

are depending upon that crab being landed at the wharf in order to get

employment, in order to qualify for employment income over the winter months,

and they cannot do anything about it. They have to wait for this situation to be

worked out, and the ones that are left to work it out is the government. It is

the government. It is the minister responsible for labour and the Minister of

Fisheries that have to have this issue resolved, and prices that are agreeable

and that both the harvesters and the processors can live with. If not, the

biggest losers in all of this will be the plant workers; there is no doubt about

that.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are hoping that this will get resolved and it will get

resolved quickly, because we also know that many of the boats that are out there

fishing today are going to be landing in the next few days and over the weekend.

Once they land they are not going to be able to get bait and ice to go back out,

and that means they are going to have to tie up. We cannot afford to have this

industry that is worth well over hundreds of millions of dollars in this

Province shut down and tied up. We cannot have that. So the pressure will be on

government over the weekend to deal with the committee, to deal with the price

setting panel, to deal with the union, to deal with the processor reps to get

this issue resolved and to come to an agreement that is acceptable to all.

Mr. Speaker, there are always issues in the fishing industry; there is no

doubt about it. Always issues in the fishing industry and, you know, I think

that is one of the challenges. One of the tremendous challenges of that industry

and it results from the challenge of raw material, of oftentimes not having the

supply of raw material that you would like to have in the industry to do the

work that you need to do.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of progress made in the aquaculture

industry. I recognize that, and I recognize the role that the government

opposite has played in doing that. I think it is important to invest in

industries like this to get it off the ground. I really do. In fact, I have

looked at some of the things that they have invested in, and I have seen the

results. I have seen the employment that they have created in communities on the

Connaigre Peninsula and the benefits that it is bringing to people in those

particular communities, but you cannot forget the traditional fishing industry

as well. You cannot forget it while you are out there investing millions of

dollars in partnerships with aquaculture companies to invest in our Province. We

never see that kind of partnership and investing with the traditional fishing

industry in this Province. We have never seen it.

In fact, today, if there is a processor in this Province who is operating in

a small rural area and creating 200 jobs who needs to re-modify their plant or

buy new equipment they cannot come to the government and get that kind of

support and partnership. Yet, Mr. Speaker, you can get aquaculture companies,

like Cooke Aquaculture that came in from New Brunswick, where government has

piled millions and millions and millions into partnering with them to develop

the aquaculture industry. That is great. That is great!. All I am saying is that

you should be investing in the traditional fishing industry as well. If you were

investing more in it maybe then harvesters would be getting a better price for

their lobster or their crab or their shrimp or their whelk or their scallops,

Mr. Speaker, because it is all relevant.

Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is one of the industries that we talked

about during those Estimates, and one of the other pieces I want to touch on is

with the sealing industry. In fact, I watched the interview by Mr. Jack Troake

from out in Twillingate and, honest to God, it almost broke my heart because

this is a man whose name has been synonymous with the sealing industry in this

Province for as long as I can remember. I remember hearing his name when I was a

young girl growing up on the Coast of Labrador in a fishing community, because

the sealing boats from the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland would always come up

the Coast of Labrador to seal in the spring of the year, Mr. Speaker. I grew up

in a fishing family and so it was always the talk. I remember every meal I sat

down to with the Fisherman's Broadcast at 5:00 or 5:30 in the evening.

I watched Mr. Troake a couple of nights ago, when he did his interview on the

sealing industry, and you know there has to be pain. There has to be pain and

emotion that these people feel. This has been a lifetime industry for them; a

lifetime industry. It has not been a hobby. It has not been a fly-by-night

campaign to just fight off a few animal welfare people. It has been a way of

life. It has been an industry. It has been a job. It has been an income. It is a

part of who they are and what they do.

Mr. Speaker, these people understand the impacts of closing the sealing

industry better than anyone else, better than any person who could ever sit in

the European Union, because they know how the ecosystem works. They know the

pattern and the cycle, Mr. Speaker, that fish take in this Province, and they

also know that if you do not have a hunt in the seal hunt, it means that other

species will be destroyed. They know the impact that it is going to have on the

ground fish industry, on the capelin and on the cod. They also know that if we

do not harvest and hunt those seals that a few years from now I am going to have

people out there talking about how the cod stock is diminishing even more, how

the capelin stocks are going down, and the herring and mackerel, Mr. Speaker.

They know that it is all a part of the ecosystem in which they work and operate

as fisher people, and they know that once you take one of those species out of

the food chain it has an impact on all the rest of them. I would take my advice

and authority from one of them any day, Mr. Speaker - any day! - on what the

real implications of this could be. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, the decision that was taken by the European Union is an

unfortunate one, one that will impact rural Newfoundland and Labrador, one that

will impact our Aboriginal peoples, our traditional fishers, our traditional

hunters, and one that will impact those people, Mr. Speaker, who have invested

money over the years to build seal oil plants, to process seal oil capsules, to

process seal meat and products and to develop the fur industry. All of these

people are now going to be impacted and they were people who built the industry

for the fishermen, for the seal hunters, so they would have a place to sell

their product, so they would have a market, so they would have a demand for what

they were supplying. These companies have invested a lot of money, Mr. Speaker,

they have put a lot of work into research and development, and they have done a

good job at developing a first-class quality industry in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, more so than ever we have to depend, today, upon the federal

government of this country to make our case at the World Trade Organization.

That is our only hope to overcome the decisions of the European Union and to

again restore confidence and legitimacy to this industry, to this honest

industry that people have depended upon.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that on this issue, which is so important to the

people of this Province, that government will work with the federal government,

that they will be a helping hand, a supporter and an active lobbyist, in

partnership with them, to bring a strong case forward to the World Trade

Organization, to bring a strong case forward on behalf of the sealing industry

in this Province and in the country, because I know how important it is to those

who have been dependent upon it for most of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that it is hard to compete with the propaganda of

lobbyists. It is hard to compete with the international organizations and the

animal welfare groups that see only what they want to see, talk of only what

they want to talk, who have misled people around the world with their falsehoods

and their propaganda and their misinformation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope they can sleep with themselves at night, and that they

are not afraid; that they can rest easy knowing what deceitful tactics they have

pulled on the people of this Province and the people of Canada who have been

involved in the seal hunt all of their lives; because there was nothing, in

their opinion, that could stand in the way of a good misled, misrepresented

story of the seal hunt in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know how tough it was to fight those kinds of campaigns. It is

hard enough to fight campaigns that are built on fact. It is hard enough to

fight issues that are built on real information, but when you have to fight the

animal welfare groups when their campaigns are built on falsehoods and

misinformation and non-factual, incorrect allegations, I know then that it

becomes twice as hard to do so.

The other issue in the fishing industry that we dealt with in the Estimates

Committee and it is very important, of tremendous concern to the people in the

Province, was the announcement that was made by the minister back in the fall

that they would look at an early retirement program for fish plant workers in

the Province, a program that they were going to do on their federal fisheries

renewal program, which is a federal partnership program that they have signed

with the federal government where they get a certain amount of money to put into

fisheries renewal. The Province puts up 30 per cent of the money, I think it is,

and the feds put up 70 per cent of the money.

Mr. Speaker, they were looking at an early retirement program. We had

questioned the minister on this program in the Estimates Committee, and he said

that he was waiting for a proposal from the industry, that they had partnered

with industry to look at how they can best retire people in the processing

sector of the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, from what we understand - and maybe we will get more information

as time goes on - is that the union will work with the government, identify

processing plants in the Province where there is an aging workforce, and they

will target that particular operation and the workers in that operation for an

early retirement program.

It is not going to be a program whereby, right across the board, if you are a

fish plant worker and you are over the age of fifty-five or over the age of

sixty, therefore you can fill out an application and qualify for an early

retirement program. Our understanding is that is not the case, and that people

will be selected based on the plant they work in, which tells me a couple of

things. Are they going to be targeting plants for closure and, in targeting

plants for closure in this Province, they are prepared to provide a retirement

program to workers in that plant? We do not know these things. I guess the union

will have a role in identifying for government which of these plants that they

think that people should be retired from. That is the only thing I know, and

maybe we will get more information.

Mr. Speaker, what we did find out is that they have asked the industry to

submit a proposal, that government will review the proposal and look at whether

they will allocate money under the fisheries renewal program for early

retirement. The only thing I do know is that it will not be a program whereby

everyone over a certain age who works in a plant will be able to apply and

retire. That was confirmed for us.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be interesting to see how this rolls out, because

I would think that any plants that are selected to meet this early retirement

criteria are going to be plants where either they are going to want to phase

them out altogether and close them down, or are going to be plants where they

are going to want to amalgamate them with other plants or other companies within

the system. We will have to find out how this is all going to work.

MR. HEDDERSON: A point of order.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: I was listening to the hon. member and I don't mean

to take away from your time, and I don't know if you want me to get on my feet

to give you a break or give you a glass of water, but again I caution the

member. You are talking about early retirement and so on and so forth, and just

to be clear, that was a program that we were entering into with regard to the

federal government. The federal government haven't come through on it, and the

union has put forth, perhaps, another alternative to it. Of course, any proposal

that comes in, as I have indicated we would be only too glad, as a government,

to look at it, but without any commitments at this particular time.

It would not necessarily be about early retirement or plants closing down or

amalgamations or whatever. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is the work force, and I think

it would be more around recruitment, retention, and dealing with the challenges

that that industry has in recruiting and retaining workers, part of which deals

with older workers.

I just wanted that point of clarification.

MR. SPEAKER (Felix Collins): Order, please!

Is the minister posing a point of order?

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: If he didn't propose a point of order, I would have lost the

rest of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you heard it here first, you got it all from the minister that

time in great detail. Obviously, it is a concept that a lot of people in the

processing sector in the Province are looking forward to, and it will be

unfortunate if the federal government does not come forward with their share of

the money.

I know, from just traveling around the Province, we do have a lot of people

in our processing sector working in our fish plants who are over the age of

sixty, and would like nothing more than to be able to retire a couple of years

early. It is not easy work, Mr. Speaker, so if there was a way that this program

could be implemented I am sure it would be very well received in the industry.

We will have to see what happens on the federal government's side. The new

senator, Mr. Speaker, in the federal government comes from a fishing riding. The

federal ambassador is from a fishing district. He served in the House of

Assembly and represented the fishing industry. Maybe between Senator Manning and

Ambassador Sullivan we might be able to get the money delivered to the fishing

industry in the Province, so that we can get a retirement program going. They

should know better than anyone the dependency on that program after representing

ridings and districts that have been highly dependent upon the industry for so

long. Maybe there needs to be some calls go out to them and some meetings with

them. I am sure they have a lot of persuasive powers in the federal Cabinet, a

lot of persuasive powers in the federal government. So maybe they will be able

to deliver on some of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of most of our discussion that we had around

the fishery sector in our Estimates. Of course, we dealt also with other

departments, as I said, forestry and agrifoods, oil and gas, mining and energy

development. So, there was a broad

section and, unfortunately, the fishery has

taken up a lot of my time but I will attempt to try and get through the others

as we go along.

Mr. Speaker, in the forest industry actually, I was watching the other

night, I just saw it when I was - I do not know if I was watching the news or

something else. I saw this commercial come on TV for a program that they are

doing on living within 100 kilometres. How you live within 100 kilometres, in

terms of the food supply. Apparently, they are doing a program: What is

available in your area? I think this is really important because agriculture is

all about sustaining communities and people from a food source, and that is what

it is all about.

Now, I have not seen the program, I do not know if others have seen it, but I

would like to at some point, at least get an opportunity to watch one episode of

it because I found it very interesting. I think it would be interesting to take

that challenge right here in our own Province, to see if there was some kind of

a catastrophe in trade, in export, in import, in the world, and you were cut off

and you had to live within a 100 kilometre radius on the natural foods that were

grown and sown and harvested in that area. How many regions of our Province

could actually do that?

I found it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and it would probably be an

educational factor for people too, to encourage more people to get involved with

the agriculture sector, to grow their own vegetables and fruits, and to farm

their own beef and chicken and turkey, and all these kinds of things, or at

least encourage more people to do it commercially so that you have areas of the

Province that are being sustained from a food supplies perspective. So, I have

to keep my eyes open for the program and see if there is an opportunity to watch

it.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some things happening in the agriculture industry

and also in the fur farming industry. In fact, I have seen a lot of jobs created

in my own district because of the fur industry. In fact, in the last couple of

years we have had two mink farms open in the district and now we are having a

fox farm open in the district. So, we are into all the fur up there. We have the

seal, the fox, the mink, so we are doing pretty good. It has created a lot of

jobs and it is a good industry. It is an industry that is controlled from an

environmental perspective. It is an industry that still has some demand in terms

of the product and it is one that is deriving benefits to smaller rural

communities in the Province. I think there is something like over twenty fur

farms right now across Newfoundland and Labrador and I think almost all of them

are located in smaller regions of the Province and are contributing to the

economy of those regions. So, that industry just in itself has been one of the

newer additions in the Province in certain areas in the last few years.

Minister, I am going to talk about the forest industry because this is one of

the industries that really causes me tremendous sadness. It does. The forest

industry is not unlike the fishery. It was like one of the foundation industries

for the Province. How many of us know, growing up, the stories of how our

fathers and grandfathers went into the woods, worked in the logging industry and

so on? It is such a part of our history. It is such a part of who we are

throughout this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate today that we have a forest industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador that has basically collapsed, and not because of raw

material but because of the short-sighted visions of expanding the industry over

the years. The opportunity was not there. The encouragement was not there for

new growth. I guess, like a lot of parts of the country and North America, we

put all of our dependency into single source industries, like the pulp and paper

mills. I know there are a lot of people in this Province today who are finding

it very, very difficult because of the changes that have occurred in the forest

industry.

I know on the Northern Peninsula, for example, it was only a couple of days

ago I talked to an individual there who told me they were leaving the end of May

to go to Alberta; one of the ones who is still finding work up there with a

private contractor. This is an individual who would have worked in the forest

industry for a number of years, but right now, today, they have nowhere to sell

their wood. They have no market for their fibre.

There are a number of companies in the Roddickton, Englee, right down through

the Northern Peninsula, Hawkes Bay, Port Saunders, all of that area - I am sure

my colleagues who represent those districts will know exactly who I am talking

about - who have invested a lot of money. I have talked to some of them who have

had huge investments in equipment, in harvesters and in skidders, trucks and

flatbeds and all of those kinds of things that you use in harvesting wood. They

have invested in these things over the last three or four years, some of them a

little bit longer. Now, all of a sudden, they have nothing to do with this

equipment. They have nowhere to use it, and that is unfortunate because they are

sitting right next door to huge timber stands. They would like nothing more than

to be able to go out and harvest that wood, to be loading it on, to be taking it

out to a market but the market has been exasperated because the by-product of

their industry was the pulpwood. They could always offload it in Stephenville or

in Grand Falls. That is not the case today. They do not have those options

today.

There has to be new markets developed for the by-product. They will still use

their logs in the lumber industry. They will still do small scale production in

the processing of wood and fibre, but you still have to have somewhere else to

offload all of the by-product and if you do not, your operations are not going

to be feasible. I found that out in my own district where I had two huge sawmill

operators creating thirty, forty jobs in the communities. Mr. Speaker, the day

that