Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 5 June 2007 (45th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLV No. 24)
2007-06-05
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June 5, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 24
The House met at l:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon I would like to welcome twenty-six Grade 6 students from St.
Bonaventure's College in St. John's, in the District of St. John's East,
along with their teacher, Ms Linda Little, and parents Linda Jackman and Carolyn
Skinner.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the
District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of
Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the
hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and, the hon.
the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the provincial
Enterprise Education Olympics in Gander. At this event, more than 100 high
school students from throughout Newfoundland and Labrador showcased their
business skills and plans in projects that have been under development for the
past year.
Mr. Speaker, I have always known that our students are a remarkable group of
young people, but I was still amazed at how well-researched, creative and
professional each of their projects was. There was a pet memorial service called
Beyond Your Pet. There was a stationary service called Kloud Nine, and a music
company called Loud Distribution.
These are just a sample of the businesses these young people created, but is
indicative of the ingenuity of our students. Each and every student demonstrated
real commitment and knowledge about their business creations - and these were
more than simple projects. Many of these students are successfully marketing
their projects and making good money from their endeavours as we speak.
I would like to acknowledge the sponsors of Enterprise Olympics who recognize
that this event was more than a weekend away from home - it is an incubator of
entrepreneurial success. In particular, I want to thank the Newfoundland and
Labrador Credit Union for their generous contribution to this worthwhile
competition. I also want to thank the YM-YWCA, the main sponsor for this
Enterprise Olympics for thirteen years. Without them, there would be no
Enterprise Olympics.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the teachers throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Their support and commitment is critical in ensuring
the success of this important program.
Through Enterprise Education, students have learned that there are diverse
opportunities in this Province. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is truly an
entrepreneur's dream. If the past weekend is any indication, these young
people will capitalize on these opportunities. They will be our innovators.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this weekend I met the future
business leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask all members of this House
to join with me in celebrating their talent and resourcefulness. We wish them
very success into post-secondary and beyond.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to extend congratulations to the Town of Harbour Grace for the
upcoming seventy-fifth anniversary of Amelia Earhart's solo flight across the
Atlantic Ocean in 1932.
The people of Harbour Grace have good reason to celebrate this milestone in
aviation history. It was from the grassy airfield on a plateau above the
historic Conception Bay town that Earhart took off on May 20, 1932. The next
day, she made history when she landed in a bog in Northern Ireland to become the
first female to make a solo transatlantic flight.
Mr. Speaker, visitors cruising along Veterans Memorial Highway pass within a
few feet of the airfield where that and many more other historic flights
originated, without knowing how close they are to such an historic site, but all
of that is about to change this summer when a monument is unveiled to Earhart
about a kilometre west of the airfield.
The Town of Harbour Grace has purchased two acres of land for the development
of an Amelia Earhart Park near the intersection of Veterans Memorial and the
access road which connects the highway to Harvey Street West.
Mr. Speaker, a statue, donated through the generosity of Mr. Roger Pike, will
be the centrepiece for the park and will be unveiled July 24. Earhart was born
on that date in 1897, and would have turned 110 on that date this year.
The statue unveiling in July will kick off four days of festivities, which
will wind up with the 145 th running of the Harbour Grace Regatta on
Lady Lake, just north of the airfield.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to the organizing committee and the celebrations commencing the
seventy-fifth anniversary of the flight for the first woman, Amelia Earhart, to
fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Bradley Doyle, a Level
III student at Mobile Central High School.
As part of Bradley's curriculum in a Level III course, he was required to
develop a business venture on his own; both develop and execute the plan through
a business proposal. The seventeen-year-old took on the venture of organizing
the first ever Antique and Muscle Car Show at the Southern Shore Arena from May
26 to May 27.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the show at the Southern Shore
Arena on Saturday, May 26 and viewed the various vintage cars, including a 1967
Dodge Dart GT, 53 Mercury M100 and a 65 Pontiac Grand Prix, just to name a few.
It was indeed an impressive show in excess of twenty cars and trucks.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed evident that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive
and well in our rural communities and I congratulate Bradley Doyle on his
initiative and ingenuity that he applied as a Grade 12 student at Mobile Central
High.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all members to join with me in congratulating Bradley
on his business initiative to organize and run a car show as part of his high
school curriculum.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the dedication of the
Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care Unit at the Connaigre Peninsula Community Health
Care Centre at Harbour Breton. I was able to share in the dedication ceremony
with the Board of Directors, management and staff of the Central Regional Health
Authority; management and staff of the local Health Centre; husband, Edward, and
daughter, Gina, and other family members, friends and co-workers of the late
Dorothy Johnston.
Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Johnston was a pillar for developing the health care
system in the Coast of Bays Region. She began her working career as a staff
nurse, was recognized as a leader and advanced in her career becoming Director
of Nursing, and later Senior Operating Officer. The development and provision of
primary health care to the region was a final focus of Dorothy's working
career.
Dorothy was dedicated to providing appropriate health care facilities and
services to those she served. In recent years, as she fought her long-term
battle with cancer, Dorothy remained steadfast in her position and became a
strong advocate and supporter for cancer patients and survivors in the region.
Mr. Speaker, it will be one year ago tomorrow that Dorothy succumbed to her
battle with cancer at the young age of forty-four. However, her impact and
presence remains very strong in the health care system, the communities she
served and the entire Central Newfoundland region.
For those of us that had the pleasure of knowing her, the dedication of the
Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care Unit is indeed a wonderful tribute of her
endless dedication to the provision health care services and support for cancer
patients and survivors throughout the entire region.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me to thank those that
played a role to allow for the dedication of the Dorothy Johnston Long Term Care
Unit. May we all be inspired with the fond and loving memories that remain of
the late Dorothy Johnston.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the owners and
operators of Sunset RV Park in Argentia.
On Friday, June 1, I attended the official opening of Sunset RV Park situated
in Argentia overlooking the waters of Placentia Bay.
This park is not only scenically situated, but strategically as well, to
accommodate the RV traffic from the Marine Atlantic Ferry. It is a
state-of-the-art facility containing forty sites, fully serviced with water and
sewer and 30 amp electrical service.
It has a full comfort station with washrooms and showers and has immediate
access to the Argentia Driving Range and the Argentia Backlands Walking Trails.
Sunset Park is owned by the Argentia Management Authority and operated by
David and Susan Bartlett, who are also the owners and operators of Fitzgerald's
Pond Park. The development of the RV Park was funded by the Argentia Management
Authority and built by Edward Collins Contracting Ltd.
Mr. Speaker, the Bartletts already have confirmation for over 800 nights in
total for both parks for this season and already have over 100 reservations for
next season.
Sunset RV Park will greatly enhance the development of tourism in the
Placentia area and reflects the ongoing contribution of the private and local
sectors in driving our tourism industry.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the A.M.A., and also
David and Susan Bartlett, and wish them every success in their endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express a sincere thank you to the
Southern Antique Classics Car Club for their contributions to the residents of
the Burin Peninsula.
On June 16 and 17 the Southern Classics Antique Car Club will host their
fourteenth annual antique classic car show: Classies 2007, at the Marystown
Arena. Participants in Classies 2007 will travel to the Burin Peninsula from all
over the Province generating much needed business to the local economy.
Since 1993 this event has allowed the Antique Car Club to donate in excess of
$70,000 to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre and other local charities. The
club has pledged to again donate proceeds from this year's scheduled car show
to the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in showing
appreciation to the members of the Southern Classics Car Club for their
continued dedication and commitment to improving health care on the Burin
Peninsula.
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce that Ms
Dana Martin of Queen's Cove is the provincial winner of the Canadian
Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. Dana is an
eighteen-year-old high school student who will be attending Memorial University
in the fall. Winners from each Province and territory will be awarded a $750
prize.
Dana was one of 12,000 young people from across Canada who entered the
contest during April to prove their financial fitness knowledge through a series
of on-line questions. The challenge was open to Canadians age fifteen to
twenty-one years old. Participants were asked questions and provided information
on budgeting, saving and investing, and they were encouraged to learn more about
smart financial practices through our other Web sites.
Mr. Speaker, the success of this contest again this year shows that our young
people are taking more and more interest in their financial knowledge, and that
is encouraging. Contests such as the Financial Fitness Challenge are designed to
raise awareness about positive and healthy financial practices, and by targeting
young people we are ensuring that, as adults, they will use and follow the
responsible investing behaviour they learn now.
Even through the contest is now over, I encourage anyone interested in
learning about sound financial practices to visit the Web site www.financialfitnesschallenge.ca
for further information. As well, I want to ensure anyone who missed a chance to
enter this year's contest, or did not win, that the Canadian Securities
Administrators will offer the contest again next year. I would encourage all
young people to take advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dana for her success, and I am sure that all hon.
members will join with me in wishing her all the best for the future. I am
confident that Dana will have a bright future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
The members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, join with her in
congratulating Ms Dana Martin for her achievement. We also acknowledge the
efforts of the Canadian Securities Administrators for putting this contest in
place, even though it is an on-line program. It certainly gives everybody the
opportunity, from ages fifteen to eighteen, to become involved. It is never too
late to learn about managing your own financial assets wisely.
Mr. Speaker, again, I want to congratulate Dana and wish her all the best in
her future endeavours. May her future at Memorial be bright and successful.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for her advance copy.
I am quite pleased, also, to congratulate Ms Dana Martin. The minister
mentions others who took part and did not win. I would like to say
congratulations to them for taking part, and hopefully they will work at this
again.
The important thing is not the winning, though Dana did win and there is a
winner, but the important thing is the participation. I thank the minister for
bringing this to our attention.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I received a letter from a constituent who
writes to say: In 2001 I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and in February 2001
received radiation and tamoxifen. Could you direct me or tell me if all our
samples were retested? I have not been contacted, but I think we should all have
been contacted to reassure us. I am concerned, if the positives were not
retested, how many of them could have been wrong. It is a concern to me. Was my
treatment the right one?
Mr. Speaker, today I ask the minister, given the seriousness of this
situation, and the uncertainty surrounding it for all women in this Province who
have had breast cancer, I ask the Minister of Health: Why isn't it that all
women who have breast cancer were not contacted to alleviate their fears if, in
fact, they know that they have had breast cancer and at the end of the day they
do not know whether or not they were positive or negative, or whether they are
all being retested?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House several
times, and Eastern Health have communicated continuously on a public basis, in
2005, in July 2005, when they realized they had some difficulties with the ER/PR
test procedures and the test results that were coming out, they, in fact,
started a process to redo all of the negative tests. So, all of those tests that
showed they were negative were redone, and they were all sent out of the
Province for the retesting process.
As has been communicated by Eastern Health to members opposite and to the
general public, in the fall of 2005, in October 2005, all of those individuals
who were in that category were, in fact, contacted, whether their test results
came back as having had a false negative, or that their treatment had changed,
but that process of contacting all of those individuals who had their negative
tests redone were contacted in the fall of 2005.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what world the minister is living
in, but I can tell him that there are women out there who had negative tests
done who, in fact, some of them have not been contacted as of today.
Obviously, this lady had positive test results and she is still concerned
because she is asking the question as well: How do I know if my results were the
right results?
I am saying to the minister: Isn't it time that the Department of Health
and Eastern Health, and any other health care board in this Province, get
involved and look at both the positive results that were done as well as the
negative ones, and let these people know. Let's do away with the uncertainty.
They are under a great deal of stress and they do need to know.
Mr. Speaker, on two occasions in this House the Minister of Health said that
patients affected by the review of the radiologist's work at the Burin
Peninsula Regional Health Care Centre will be contacted directly once the report
is reviewed.
I ask the minister: Now that thousands of reports have been reviewed, will
you tell us how many of these reports contain errors, and if all of the patients
affected have been contacted as he said they would be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I understand it, based on a release by Eastern Health today, and if you
look at the Web site, they indicate that as of 9:00 a.m. on June 4 they have
approximately 3,300 reports completed. As I understand, the process, which I
outlined in this House, was that as the radiologists read the reports they are
reporting directly back to the physicians who requisitioned the reports and
they, in fact, are making contact with their individual patients.
The member asked, what has been the outcome of those test results? Eastern
Health are obviously providing that profile to me so I will have a better
understanding of what their findings were as a result of those retest processes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: So, Mr. Speaker, we do not know, at this point, if all of those
who have been reviewed have, in fact, been contacted directly. The minister has
said it is going through their physicians, and the physicians will contact them.
Well, that is part of the problem we are finding here, Mr. Speaker, that in a
lot of cases these physicians may have retired, they may have left the Province,
so who is going to contact these individuals if, in fact, that is the case?
Mr. Minister, today the deadline has passed, the ten day deadline that you
gave Eastern Health to have these results completed, so I am asking you: What is
the new deadline?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so I can speak to the point the member
raised first in her
preamble, I want to make it abundantly clear that all of
those individuals, forgetting where their physicians may have moved out of the
area, or something like that has happened, any of those individuals, of that
group that was done by this particular radiologist, as their exams are reread,
their reports are being sent back to their family physicians. If their family
physician is no longer practicing in that region, the health authority itself
has those files and they are being sent back; those reports are being sent back
to the health centre. The health centre and Eastern Health Authority have
assumed the full responsibility to ensure each and every one of those
individuals are contacted.
Obviously, the family physician who is dealing with the patient is in the
most appropriate position to be able to make some adjustments in treatment, if
necessary, and to have that kind of dialogue with respect to the patient's
ongoing treatment, if necessary, so it is appropriate that the family physician
be brought into that process.
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the physician has moved on, then Eastern Health will make sure that they
have that responsibility taken care of.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health are on target to have this done by the
end of this week and they have indicated that they are going to be able to
comply with that kind of deadline.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are a lot of issues in health care in this Province, and what has
happened with the faulty hormone receptor testing is but one of them. What is
happening with the radiologists is certainly another, whether it is on the Burin
Peninsula or now in Gander as we are hearing. Understaffing is another issue
that was raised by medical professionals at this weekend's NLMA convention. We
have already heard from nurses who are upset. The government stripped their sick
leave and salary benefits. Now we hear directly from the medical association
that similar wage and benefits issues are not helping the recruitment and
retention of doctors. This has led to understaffing, and understaffing may have
been one of the main factors leading to incorrect testing results.
I ask the minister: Why is your government willing to sit idly by and
implement wage freezes and sick leave reductions while our health care system is
bleeding its top professionals to the mainland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House several times in
the last couple of weeks, this Province today has the highest number of
physicians that we have had in our history. In this Province today, we have one
of the better nurse to population ratios that exist in this entire country. Each
of our health authorities have had some degree of success in continuing to
recruit physicians and continuing to recruit nurses.
This year Eastern Health, as I understand it - Eastern Health and one other
authority, I think it was - have recruited a total of 160 new nurses in recent
months. They have been able to convert some 200 casual nurses to permanent
nurses, enhancing the
schedule and enhancing the working conditions of nurses in
this Province. I tabled in this House the other day a list of nurse positions
that we have recruited in this Province. We have seen increases in the total
overall percentage of nurses today versus when we formed government three years
ago, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, each of our authorities have had some degree of
success in recruiting nurses. The ability to able to recruit and retain -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Recruitment and retention is always a significant issue for health
authorities today, not only in this Province but right across the country. We
are not unique in that set of circumstances, I say, Mr. Speaker, but we have had
some degree of success with that and we will continue to have successes. I
indicated earlier -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. minister of the protocol we follow, in that we attempt to
keep our answers to one minute.
The Chair passes it back to the hon. Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only assume from the minister's answers that as far as he is
concerned, the concerns that were raised at the NLMA convention this weekend
were inaccurate. We are talking about doctors and nurses who are on the
frontline, Minister. They know what is going on. I do not know what you are
being told, but clearly, to talk about things like, it is better than ever, is
not good enough. The fact of the matter is, there is a shortage in our Province
and it is part of the issue, part of the problem, I think, why we are seeing the
results that we are seeing today in our health care sector and why women today
are faced with such uncertainty, and other people as well, with what is going on
in terms of tests.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are a lot of problems in our health
care system and the root of these problems can be directly traced to staffing
shortages and the lack of state-of-the-art equipment. We have heard the minister's
political answers, as we just did, in trying to blame everyone else but himself
for these shortfalls.
I ask the minister: Are you and this government willing to take any
responsibility for the problems that are currently plaguing our health care
system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, our government is prepared to take full credit
for the investment we have made in health care in recent years. This past year,
I think we had a 10.2 per cent increase in our Budget for health care, the
second highest in this entire country, second only to Alberta. Last year, again,
a ten-point-something percent increase in our health budget. We will take credit
for that, I say, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen increases in the total overall percentage of social workers we
have in this Province, an increase in the total overall number of physicians we
have in this Province and an increase in the total overall number of nurses we
have in this Province, since we formed government.
We will take credit also for the announcement we made in this year's Budget
to build a new facility in Labrador City. We will take credit for having made
the announcement to redo the facility in Flower's Cove. We will take credit
for what we are doing up in Grand Bank. We will take credit for the investment
we are making in Clarenville. We will take credit for the investment we are
making in Corner Brook.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: We will take credit for the investment we are making in
Grand Falls-Windsor. We will take credit for the investment we are making to
Gander. We will take credit for all of those investments, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, talk about playing politics with our health care
system and the people of this Province. This is not about taking credit,
minister, this is about taking responsibility for your inaction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: The Minister of Health has been the Parliamentary Secretary of
Health and the Minister since 2003. As we are now aware, many issues in our
health care system were kept silent by this minister and are now finally
becoming public.
I ask the Premier: Instead of using a deputy minister for a scapegoat, why
are you not demanding the resignation of this minister who, obviously, cannot
handle this health portfolio?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Let's make sure we understand what we are talking about
here. The member opposite is contributing to the fearmongering that I have been
alluding to in this House many times. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, we have is
a quality program. All the members opposite need to do, if they are interested
in finding out what happened this weekend - did the member opposite read the
editorial in The Telegram this weekend? If you look at the editorial in The
Telegram this weekend, I say, Mr. Speaker, look at what it says.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: Look at what the editorial said this weekend. The editorial
in The Telegram this weekend acknowledged that we have capable, competent
people in our health system, providing quality programming and we have an
excellent health system. We have dedicated and committed people in this
Province. We have people who are making a difference in the lives of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have people in our system today who are
making a difference in the quality of life for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
For the member opposite or anyone else to stand in this House and to try to
suggest -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the Chair asks the minister to follow protocol of the House.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Minister, it is not fearmongering when you get a letter from
your constituent asking you: Where do I turn, because I cannot get the answers?
I have not been contacted.
You can stand and take all the credit you want for who is in the health care
system, but it is of no credit to you. You have been there since 2003, either as
a Parliamentary Secretary or a minister, and what have you done? Absolutely
nothing! It is time the Premier asked for your resignation instead of using a
deputy minister as a scapegoat.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: In the absence of a question, she had an opportunity for a
speech, so I guess I will get an opportunity for a speech as well.
Mr. Speaker, very clearly, at any given time in our history - if you look at
today in 2007, if you look at when they were in government in the early 1900s,
whether we go back to 1999 or 1991, or go back ten years or go back fifteen
years or go back whenever, go back at any point in time, if you look at the
history of health care in this Province, Mr. Speaker, there will always be times
when there will be issues that are challenging for the moment. What becomes
really important is not the challenge, is not the problem, but how the
leadership in the Province provides a response, I say, Mr. Speaker.
In the cases before us now, what we have seen recently, is this government
taking a very positive, very aggressive action -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the ER-PR issue, look at what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We
are coming to grips with the issue. We have called for a Commission of Inquiry -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, there certainly has been a chill hanging over the offshore oil
and gas industry since this government shelved the Hebron-Ben Nevis deal. As a
matter of fact, since this government took office we have seen the continuous
decline in exploration expenditures in our offshore. For example, in 2003 the
bids totalled over $672 million; in 2004 they dropped to $71 million; in 2005
they dropped to $39 million, and in 2006 they dropped to $32 million. The
minister knows that this year the industry has not even expressed any interest
in bidding land parcels in the highly prospective Jeanne d'Arc Basin or Orphan
Basins.
Minister, I ask you: What impact has the Premier and your government's
confrontational approach had on the oil industry's decision to not invest in
Newfoundland this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The activity in our oil fields remains very, very high. We have, in terms of
new finds, all of the fields have either doubled or tripled the amount of oil
that was originally thought to be there.
In terms of land sales, Mr. Speaker, last year, in our land sale, for the
land in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, we received the second-highest amount per
hectare than we have since 1998.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the question was regarding exploration. The
minister knows the industry has dropped in the last five years by $650 million,
at least in exploration work.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of interest has certainly cast a shadow over the future
growth of this sector. There have been no new discoveries made in our offshore
in over twenty years, and with this government's approach there may not be any
anytime soon. Unfortunately, the industry is still waiting for government's
much promised Energy Plan and natural gas royalty regime, and they are unwilling
to invest until this plan is clearly outlined.
I ask the minister: Why has government sacrificed this year's bid for calls
when the Energy Plan is ready and is only being held up for political
consideration on the verge of an election campaign?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There will be a call for bids for lands, for exploration this year. Four of
them will be off Labrador, where there is increased seismic activity, and
industry has proposed that those lands be put forward for nomination.
The Energy Plan, Mr. Speaker, is near completion. The natural gas royalty
regime, the draft regime is out to targeted industry players who have expressed
an interest in developing the gas here in the Province. They have it in their
hands and we are waiting for feedback from them.
Mr. Speaker, there is lots of good activity going on in this Province and we
are moving ahead with the development of the oil and gas industry. It is not
being hung up by the Energy Plan. The Energy Plan will be the umbrella that all
of these activities will fall under.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that four of the
parcels of land auctioned this year were located in offshore Labrador.
I would like to ask the minister: When will the natural gas royalty regime be
released publicly - I will ask her again - and what direct benefits will be
outlined in that plan to deal significantly and specifically with Labrador gas
resources and the benefits of that resource to the Labrador people?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
As I said in my previous question, the draft gas royalty regime is in the
hands of targeted industry, industrial customers who have expressed an interest
in developing gas resources off the Coast of Newfoundland and off the Coast of
Labrador. When we get those results, and get that feedback which we can
incorporate into the Energy Plan, we will be putting it out to the broader
industry and then to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As far as gas or oil exploration, whatever it is, or discovery, off Labrador,
Mr. Speaker, whatever is developed there will be done in the best interests of
the people of Labrador and the people of Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous that we still do not
have this energy and gas royalty regime plan. We have Hydro setting up an energy
corporation now and we still do not have it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question, maybe the minister can give me
an answer to this. We are aware that the drill rig Eirik Raude has left
the Province and is no longer drilling here. Maybe the minister can tell me how
many jobs are lost as a result of the Raude leaving our offshore area.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Eirik Raude spent the amount of
time that they were contracted to do, doing exploration off our coast. They were
not expected to be here any longer. As a matter of fact, they encountered a
number of technical problems, Mr. Speaker, which caused the drilling to take
twice as long as they had expected in the beginning. They have gone to review
that piece of work. Their intention is to come back and to continue that
exploration. They want to make sure that they have all the technical information
they collected thoroughly reviewed and analyzed so that they can anticipate any
challenges they might have the next time around and correct them so that
drilling gets done in an expedient way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know why the Raude is not here, because
no one has taken up exploration plots of land of the Province these days, but
the minister did not tell us how many jobs were going to be lost.
We also know that, while the Henry Goodridge is drilling today, we
have been informed by workers on that rig that they will also be leaving the
Province, that this particular rig will be leaving the Province.
I ask the minister: When is the Henry Goodridge due to leave, and how
many jobs will be lost as a result of that rig leaving the Province as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have over 17,000 people in this Province directly employed in the oil and
gas industry. It is a vibrant part of our economy. Twenty-three cents of every
dollar we earn in this Province comes from the oil and gas industry.
There is a world shortage of rigs, so contracts are extremely important. They
are extremely hard to negotiate beyond the times that they have. Mr. Speaker,
development plans are going ahead. We are in negotiations now, in discussions
now, with regard to the extension to the White Rose. We are expecting, again, an
amendment to the development plan for Hibernia South. There is significant
activity going on in the oil sector, Mr. Speaker, and we expect it to continue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have over $600 million in revenue gone in
exploration since 2003, when this government took office, we have two rigs
shutting down out there with hundreds of people getting laid off, and the
minister cannot tell me what the job loss is going to be.
Well, maybe she will tell me this: How many contracts will be lost for local
businesses in this area as a result of this slowdown in exploration work?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate when a slowdown is
incurred in any part of our economy, but the bottom line is that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians should be the principal beneficiary of any development of our
resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, since we started the development of oil
and gas in this Province, the oil companies have earned over $11 billion, the
federal government has earned $5 billion, and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador have earned just over $1 billion.
Now, anybody can do the math and figure out that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, under that scenario, are certainly not the chief beneficiaries,
the principal beneficiaries, of the development of that resource. That has
stopped. From now on, when there is development in this Province, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador will be the principal beneficiaries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Too bad the minister did not have that philosophy when she sat
around the table, giving the contract to Quebec, out in Corner Brook, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week in this House of Assembly the Minister of
Transportation and Works stated that the electrical, mechanical and steel
subcontracts related to the long-term care facility in Corner Brook were going
to be done in this Province. The minister then tabled documents that were
supposed to back up his claim. It is obvious that the minister did not read the
documents, Mr. Speaker. His own documents confirmed that the electrical,
mechanical and steel contracts were awarded to Quebec-based companies.
I ask the minister: What percentage of the $57 million contract will be done
in Quebec?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Labrador affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, yes, indeed, sir, I did table these documents in the House of
Assembly for the Member for the Bay of Islands. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to
monitor this project. This project -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair misinterpreted the member sitting. I ask the minister if he could
complete his answer quickly.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, just to complete my answer here, we are not
going to say to Air Labrador, you should not take the $25 million contract. We
are not going to say to Trans Continental, go back to Quebec. We are not going
to say to Kruger, go back to Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy
and we are not going to live in a bubble as we have for the last fifteen years
under the leadership of those on the other side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Under our time constraints the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair cannot be interfered with.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment
stated in this House that there were conciliators involved and mediation taking
place between the strikers and their employers at the Voisey's Bay mine site,
where strikers are still walking the line.
Can the government give the House an update on the conciliation process and
how much closer the two sides are to a settlement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment, I can say that the Labour Relations Agency, through its
conciliation officers or mediators, is going to continue to work with both sides
to bring together a resolution.
I certainly cannot report publicly as to where both sides are, what is going
on in these negotiations, but I can commit that the Labour Relations Agency will
remain with this situation and do what they can to bring this to a successful
resolution.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did want to know whether or not the process was still happening. I
understand not being able to give details. Thank you.
I have another question though, again for the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment.
I understand from statements that he made in the House last week that his
department will be looking at anti-replacement worker legislation through the
work of the Labour Relations Agency and the Strategic Partnership Initiative.
However, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has the responsibility to foster
a balance and equitable labour atmosphere in this process.
I ask the Minister: What is the government's position on anti-replacement
worker legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time, as the hon. Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment had indicated, there is an ongoing process, and
I think for government to speak and give a position before that process
finalizes and reports to government would be premature.
Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing process. Government certainly set up that
process and will review and analyze what information comes through there.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the minister, that if my party were
in power, people would know what our position was on anti-scab legislation.
Mr. Speaker, right now we do not have anti-replacement worker legislation, as
we know, and therefore the government is powerless when it comes to companies
bringing in replacement workers. Tension continues to grow at the Voisey's Bay
work site. United Steelworkers Local 9508 have filed another grievance because a
replacement worker unexpectedly turned off the lights once while a worker was in
an inspection conveyor tunnel, and, again, with a few seconds of warning. This
was a potentially life-threatening incident.
Will the government find a way to speak to these employers to get them to
remove all replacement workers so that the union and company can negotiate in
good faith?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated in the first answer, the Labour
Relations Agency is certainly responsible for conciliation and mediation when
there are labour disputes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. House that the Labour Relations Agency
will continue their work and will, through their medication officers, do what
they can to bring this to a successful resolution. Certainly, as mediation, they
work with both sides in an impartial way to make sure that there is a fair and
consistent manner to deal with all issues.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi asked me a question about some very specific numbers and I
agreed that I would get those for her and table those. I have them for her
today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that I will move that the House
not adjourn on Thursday, June 7, at 5:30 p.m., nor should the House adjourn on
that same date at 10:00 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answer to Questions for which Notice have been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It pleases me to deliver a petition to this hon. House on behalf of residents
of the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. It concerns a matter I raised briefly
yesterday in a response to a ministerial statement by the Minister of
Environment and Conservation, that is dealing with the use of our parks in the
Province and recent rules and regulations that were put in place concerning the
making of reservations. I guess the easiest way to explain the situation is by
reading the prayer itself. It reads:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment
and Conservation is responsible for the operation of thirty-two provincial
parks, including J.T. Cheeseman Park which is located on the outskirts of the
Town of Channel-Port aux Basques; and
WHEREAS the Department of Environment and Conservation introduced a new
reservation system this year which allows residents and visitors to make
reservations and confirm campsite availability online or via a toll-free number;
and
WHEREAS this reservation system is handled by a call centre out of the
Province of Quebec; and
WHEREAS there is a $10.60 fee associated with using this reservation system
every time you use it and which fee is not applied to the cost of your campsite;
and
WHEREAS the maximum period you can make your reservation is seven days,
therefore if someone has two or more weeks vacation they could have to relocate
to another site and definitely have to pay another $10.60 to reserve their
current or another site; and
WHEREAS there are twenty designated campsites allotted at J.T. Cheeseman Park
for drop in visitors and visitors must take one of these twenty sites and not
use one of their own choosing; and
WHEREAS the number of visitors to J.T. Cheeseman Park this year is down
drastically because of the new reservation system;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to eliminate the cost of this reservation fee, extend or
eliminate the seven day maximum time limit per campsite and let drive-in
visitors choose from whatever sites are left or convert back to the old system.
And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
It makes it pretty clear to the minister, and I mentioned this to him
yesterday, this reservation system is causing a lot of havoc. We are having an
environment week being announced this week by the minister, and here we are not
allowing our own residents of our own Province to make proper and efficient and
cheap use of the environment that we do have.
A lot of people in that particular area, for example, that is their annual
vacation, that is their relaxation, that is their recreation, to take their
trailer and pull it up to J.T. Cheeseman Park and spend the weekend with their
family and their friends.
To do that now they have to call Quebec, and pay $10.60 for the privilege of
doing it. Now, I do not know about most people who live here in the Avalon
region, but $10.60 for the reservation fee could go a long ways towards your
other social amenities on a weekend, rather than being invested into the fee
structure of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the new reservation
system is not working. It is digging into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, and it ought to be cancelled immediately.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of this Province with
regard to the shortage of doctors to serve the medical needs of the people in
many areas of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented several petitions pertaining to this issue, and
I have to say that the major concern is the retention of general practitioners
and nurses in the various areas. I have mentioned before, in the particular area
that I represent, we are going to lose two more general practitioners this
summer. The numbers of people now who do not have a general practitioner, that
list will be added to, and I can assure you that it is very difficult. Many
people have to travel here to St. John's to see a general practitioner, and
many of them have to go without one.
I guess the retention of doctors and nurses, we have heard so much in recent
days with regard to the shortage of nurses, the problems that they encounter
with regard to their vacation time and so on, I know I have brought it to this
hon. House before, when it comes to the nurses at the Carbonear General Hospital
in particular, many of those people there in the next recent years will be up to
retirement age and we have very few nurses coming on stream. Many nurses
probably are training, but many of them are leaving our Province.
Another issue with regard to the health care is, I know many people are
calling from time to time with the cost of oxygen. Many people do not get the
coverage on that. I know I have several in my area who are asking that we would
bring this to the Department of Health to have this reconsidered and see that
some of the extra cost that they have to encounter, which is a tremendous amount
- many of them, I guess, have oxygen connected twenty-four hours a day and they
have the small canisters to take with them when they do some travelling, and it
really, I guess, goes through the cost tremendously, but the main issue, Mr.
Speaker, is the retention of doctors and nurses.
I believe that the people deserve more, and I call upon the minister and the
department to make sure that whatever can be done, if we can train our doctors
and nurses here in our Province, we have to come up with a means to keep them
here so that the medical needs of our people are adequately addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise in this House to present a petition on behalf of 122 residents
of Fairhaven, in Placentia Bay, and I will read the prayer of the petition.
WHEREAS the Fairhaven Road is in a deplorable condition and in need of
repairs; and
WHEREAS this road is an important transportation route used to transport
school children and other traffic;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the
House of Assembly to urge government to find the necessary funds to repair this
road.
And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, Fairhaven is a community in Placentia Bay. Fairhaven, the
community itself, has two fish plants, and most of the people within that
community derive their living from the sea. Mr. Speaker, the students from
Fairhaven are transported by bus to the school in Chapel Arm or to Crescent
Collegiate in Blaketown, and the road is in deplorable condition. This road was
paved roughly about eighteen or nineteen years ago and we see that, with the
closing of the depots and all the things that this government has done, they
cannot even find enough asphalt to be able to fill in the potholes. I guess it
is a result of, we see the tremendous reduction that this government has done in
roadwork in this Province over the years since it got elected.
In the District of Bellevue, Mr. Speaker, this year there was roughly about
$750,000 allocated for roadwork within the district. Most of that is being used
to do bridges on the Trans-Canada and other routes within the district. Very
little of it is going into resurfacing of the roads within the district, and
Fairhaven is a road that should be on the priority list within the department to
be done. I do not know why, Mr. Speaker, the district received very, very little
in terms of - if you will check with the department - the priorities within the
roadwork. Normally, Bellevue district and Baie Verte district are number two in
terms of needs for roads.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. BARRETT: The Member for Mount Pearl can shout and bawl all he likes,
but in the District of Bellevue itself, Mr. Speaker, the provincial roads
system, there are as many kilometres of road in the District of Bellevue as
there are in the Province of P.E.I. There are a lot of roads to be done in the
District of Bellevue, and when this member got elected in 1989 there were
roughly 180 to 200 kilometres of gravel road..
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that did the road
originally in Fairhaven
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be back.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague yesterday, in my absence, presented a petition on behalf of
Ramea people on the groundfish processing licence. I am not going to read all of
the petition. I will just read the last part:
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to revisit their current position and
subsequently approve the groundfish processing licence for Ramea.
Mr. Speaker, over the eighteen years that I have been involved in provincial
politics, I can honestly say that the people of Ramea - if there is any
community that deserves a chance, they do. When I think of people like Reg
McDonald, Lesley Cutler, Mayor Lloyd Rossiter, former Mayor Wilf Cutler,
Councillor Paul Green, Clyde Dominie, Ian Stewart and others, I think of the
situation, as their member, when I went to Ramea and saw a portion of their
plant fall into the harbour. It was a feeling that I will never be able to fully
explain, what an impact it had. I know, for them, it must have been a part of
their lives that they themselves felt would be very difficult to explain.
Rather than be in a situation of despair, rather than sitting down and not
doing anything, they called the community together. They worked at it, and they
completely tore down the part of the plant that had been dilapidate, fell into
the ocean, and built a great plant out of practically nothing, with some help
from both levels of government.
To show the ingenuity, a few years before we had put a new water treatment
plant into Ramea. Through working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he
gave us the electrical system that was in the old water treatment plant. They
took that particular electrical system and put it in the fish plant. To see it,
to realize the work they had done - all free labour, by the way. People like Joe
Organ and those guys that went down, who had worked with Hydro in Ramea and
completely did this particular plant. It is really something to see. The part
that I think for the people of Ramea, and I think also it is a matter probably
for all of us to examine, Ramea is an island community. Like many of the island
communities, they are having difficulty. Ramea is no different. Once we have a
situation where we have a policy where one fits all - I do not think you will
ever have a situation where people in Ramea or in many of the other isolated
communities will ever have a fair chance.
I was listening last night as I was driving in over the highway, to a member
from Nova Scotia, a Mr. Casey, who said today that he was going to vote against
the provincial federal party, his government, on the final vote on the Budget
unless they fixed the equalization agreement that it had for their province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MR. LANGDON: Just a minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to the hon. the member?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Casey was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if the federal
government did not change the equalization plan, that he would vote against it.
He made a statement that is exactly the same as what I am making here. He said
Canada is a diverse nation. What is happening in Alberta, what is happening in
British Columbia, you cannot transpose that into Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
They are different, and in this situation I see the same thing. They are an
island community. They have to be treated differently than the norm. So I would
call upon government, Mr. Speaker, to re-examine the situation and to approve a
groundfish licence for the Town of Ramea through their co-operative.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The Speaker wishes to reference a matter raised late in the sitting on June
4, with regard to a decision of the Deputy Speaker in his role as Chairperson of
the Committee of the Whole.
In the process of debate in Committee of the Whole on Bill 21,
An Act To
Amend The Elections Act, 1991, the Member for Bay of Islands, with advance
notice to the Table, moved an amendment. Prior to the ruling of the Chair, the
member began the process of debate focusing on the rationale of the amendment.
The Chairperson interrupted the member to indicate that he had received prior
notification of the amendment, had reviewed it with the Table Officers and
thereupon ruled the amendment to be out of order.
The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order to say he believed the
Member for Bay of Island should have been given greater opportunity to explain
the rationale for the amendment before the Chairperson gave his ruling. The
Chairperson expressed his view that the matter had been decided and therefore
there could be no further discussion on the propriety of the amendment. The
matter was then referred to the Speaker and the Committee of the Whole was
raised immediately.
It has been a long standing practice in our parliamentary system that
amendments may be placed before the House at almost any stage and, under
parliamentary procedures, prior to the commencement of any debate thereto, the
Speaker or the Chair of Committees will immediately or following a recess for
consultation give direction to the House or Committee as to the acceptability of
the proposed amendment. Debate on the propriety of the amendment as far as its
parliamentary acceptability is concerned should be minimal and entirely at the
discretion of the Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole.
Similarly, when members raise points of order, any discussion pertaining
thereto is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker or the Chairperson.
Rulings of the Speaker have been accepted as final and may only be appealed
by way of a substantive motion. A ruling of the Speaker cannot be appealed by
way of a point of order.
The matter of an appeal from the rulings of the Chairperson of Committee of
the Whole to the Speaker was raised by the Opposition House Leader. Our Standing
Orders comment briefly on this matter in
section 60, subsection (3). The
section
reads, "The Chairperson shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole
House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the
House...". A question of order cannot be directly equated with a decision
on the propriety of an amendment.
In this matter, the Speaker wishes to reference a decision of Speaker John
Fraser in the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 28, 1992.
"When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the
House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses
found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or
without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number
of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiatives of the Crown, it cannot
go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach
back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill
no matter how tempting this may be." Quotation is referenced from M &
M, Marleau and Montpetit, page 662.
The Speaker also notes that any amendment must be relevant to the clause it
is proposed to amend. Marleau and Montpetit, page 651. Likewise, a sub-amendment
must relate to the amendment; it must not enlarge on the scope of the amendment
by bringing up a matter that is foreign to it." Marleau and Montpetit, page
Members should also note that the principles of Bill 21 were adopted at
second reading; thus an amendment to a bill that has been referred to the
Committee of the Whole is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle
of the bill.
The Speaker is satisfied that the ruling of the Chairperson of Committee of
the Whole on the proposed amendment put before the Committee be in accordance
with acceptable parliamentary practices.
However, the Speaker also notes
section 60 of the Standing Orders as quoted
earlier. Our Standing Orders are rather out-of-date in many matters. The Chair
notes that an appeal of this matter, it was first encountered by this Speaker in
his parliamentary history in yesterday's sitting. Thus, this Speaker, in
deciding this matter must reach back to a time when our Standing Orders were
created, shortly after Confederation in 1949 and, in this matter will reference
the 4 th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
Published in 1958, 232, page 197.
In the case of an appeal to the House, it is the duty of the Chairperson to
leave the Chair immediately. The matter is then referred to the Speaker of the
House. The Speaker may review the matter and then ask the entire House to reach
a decision on the decision of the Chairperson. In this matter, the Speaker
submits the following question to the House, "That the decision of the
Chairperson be confirmed." On this matter, there is no discussion on the
appeal whatsoever.
Accordingly, the question before the House relating to a decision of the
Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole on the admissibility of an amendment
proposed to Bill 21 submitted by the Member for Bay of Islands is, "That
the decision of the Chairperson be confirmed."
The Chair puts that question to the House now.
All those in favour, Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chairperson is upheld.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this quite clear, that I am not questioning
the decision of the Chair. My concern here, as Opposition House Leader, is that
I have seen two things happen in this session and I do need guidance because
they have been diametrically opposed to it, and that is why I am asking the
guidance of the Chair. I appreciate you hearing me out because this is supposed
to be a democratic system we are operating in here, and I, quite frankly, given
the two different rulings that I have heard, I do not know what the rules are
anymore. If you would allow me, I would like to explain why I don't. I think
it is logical why I do not understand, and I would appreciate some direction as
to how we are supposed to operate.
For example, the issue that we dealt with -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker will entertain the comments that have been made by the member on
the point of order as long as they are restricted to seeking an explanation, and
I think that is the intent.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: That is exactly my intent, Mr. Speaker, but I have to refer
to the fact situation at hand in order to explain that situation. I am not
trying to make another stab at getting the ruling overturned. That is not the
purpose of my comments. The purpose of my comments is, I have seen two different
things happening here in the House and, to me, they are opposed. I do not
understand which rules I am supposed to follow any more.
For example, last evening when we were here in Committee we proposed an
amendment to Bill 21. The Chairman of Committees - we were in Committee - ruled
that the amendment we put forward was not in order, and the reason he gave that
it was not in order, he cited Beauchesne at page 176, 579 and he said the
amendment was not in order because it set forth a proposition dealing with a
matter which is foreign to the item under discussion.
Now, that was the reason he gave for saying that the motion was out of order.
I can only rely upon the facts that the Chairman of Committees stated. It is in
Hansard. I am not making this up. Now, you tell me today that the Chairman of
Committees had no right to accept an amendment anyway. I am confused there. He
certainly thought he had a right to make a ruling, because he made it and he
gave his reasons for his ruling. He cited 579 from Beauchesne.
The other difficulty I have is, we proceeded then, and I asked the Chair
again: Is there any way in this House, if a person is dissatisfied with the
ruling of the Chair, that we could appeal it to the Speaker? I was advised by
the Chair of Committees that I could. We proceeded to say that we would. The
Committee rose, and we came back and I instructed the Chair that I would like to
raise that issue on appeal.
Now, I don't know, maybe I am missing the boat somewhere on democracy, but
once it was agreed that we have a right of appeal it is an automatic part of a
right to appeal that you have a right to be heard.
Now, the Chairman of Committees told me I had a right to appeal. You, the
Speaker, agreed that I had a right to appeal. We adjourned to come back here
today; me, certainly, under obviously now the incorrect assumption that, if the
appeal was allowed, I was going to be allowed some opportunity to explain the
reasons why I thought the decision of the Chair were incorrect.
Now I find today that, thank you very much, you have your appeal, we have not
heard from you but you are not going to get it heard anyway. To me, that is a
smack in the mouth of democracy. If we are going to be allowed and given a right
to appeal and yet we are going to be told to sit down, you cannot speak to the
appeal or the reasons for your appeal, that seems like a super big muzzle to me.
What is the point of having an open dialogue and discussion and debate if you
are not allowed to speak to the reasons for your appeal? - and I am not even
getting to that point.
The other thing is, that happened in Committee. I do believe the motion
concerning Mr. Reynolds was also in Committee. I put forward, in Committee,
regarding Mr. Reynolds, the resolution. I put forward not one, not two, but
three amendments that were accepted in Committee. The first two were denied, and
the third one was ruled in order. Now, that flies in the face of your comments
today that the Committee cannot accept amendments. He just said today that a
Committee could not accept the amendments - the Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: If I am incorrect, Mr. Speaker, in what I am saying here,
that is not an issue. I accept if I am incorrect, but my point I am making here
is that we are confused. To me, the purpose of this House is, if we have
differences here, we find out what the rules are here, we make our points. If
you win on a point, you win on a point. If you lose on a point, you lose. It is
not a case of win or lose. The more important piece about this is, we have to
understand what we can and cannot do, and I am at an absolute loss when somebody
stands up, as a Speaker or as a Chair, and just simply says: No, not going to
happen. - and do not allow you an opportunity to explain.
We went through a process last week, again, two weeks ago, in the case of Mr.
Reynolds, when we made the amendments. The Speaker sat and allowed the
Government House Leader to get up and give his reasons as to why he thought the
amendment was not in order on the Reynolds motion. The first time around we were
allowed, both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader were
allowed, an opportunity to state our case. The Speaker then took it under
advisement and came back and made his ruling.
Now, to me, that is what democracy is about. If you raise a point, and it is
a valid point, you ought to be able to be allowed to explain and give your
reasons for your point, but here we are today being shut down. They are saying:
Thank you very much. I heard what you said but I am not going to listen to you.
You are out of order. I am not even going to go beyond that.
That is totally contrary and flies in the face of what democracy and what
rights of appeal are all about. If we are going to operate under that system, we
do have a very flawed set of rules. That is the point I am trying to make. If I
at least make my arguments and you tell me at the end of the day: Thank you very
much, Mr. Opposition House Leader. I heard your points, a, b, c, d. You are
wrong on all of them and here is why I think you are wrong, and you are out of
order. - that would be fine, but I do not even get to first base. I do not even
get in the ball game. I am told that I am not even allowed on the field.
That is my concern here, Mr. Speaker. I think you are interpreting the rules
of the House too strictly if you forbid anybody to even give their reasons for
why you feel you want to make a motion. I do not know where else under the
rules, other than under a point of order, when we get the opportunity to explain
that frustration and ask for some guidance.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a word or two on the point
of order as raised by the Opposition House Leader.
I sat and listened. I did not interrupt, except when I was provoked by the
Member for Bay of Islands, but I certainly did not interrupt the Opposition
House Leader.
Listening to the Opposition House Leader, Mr. Speaker, this seems to me like
a not very thinly veiled questioning of the Speaker's ruling.
MR. PARSONS: Absolutely not.
MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is my
interpretation. I did not interrupt the
hon. gentleman. It is my
interpretation, having sat and listened quietly and let
it perk through the little bit of gray matter that I have here, that this is a
not too thinly veiled questioning of the Speaker's ruling. I say that for a
couple of reasons, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, this is a democratic institution, no question about it, but, Mr.
Speaker, it is a democratic institution with rules. It is not a democratic
institution that happens to operate on a whim. It is a democratic institution
that has rules.
The Member for the Bay of Islands, last night, presented the Table, as I
understand it - the Table Officers - with an amendment. The amendment was looked
at by the Table Officers and the Chair, the Deputy Speaker, the Chair of
Committees, or Committee of the Whole, and it was found, on advice and with the
concurrence of the Chair, to be out of order. The Member for the Bay of Islands
got up and started to speak to the amendment.
Once it was ascertained by the Chair that the Member for the Bay of Islands
was speaking, was debating the amendment, the Chair did what he had to do, which
is advise the member who proposed the amendment that, in his view and on the
advice from the Officers of the Table, it was out of order. That is all. There
had not been a provision. The member had not started to say: Well, I think it is
in order for this, and I think it is in order for this reason and some other
reason. He got up and started debate. The Chairman, rightly so, interrupted him
and said: I am sorry, I cannot entertain debate on that motion because, having
sought advice from the Table Officers on the amendment that you proposed, I rule
that it is out of order.
The Opposition did not accept that and appealed to Your Honour. Your Honour
has now dealt with that here on the floor of the House, and I believe that any
questioning of that is a questioning of the ruling of Your Honour.
Now, that is how I see it. I therefore respectfully submit, Your Honour, that
there isn't any point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
For greater clarification, the Chair will repeat the ruling made by Speaker
Fraser. This deals particularly with the issue of amendments that occur in the
Committee of the Whole House. That reads as follows, and it is found in the
Hansard for the House of Commons, April 28, 1992.
"When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the
House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negate the clauses
found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or
without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number
of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown,..." -
in other words, it cannot cause money to be spent that is not provided for in
budgetary allocations - "...it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as
passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make
further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may
be."
On the issue of the appeal, the issue of the appeal to the Chair, the appeal
yesterday evening was the very first time, in my fourteen years plus in this
House, that we have had this particular circumstance arise. It is provided for
section 60 of the Standing Orders, and the rules are there to go back to
those particular times when these rules were written. We went back to a
procedure that is not fully contained now in the current, 6 th edition
of Beauchesne. To do that, I went back and followed the procedure.
The Chair, in terms of the Chair entertaining discussions in today's
sitting, I refer the members of the House to page 251 of the 6 th
edition of Beauchesne, it is called Parliamentary Rules & Forms , and
911 says, and I will read the first section, (1) "The Chairman maintains
order in the Committee of the Whole, deciding all questions of order subject to
an appeal to the Speaker. No debate is permitted on any decision."
So, yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening, when the ruling was made, the
Chairperson of the Committee was within his rights to decide that he would not
entertain any debate. Debate is purely at the discretion of the Chairperson or
the Speaker.
(2) "In cases of an appeal to the Speaker, it is the duty of the
Chairman to leave the Chair immediately and report the point of order which has
been decided. The Speaker must then rule upon the matter. No discussion is
allowed on the appeal. Should the Speaker be absent, the Chairman takes the
Chair of the House and another Member makes the report of appeal to the acting
Speaker who will at once rule upon the question."
In fact, when the Chair is absent, there have been cases in Ottawa when the
Chairman of the Committee moved from the Chair at the Table to the podium and
then made a ruling on his own - the appeal was of his ruling, and the same
Chairperson, acting in a different capacity, actually ruled on that particular
ruling.
There is a lot of precedence here that can be followed. The precedence that
we have followed is very straightforward. It says here, "The Speaker must
then rule upon the matter. No discussion is allowed on the appeal."
That is exactly the process that we have followed.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Order 8. Second reading, I believe, was adjourned by agreement
on Bill 27,
An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric
Corporation, as I said, Bill 27. I believe we are ready to move on with the
debate. The last speak was the minister, so the debate would go to -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, okay, we will just wait for a second then.
The critic for the Official Opposition would be logically the next person.
Both of those bills are in her name. Do you want to start sustainable
development?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. RIDEOUT: No, okay, we will just wait, I think, Mr. Speaker. It is
only a minute or so and the official critic for the Opposition should be here
and then we can resume debate on Bill 27. So, by agreement, we will wait for a
moment or so.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 8, second reading on Bill 27,
An Act
Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-electric Corporation. This bill
was introduced by the minister yesterday but debate did not proceed. So the
logical order would be the critic for the Official Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House would continue
second reading on Bill 27,
An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro-electric Corporation.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have had an opportunity since the minister announced second reading of the
bill yesterday in the House of Assembly, to have a look through Bill 27 and also
Bill 28, as both of them are interconnected in terms of the changes that will
take place within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and also within the newly
formed energy corporation.
Mr. Speaker, this morning myself, along with the Member for Burgeo &
LaPoile and the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP, did
have an opportunity to be more fully briefed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
and by the officials in the minister's own department as to what the context
of the changes are in the legislation and what it is they are formulating in
terms of an energy corporation under - as what we know it today - Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a couple of things that are worthy of
mentioning in terms of these significant changes. At the present time, we are
dealing with Bill 27. What Bill 27 does is, in fact, repeals the Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro Act as we would have known it, as a regulated utility of the
provincial government operating as a Crown corporation that would have regulated
all of the utilities in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they be commercial,
domestic, industrial or anything otherwise, under that particular act. What this
new bill does, under Bill 27, is it repeals that original act and it replaces it
with a much broader mandate, a mandate in which they can extend the operations
of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into a broader more perspective development,
such as an energy corporation.
What was explained to us, Mr. Speaker, is that Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, as a utility regulator as we know them today, will be maintained as a
subsidiary of this new energy corporation. In fact, there will be different
subsidiaries of this corporation, of which Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will
be only one. Other subsidiaries will include CF(L)Co, as we know the Churchill
Falls Corporation, which now runs and handles all the affairs of the
developments related to the Upper Churchill. Also, we will have subsidiaries
that will look at the Lower Churchill development project, which will be set up
as a different company, a different subsidiary operating, again, under the
parent energy corporation. That particular subsidiary will focus only on the
developments of the Lower Churchill project; the feasibility, the marketplace,
the financial capital piece. Whatever it entails, everything to do with the
Lower Churchill.
Also, Mr. Speaker, there will be another subsidiary, as I understand it, that
will deal with business development. Under business development is where we will
see probably the most substantial change in terms of how this energy corporation
is going to operate because their mandate, under that subsidiary, will allow
them to look at wind power development projects, oil and gas development
projects, and research and development. Some of which will be entirely new for
the corporation, as we have known it in the past.
Mr. Speaker, while the two bills are interconnected, Bill 27, which is what
we are debating right now, actually repeals the act of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro. I just want to repeat this so it is understood, that it replaces it with
some broader mandate perspectives. Bill 28 then takes that a step further and
incorporates it as part of a larger energy corporation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak, first of all, to the changes that will
take place in terms of how Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will operate. One of
the primary concerns, of course, for us, was that if Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro becomes a subsidiary of this new energy corporation, how does that affect
any profits, royalties or dividends that are accumulated through this particular
company? That was a question that we had, and we had a significant discussion
with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro around that because as you know, right now,
ratepayers in the Province - their rates are determined by what the assets, what
the values, what the revenue generation is of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as
a utility provider. So, all of the rates, while they are set by the Public
Utilities Board, which is an arm's-length board of government and of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - while rates for consumers in the Province are
set by the Public Utilities Board, their decisions are often influenced by the
financial situation or stability of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at any given
time. That was our concern.
Mr. Speaker, I have been through, actually three Public Utility Board
hearings in my political career already, in terms of battling Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro on rate increases in the Province. So I understand fully how it
works, and that is that any time there are factors which causes Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro to be less profitable in terms of its revenue generation, they go
to collect that money from their industrial customers or their commercial or
domestic customers in the Province, and they do it through this rate application
process.
We were somewhat concerned, of course, that if Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, which we all know is generating a profit year over year in Newfoundland
and Labrador today, making it the successful energy corporation that it already
is. We know that has been because they have been able to generate profits,
invest it back into their system, been able to maintain some stability in terms
of the rates that consumers pay in the Province. So, our concern was that if all
of a sudden they could take these royalties or these profits or dividends, and
invest it into oil and gas, or invest it into wind power, or invest it into some
other development projects, and then maybe, just maybe, it could end up being a
bad investment - those things happen as well - what would that do in terms of
affecting the stability of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a corporation?
Well, we have been told, Mr. Speaker, that it does not impact it in terms of
a negative way. What happens is that the royalties and the profits of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be protected. They will be protected. They
will be not be used to invest in the projects in terms of where they will get no
return, where they will get no payback to the corporation. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
we were given the assurances this morning by the CEO of Hydro, and by the Deputy
Minister of Natural Resources, that, in fact, all of the dividends and all of
the profits that we now see through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation
would be maintained into the long term in terms of the profits it generates
itself, that they would not see those particular monies going and being invested
in the projects at the risk of having to go back and make those claims for extra
revenue back from rate payers in the Province.
That was a very significant issue, because anyone who is watching what is
happening with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro today, and the fact that it is
moving into a very broader mandate and a broader perspective, should be
concerned about those things, because you are not just looking at a hydro
corporation that is investing money, because they will be investing with private
consortiums as well, they will be investing in privately-developed initiatives
in which they will have equity shares and returns on that equity, but, at the
same time, it is an entirely different concept of developing energy as we have
been involved in through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the past.
While some of it is somewhat complicated, I suppose, when you really get down
and look at it, it is quite simple; and, to simplify it as much as we possibly
can, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro right now, as we know it, will continue to
operate as a regulated utility, at arm's length from the government. We will
still have everything done through the Public Utilities Board in terms of rate
setting that we presently do, but what will happen is that the corporation will
have an expanded mandate.
Mr. Speaker, under that mandate, I guess, is where we tend to raise some of
our questions as well, because oil and gas development for a corporation like
this is an entirely new sector to be looking at. While it is going to operate as
a subsidiary company under this new energy corporation, there are still going to
be certain amounts of investments that will be made. I guess our concern is in
terms of how those investment will be done. Will they be done under direction of
government and Cabinet? Will they be done under the direction of a board of
directors that is appointed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? That leaves you
with questions because - let's use the gas resource of Labrador as an example.
If tomorrow you were going to see a development in that natural gas reserve
off Labrador and you had a company, say Petro-Can or someone that was coming in
to develop that particular resource, and all of a sudden you have the energy
corporation in the Province, who now operates a subsidiary company of oil and
gas, out looking to invest in that particular project, who has the authority in
terms of saying how much they can invest, when they can invest and so on? Is it
the government or is it Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Maybe the government
could be out negotiating with this company, and maybe government will decide
that we are going to take a 10 per cent or 15 per cent equity share in that
development and we are going to negotiate that. Can they then turn around and
say to the new energy corporation, we have negotiated a 10 per cent equity in a
new gas reserve and we want you to put forward the money for us to invest into
that corporation?
I am not sure, I was not entirely clear, on how that part of it worked. I
think that, whether government makes the decision or Hydro makes the decision,
it is important to know the process. Because, if they are going to have revenues
or royalties available to invest in projects like this, and government says,
okay, we are going to take a 10 per cent equity, it is going to cost this amount
of money and we want this investment to be made by the new energy corporation -
because government has the authority to do that. Under the legislation that we
are going to approve, government will have the authority to do that because, in
essence, government does operate the entire energy corporation, so they would
have the ability to be able to do that. There could, I guess, in essence, be
projects, as I understand it, in which government would be investing as an
equity partner, and also the energy corporation, in addition to investing on
government's behalf, could also be investing themselves as an energy
corporation to own equity in a project. That is the way I understood it in terms
of the information that they were laying out for us.
Mr. Speaker, I think this new energy corporation is a good concept in terms
of broadening the mandate in the development of energy related resources in the
Province. The only thing that I would caution is that I would not want to see
private sector investment shut out of the Province when it comes to energy
development, because I think that is important as well. Now, government has to
maintain some control, I certainly support them having some ownership, but I
think there has to be a partnering as well.
I think back to the project that Ventus Energy was looking at, the wind power
project on the Churchill reservoir. That project, Mr. Speaker, would have been
billions of dollars, $2 billion, I think, in investment in total. It would have
created hundreds of jobs, and when you get that kind of investment prospect
being tossed around and up for discussion between the energy corporation and
government, I think they need to be open to discussions around those kinds of
partnering and those kinds of initiatives. Because, even under this act in the
new bill it is legislating the new energy corporation to be able to borrow up to
$600 million in financing under a government guaranteed program, which gives
them working capital right from the beginning to start doing some of this, but
at the same time I do not think they should shut the door on all private sector
investors or potential partners that could be out there.
I know that is not going to be the case with oil and gas because, as the CEO
of Hydro indicated today, they are not at a level, of course, where they can
start developing their own oil fields out there, but they can partner in a lot
of aspects of it, whether that be in the construction and development part of it
or whether it be in the exploration part or whether it be in the refining part
or whatever the case may be. There are a number of elements to the development
of the oil and gas sector of which they could be an investor and be a part.
They obviously have admitted to us that they know that they cannot go out
there and take on a full oil and gas development project at this stage but , Mr.
Speaker, I hope they will use the same logic in terms of looking at where they
invest in the wind power, for example. Because, while wind power might be a
substantially lower investment for the energy corporation, they should not rule
out the potential partnerships either, the same as they are going to do in the
oil and gas sector of it, under the new energy corporation. I want the same
rules and regulations to apply so that if you are looking at a development such
as wind power on the Churchill reservoir, and you are looking at a partnering
company like Ventus Energy, well then at least the option is there for
negotiation, to discuss it, to look at: Is there a way that we can partner with
them to do this without just shutting the door on them completely? I hope that
it is going to be that kind of openness and that kind of invitation in terms of
the developments within this new energy corporation.
The research and development piece, I think, pretty well speaks for itself. I
mean, a subsidiary of the company that looks at that is a positive piece,
because in order for any energy company to be able to be successful, they have
to continuously be on top of their research and development aspects of it.
Whether they invest in the Province or out of the Province, that is going to be
a very important and key aspect to all of this.
Mr. Speaker, even as an energy corporation within the Province - like in the
oil and gas piece, I guess we are going to have to wait for the Energy Plan to
be released before we actually know what the royalty regime is going to be,
before we know what the equity programs are going to be or expectations of the
government. It is really difficult to look at this new energy corporation
without having all of that kind of information. It makes it very difficult in
terms of being able to understand what their place will be, in terms of a
negotiation with an oil company, with a wind power company or with some other
company, without actually knowing what the expectation is going to be from these
companies that want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is
unfortunate, but if the Energy Plan was available to be released, this would be
the opportune time to be doing it because it would fall right in line with the
new energy corporation and the legislation that we are debating here today.
Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the fact that we do not have the Energy Plan
and we do not have an outline in terms of what the equity shares and royalty
shares are going to be, I guess a couple of things I would like to say, and that
is that with this new energy corporation, I do support the fact that they should
have ownership in terms of any investments that they make. If they are going to
invest in a wind power project, if they are going to invest in a development and
construction project of oil and gas, or even in a refining project of oil and
gas, then they should at least have ownership for the investment that they are
going to make. Whether that is a small percentage or a huge percentage, I think
that should be an automatic piece to this in terms of how it should be done. In
doing that, they maintain a certain amount of control or input over what
happens. That way they can basically, I suppose, have some input into the
longevity of these projects, the amount of investments they are making in the
Province, things that affect the hiring content, the subcontracting of different
projects. At least it gives them that autonomy to be able to do some of these
things that they would not otherwise be able to do without having an ownership
investment or an equity investment in a particular project.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular bill - I guess for a lot of
people out there, they have not been able to look at Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro in the context of a larger energy corporation. I think it is important
that government would put out information to the public on how these changes are
going to take place and what this new company is going to look like. I know most
people are probably like myself. You have grown to become accustomed to
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for what it is, a regulated utility company that
provides a service to the people in the Province. We have not entirely looked at
it in the context of having more of a presence in the energy sector, or being
one of the major players in terms of any new developments.
I think it is important that government would, on the passing of this bill,
provide the information. It is unfortunate, because it should have probably been
provided before the legislation came to the House of Assembly so that people
could have actually had some input. But, notwithstanding that, I think that -
and one of my colleagues suggested it this morning in the briefing that we were
in, that maybe the information should get put out to the public in some shape or
form. Whether it is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that does that, or the
government through its Department of Natural Resources, but it is important that
people be informed and be aware of the transactions that are taking place here.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there are some large developments that will be looked at
as part of this new Energy Corporation. I would think that one of the largest
projects that is now on the horizon to be considered would be the Lower
Churchill development project. As you all know, this is a project that will
generate about 2,800 megawatts of power, including the Gull Island project, but
2,800 megawatts of power that can be generated for market right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We know this will probably be the largest singular
development that the new Energy Corporation will embark on in the early stages
of its incorporation - or incubation, I should say.
The Lower Churchill development project, while so far we have heard a lot of
talk about it, we have not necessarily seen a lot happening on it. Now we do
know that the environmental work is ongoing and has been ongoing for the past
two years in partnership with the Innu Nation. There has been quite a bit of it,
but we know that a lot of the environmental work has gone on, on the Churchill
River and a lot of the necessary components that need to be completed for a
project of this scale and magnitude.
Mr. Speaker, some of the things we did not see. We did not see any
environmental registrations for the construction of lines between Churchill
Falls and Goose Bay. We did not see any environmental registration for the
development of transmission lines between Churchill Falls and Labrador West,
both areas of which we know needs to have additional transmission capacity. That
kind of concerns me, because although we are moving through all the other
environmental phases of this project, we are not at the stage where we are
looking at the environmental implications of building those transmission lines.
I would like to have that registered and done because the reality is this, if
they are going to be able to move forward in the Lake Melville area or in the
Labrador West area, they need to have additional generation of power. That can
only be provided through developing additional transmission capacity into those
communities.
While the project itself is not finalized and not ready to move forward,
there is no reason not to register those two components for an environmental
assessment and feasibility study, because that will need to be done at some
point if these lines are going to be built. So, why not do them now while we are
doing all the other environmental work in relation to the Lower Churchill
development project?
Mr. Speaker, we also have heard very little in terms of market access for
that project. I know that through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro they have been
examining a number of markets; two, I understand, primarily. Of course, one of
these would be through Quebec, which allows us to be able to transmit power into
Quebec and then into the New England States and New York and all that area of
the United States. I know that is one of the angles they are looking at. Mr.
Speaker, I know that because we had to look at an access study in terms of the
amount of power that can be transmitted through Quebec and the capacity that
they can handle on their lines. So, we had to apply for access, and in applying
for access as a Province, we also had to do the study to discover what the
capacity would be and, of course, we are paying for that right now in the
Province. I forget the figure but I think it was somewhere around $20 million -
and I can be corrected on that - that was announced maybe a year ago now to
start looking at that study and looking at those lines.
Mr. Speaker, we also know that in looking at that particular route they are
also studying the opportunity, if there is an opportunity in transmitting power
that way, if there is an opportunity to transmit some of that power into
Ontario, if there is an opportunity to transmit some of that power into New
Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, they are also looking at a second route, which is the Maritime
route. We have had some discussion, I guess, in the public or in the media about
that. I guess that would be a little different concept in terms of running a
transmission line that would come down through Labrador, across the Strait of
Belle Isle, then across the Island, and then across the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
You are looking at probably two subsea development lines in order to make that
particular project work and to get it to the market that you are intending to.
We understand that this is one of the options they are looking at, but we also
know that option restricts them more in the amount of power that they are going
to be able to transmit. I think they have already determined that the maximum
capacity that they might be able to transmit through those provinces, given the
capacity that they already have available, I think especially in New Brunswick,
would be around 700 megawatts of power. That is only a portion of what would be
available with the development of this site on the Lower Churchill.
While all of that information is being looked at, and while market access has
been one of the key components for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a part of
this Lower Churchill development project, well, I guess that will now come under
the auspices of their new subsidiary company, which will be the Lower Churchill
Project, I think it is going to be called, and that will come under the auspices
of their new energy corporation.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to be interesting to see how all of this gets
determined under the new energy corporation because, as you know, the Premier
has already been out there saying that we are going to go it alone on the Lower
Churchill Project. Now that this project becomes a subsidiary company of the new
energy corporation, what does that mean in the context of the commitments that
the Premier has made, that we will go it alone on this particular development?
Does that restrict this new subsidiary company from going out and raising
capital to invest? Because, as we know, in the legislation that we are reviewing
and voting on today, we know that they only have the ability to borrow up to
$600 million in investment. That is the only authority that they have been
given, under the law, to borrow up to $600 million in investment. We also know
that is not going to be enough money to develop the Lower Churchill Project.
So, when you know that restriction is there in terms of the financial
borrowing power, and we also know that the Premier made a commitment that we
would go it alone in terms of the Lower Churchill Project, then we have to look
at it in the context of: How do you raise the capital? Whether your market
access is going to be through Quebec or whether it is going to be through the
Maritime route is going to be irrelevant in terms of raising the capital, in my
opinion. No matter which route you go, it is going to be a substantial
investment and an investment that is going to reach over $600 million.
One of the questions and concerns that I have is: How do you raise the money
to finance a project of that scale? Are they going to be now permitted to go out
as an energy corporation and solicit financial investment from other companies,
or are they going to be restricted by the Premier's commitment that we are
going to go it alone - meaning, in my opinion, that they are going to finance it
and develop it 100 per cent?
That is a question for me and I am unable to be able to sort through it in
terms of what the answer might be because the bill does not allow, in my
opinion, an
interpretation of it. From the briefings that I have had, it does
not allow them to be able to borrow the amount of money that will be required,
themselves, as an energy corporation, to invest in a project that size.
I need to know: Is this now going to be opened up so that they can go out and
look for partners, look for investors, look for financial capital? Will they be
giving out equity shares in terms of the Lower Churchill development project?
Will they have to give out equity shares in order to raise that capital? Is that
going to be one of the things that will be permitted as part of this new
concept?
We were not given the kind of information that we needed in order to be able
to understand that fully, but I guess what we do understand is that any time
that you look at a project this size it is going to require billions of dollars,
not millions, and those billions of dollars will have to come from somewhere.
The other side of it, Mr. Speaker, as I understand, is that this energy
corporation will operate like most businesses operate. Although it is going to
be a Crown corporation, although the profits are going to stay within the
corporation, and although it is going to managed through the Legislature and
through a bill of this House, they are going to operate like any private
company. That means that they will not be responsible, as a corporation - even
though they are looking at developments like the Lower Churchill, developments
that are going to be in the backyard of Labradorians, developments that are
going to affect these particular Aboriginal people who live there, part of their
mandate as a corporation, as I understand it, is not going to be to negotiate
one-offs with any of these groups, or negotiate benefits agreements or impact
agreements with any of those groups. It is my understanding that all of those
pieces will still be done by the government; and, if they are still going to be
done by the government, obviously the cost of those impact and benefits
agreements has to enter into the feasibility of these projects somewhere along
the line.
Even though they look at a development like the Lower Churchill and say they
have already decided what their market access is going to be, they have decided
how many megawatts of power they are going to develop, they have decided how
much they are going to sell it for, well, then, you also have to enter into the
equation what the benefits agreements are going to be for those people who are
adjacent to the resource, those people who have legitimate land claims and
rights in those areas, and what the cost is going to be to offset those
particular litigated pieces in the context of a fuller deal.
I am not entirely understanding how that connection is going to work yet. I
can only assume, and maybe the minister can clarify this when she stands, but I
can only assume that once there is a project identified, or a development
identified, then the necessary components, both on the side of the government
and the Hydro Corporation, will operate simultaneously, and that, as soon as the
government has achieved what those benefit payouts are going to be, that would
be communicated to the Hydro Corporation and then incorporated as part of the
feasibility or the investment of this particular project. So, that is not
entirely clear in terms of what will happen but certainly we will wait to hear
the response and the answer as it relates to that.
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, no doubt, I just talked about one project there in
terms of the Lower Churchill that would fall under this new company, but there
are many others. When you look at oil and gas in this Province, right now we all
know that any investments that have been made by governments or companies in the
oil and gas sector have certainly paid off in the long run. We know that any
equity investment, as well, that governments can take or the energy corporation
can take in those oil and gas development projects are going to pay off in the
long run in terms of providing more revenues and more royalties for the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, when you are starting off a new company like this,
they are going to be somewhat restricted in terms of where they can invest and
in what projects. When you are looking at exploration in the oil and gas
industry right now, in order for this new energy corporation to automatically
take a role in that exploration piece, they need to have some working capital.
They need to have some investment capital in order to start off but they
certainly see themselves as looking at roles that they can play in terms of the
development and construction of the oil and gas industry. Also, they can see
themselves playing roles in the production and the refining of oil and gas
within the Province.
One of the problems we have in the Province right now is we do not have any
new oil and gas developments that are on the horizon, and that is unfortunate.
Because the Hebron-Ben Nevis project did fall through and did not get to be
developed, or start to be developed this year, what we have is a complete gap in
terms of the development and construction of the oil and gas industry in the
Province right now.
The fact that the new energy corporation is going to now be mandated and have
the ability to invest in that sector of our oil industry, it has no relevance in
today's developments, Mr. Speaker, because there are none. There are none
happening right now in the Province. That is unfortunate, because the Budget
that came down only a few weeks ago, the entire Budget was built around oil and
gas revenues.
In fact, $600 million in new revenues this year was accrued to the provincial
government, to the members opposite for their spending in this Province, came
directly out of oil and gas. It was new monies that were achieved based on
increased production levels in Hibernia and Terra Nova. It was achieved because
of pay out in some of the oil fields. It was achieved because the price per
barrel of fuel went up. Mr. Speaker, that is where the new monies came from. The
$600 million in new money that the government achieved this year from oil and
gas came from those three particular oil developments that are ongoing in the
Province. Now, today, we do not have a new development to focus on. We do not
have a new development that is ongoing in our oil and gas sector. As a result of
it, four to five years down the road we are going to suffer for this. We will,
and we are immediately suffering in terms of the contracting companies out there
that need this working capital and need to be able to continue on with their
operations in the Province.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a slow down in the exploration
industry, like we have not seen in the last three to four years. In 2003, we had
over $670 million being invested in exploration in the oil industry off the
Coast of Newfoundland in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and the orphan basin; two of
the most primary land development sites for oil and gas in Newfoundland for the
last twenty years, I say to members, for twenty years. You go back, and in that
twenty-year period there was almost never a time where there was not major
investments in land development in those two areas in terms of the oil and gas
industry. This year, what happened? We went from $672 million in the exploration
industry in oil and gas in 2003, down to this year, with only one land offer for
development off the Coast of Newfoundland, and last year with only $32 million
total in exploration in the Province. Now that is a loss of almost $650 million
in revenue. So, it is all right that we are forming an energy corporation
because maybe under this energy corporation the people over at Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, as we know it today, will have more success in trying to
negotiate some deals with the oil and gas companies to bring some revenue into
the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this is not a larger concern for the
members opposite, because you only have to look around. They all spend time here
in St. John's, not that a lot of this oil and gas revenue or the contracts
associated with it ever benefits people much outside of the Eastern Avalon, but
if you look around the Eastern Avalon Peninsula today and you look at all the
companies that have been built up over there in Donovan's Industrial Park and
other places in this city just to supply the oil and gas industry, it is enough
to blow your mind. It is enough to blow your mind. They are the people who are
employing the hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are
graduating through our college systems every year; those who do not move to
Alberta.
So, it should be a primary concern, whenever you see an exploration industry
that drops from almost $700 million in one year to three years later down to
less than $30 million, it is a concern. As a result of it, what we are seeing is
a lot of these businesses closing. We are seeing a lot of these businesses
closing but we are also seeing a lot of them trying to maintain a storefront
operation but having to lay off a lot of workers, and that is unfortunate.
I know a couple of individuals who were laid off recently who had to go out
to Ft. McMurray to find work for the summer in the oil sands out there, because
their positions were being terminated.
It is all right that we are looking at some form of a different concept in
terms of securing some business and some opportunities in the Province under
this particular sector, because the government opposite has not been very
successful in making that happen, I say.
Mr. Speaker, exploration is one part of it, but when you have companies that
actually go out and make finds - and they do so. They take on the exploration,
they make the investments, they make the find and they do it under the auspices
meet, this is what is expected in terms of royalty regimes. Then, when they are
ready to move into the next phase, the development phase, the rules of the game
start changing. That has been the big deterrent for the oil and gas industry in
this Province. That is why we have seen the exploration drop off the way that we
have. That is why, this year, we have not seen oil companies out laying claims
to lands in the primary areas for oil development operations in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence - and I can't stress this enough - in the
absence of an energy plan and a royalty regime on oil and gas, how do you
honestly expect any oil companies in this Province to go out and option up for
claims like was asked to be done this year? I was not a bit surprised when there
were only five bids that came in, and four of them ended up being in Labrador.
They are taking their business somewhat away from what is happening on the
Avalon Peninsula, they are looking at a new area and they are starting to invest
up there. Believe me, I am more than happy to see it and have it happening, but
at the same time, that, as well, has to be regulated.
Here we are, for the past year we have had the minister talking about an
energy plan and a royalty regime for oil and gas. To go out and ask for bids in
the oil sector this year, without even releasing the plan, without showing these
companies what was going to be expected of them from the government, in my mind,
Mr. Speaker, was very premature. It was premature and, in fact, it wasn't very
well planned or thought out by the government or by the minister. If they truly
wanted to have more interest in those developments in the Province this year
they would have had that information laid out before the oil companies, long in
advance of them out there looking for their bids.
Mr. Speaker, under this new energy corporation there will be several
subsidiary companies and the oil and gas component will be only one, one of
those particular subsidiaries. They will have an opportunity to look at
everything and to invest in everything from exploration to development to
construction to production to refining, anything and everything that has to do
with the oil and gas industry. In addition to that, they will have opportunities
to look at their own research and development. They will have opportunities to
look at developing wind power. While they have already come out and said, and I
want to repeat this, because what they have told us in Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro is that they know, as an ene