Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 22 November 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 44)
2004-11-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 22, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 44
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
This afternoon we would like to welcome to the House some students from
Prince of Wales Collegiate in the St. John's North District, Level I and II
students - I think there are about forty of them - with their teachers, Ms
Angela Pynn and Mr. Bob Johnson. Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Under the Members' Statements this afternoon, we have
statements by the following members: the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia
West, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for
Gander, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the hon. the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, Thursday, November 18, marked the seventy-fifth
anniversary of the tidal wave disaster of 1929. Throughout the week events were
held to commemorate the occasion and remember those who lost their lives in this
disaster.
Mr. Speaker, your own mother, who resided in the community of L'Anse au
Loup near the present day community of Epworth, was fourteen years of age at
that time and can still clearly recall the events of that memorable day.
In the community of Point au Gaul, in the District of Grand Bank, eight
people perished. On Sunday, November 14, I shared in a ceremony at St. Andrew's
Church in Port au Bras. In that community seven lives were lost, four of them
being a mother and three of her daughters. In total, twenty-nine people perished
in the disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all members of this House join me as we, too,
remember those who were so affected the day that the sea rose up and devastated
so many communities on the Burin Peninsula.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I would say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, all
members of the House are delighted that you are here with us today and in good
health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Badger resident Michelle Critch, for
making national history in the sport of Martial Arts. Ms Critch received a Gold
Medal in (Foo Koo Go) Fuku-go at the World Karate Championships in Switzerland
on October 8, 2004, which makes her the very first Canadian to win such an
award.
Ms Critch's accomplishment is truly exceptional, as she has reached this
goal with self-discipline and determination and has become a world champion. Ms
Critch was up against competitors from over thirty-two countries, and her
performance spoke for itself as she defeated a fierce competitor from the
Ukraine in the final round to win the championship.
Mr. Speaker, Ms Critch's achievement is astounding. I know that there is a
groundswell of pride for Michelle in her hometown of Badger, and I also know
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians share that same pride as well. She is a
wonderful ambassador for our Province and our country, and I am honoured to
recognize her today in the House of Assembly for her accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Ms Michelle Critch on her World Championship and extend best
wishes to her as she continues her success in all levels of future competition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before
this House to bring to your attention the accomplishments of the 103 Search and
Rescue Unit from the District of Gander.
On September 25, 2004, the eleven-person team from 103 Search and Rescue
Gander won the Diamond Trophy for best overall performance at the National
Search and Rescue exercises competition that was held this year in Comox, B.C.
In addition to winning this competition, the 103 Team also won the Sullivan
Trophy for Best Performance in Medical Exercises, and they made the Parachute
Association Honour Roll for the best overall rescue performance.
This win marks an unprecedented second consecutive time that Search and
Rescue Gander has won this competition, which involves Search and Rescue
Squadrons from all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating 103 Search and Rescue Gander for their outstanding performance in
the SAREX Competition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Mr. Roy Giles, a native of Ramea in the
District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, who has recently been honoured by the
Canadian Coast Guard.
Mr. Giles was recently awarded the Humanitarian Medal by the Canadian Coast
Guard Auxiliary in October. The medal applauds people who have played a
part in
a major humanitarian act or operation. To receive the medal, a person must give
a level of service above and beyond normal duties, and show that they have
positively affected the situational outcome and has major significance in these
situations.
An active member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary for the past twenty years, Mr.
Giles spent numerous hours responding to those who find themselves in peril at
sea. He has participated in fifty-two search and rescue incidents over the past
twenty-one years, volunteering over 284 hours in operations, assisting
approximately 244 people. The Canadian Coast Guard recently awarded Mr. Giles
his medal at a ceremony in Lewisporte on October 2.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Roy
Giles for receiving this Coast Guard medal of distinction. I also ask all
members of the hon. House to join me in extending a big thank you to all members
of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Service throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for
continuing to keep mariners safe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, November 22, is the fifth annual National Housing Day across Canada.
It began in 1998 when the Big City Mayors' Caucus of the Federation of
Municipalities endorsed a declaration that homelessness was a national disaster.
Today, five years later, there is a housing crisis across the country that
affects more than just the visible homeless on city streets. There is a serious
shortage of affordable housing in every province. In Newfoundland and Labrador,
rents and house prices have skyrocketed, and more low-cost housing is needed in
urban and rural communities.
We have a growing number of "hidden homeless" - people staying with
friends or relatives because they cannot find housing. Low income families are
cutting into food budgets to pay rent and heat. In St. John's, the vacancy
rate dropped from 8.8 per cent to 2 per cent in the last decade, and rents
increased by 4.3 per cent in 2003. Seniors, people with disabilities and others
need accessible and supportive housing across the Province.
Housing is a determinant of health. The shortage of decent, affordable
housing is pushing more individuals and families into poverty.
I congratulate the community organizations that have recently built new
shelters and supportive housing in St. John's - Stella Burry Community
Services, Choices for Youth, the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and the St. John's Native Friendship Association. I also commend the efforts
of the Provincial Housing Policy Working Group, a community-government
initiative working to focus on housing needs.
These organizations are part of a fundraising effort called "Raising the
Roof", which is launching its annual campaign selling toques to support
housing projects. I encourage all hon. members to support this effort.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to honour a young woman from my district who has recently won a
provincial award for her business.
Thirteen year old Christy Groves of Forteau was the recipient of the High
Achievement in Marketing Award presented through the Youth Ventures program.
Christy was presented with a $1,000 advertising voucher from OZ FM and NTV, and
$200 in cash, a plaque and certificate.
Christy's successful business involves making miniature paintings using
water colors. The paintings are of local flowers and berries found in Southern
Labrador. The berries consist of blueberries, partridgeberries and bakeapples.
She also paints silverweed, the wild iris, and, of course, the beautiful
Labrador rose. She sets each in handmade pine frames which have been
hand-sanded, stained and varnished.
Ms Groves' work is presently being celebrated and displayed throughout
Southern Labrador, and we are sure that with her tremendous efforts in the field
of marketing, her work will be displayed province wide in the not-too-distant
future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating
this young girl in receiving the Marketing Award through Youth Ventures, and I
wish her great success in her business.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues are aware, today, November
22, is designated as National Housing Day. In support of this event, I rise
today to announce the launch of Raising the Roof 2004. We join community and
corporate leaders in this fundraising effort which helps to serve those most at
risk for homelessness in our Province and country.
Raising the Roof is Canada's only national homelessness charity, and last
year Newfoundland and Labrador raised $19,000 to support this campaign. Proceeds
from this year's toque sales will go to four shelter and supportive housing
providers in St. John's: Choices for Youth, Stella Burry Community Services,
the AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the St. John's Native
Friendship Centre Association. These organizations have recently built or are
building new shelters and supportive housing in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes and supports the need for safe,
affordable and sustainable housing and continues to actively address this issue.
An average of $66 million is allocated to support social rental housing programs
in Newfoundland and Labrador each year. The Province's Provincial Home Repair
Program, offered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, provides
approximately $9 million to over 2,000 households province-wide annually. This
program is aimed at keeping lower income people in their own homes for as long
as possible and preventing them from becoming homeless.
In St. John's alone, some $360,000 has been provided in Shelter Enhancement
funding through partnerships on projects like the Stella Burry Corporation's
Carew Lodge and Emmanuel House. Other properties which have been provided
funding include the St. John's Native Friendship Centre and the Naomi Centre.
Projects funded outside of St. John's include the Bay St. George Status of
Women's Council and the Nain Group Home.
Also, government representatives from Health and Community Services, HRLE and
NLHC work with community partners on the Homelessness Advisory Committee. This
is a federal, provincial, municipal and community committee which selects and
funds housing projects for people in the community who are at risk for
homelessness.
As well, through NLHC's Affordable Housing Program, approximately $1.7
million will be committed by the corporation for affordable housing units in
this year's budget. The funding will subsidize the construction of fifty-four
new affordable housing units, some of which will be completed this fiscal year
with the remainder being completed in early spring.
Mr. Speaker, this Province is committed to improving the well-being of those
most at risk for homelessness and we are working in partnership with all levels
of government and community groups to find the best possible solutions and
options to address this issue.
I am looking forward to meeting with my federal, provincial and territorial
colleagues at meetings in Ottawa later this month. We hope to develop an
approach for a long-term national housing strategy.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and
also to join with the minister and others in the community in supporting
National Housing Day. I would also like to express our support for the Raising
the Roof 2004 Campaign.
I would encourage all members of the hon. House and the general public to buy
a toque in support of those worthwhile organizations. However, Mr. Speaker, as
we support this day, we should also keep in mind the importance of dealing every
day with the housing problems which exist in this Province. We should be aware
of the hardships caused when this government decreased the damage deposit
allowed for income support clients. We should be aware of the increasing rental
prices, in particular in the St. John's area, which indicate that we are
heading for a potential housing crisis in this Province. It is fine and well,
Mr. Speaker, to celebrate this day, but I advise the minister she should think
of the housing needs of the people every day and change the policies of her
department to reflect that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we too support the charitable efforts of these community groups, we
have to recognize that homelessness should not, in fact, be a charity at all,
but it is a government responsibility to guarantee shelter to all of its
citizens.
What the minister didn't say, Mr. Speaker, is that the support that
government provides for housing is grossly inadequate in this Province and on a
national level. We haven't had a national housing program since 1994. Although
this Province signed an agreement with the federal government on affordable
housing, the minister didn't mention what programs might be coming forward
from her department and her government, under the $30 million that has been
allocated for this work. We need that money spent quickly, Mr. Speaker, not
waiting around for two or three years until this government figures out what it
is going to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In recognition of National Child Day held Saturday past, November 20, 2004,
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the future and promise of our Province's
children and youth. National Child Day commemorates the 1989 signing of the UN
Convention on the Rights of Child Treaty which spells out the basic human rights
that children under the age of eighteen everywhere, without discrimination,
should enjoy.
This year's international theme is A World Fit for Children. As parents,
community members, and as a Province, we have a responsibility to build a
nurturing and secure environment so that our children have an equal opportunity
to learn, grow and succeed. Creating an environment that instills values,
provides educational opportunities, and protects our children is an important
priority for this government and our country.
Recently children's issues have been at the national forefront, from early
learning and child care to literacy and the societal challenges we collectively
face with our increasing rates of childhood obesity and health and social issues
of Aboriginal children. It reinforces our belief that we must equip our children
and youth with the tools they need to break down barriers, overcome challenges
and allow them to reach their full potential.
Parents are a child's first teachers and they can be the most effective
instructors. One of the most important activities parents can do with their
children is to simply read with them. We know that early learning and literacy
has a significant impact on the future wellness and learning for children.
I am pleased to report to this House that our recent Early Childhood
Development annual report noted that over 85 per cent of children, five and
under, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are read to daily by an adult. That number
is substantially higher than the national average of 66 per cent in the same age
group, and for that we should all be proud.
To expand on the important work that parents do, our government has taken
significant steps to give our children greater opportunities for development and
learning. Community partnerships with organizations like the Kids Eat Smart
Foundation, the implementation of a Mother Baby Nutritional Supplement,
additional investments in child protection and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Child Benefit, along with education initiatives, such as Healthy
Children-Healthy Schools, are all actions that our government has taken this
year.
Mr. Speaker, on this special day we see hope and we celebrate the
possibilities for our children now and in the future. Today I encourage all
members of this House to wear a symbolic blue ribbon and join me as we reaffirm
our determination and our sincere commitment to do more for our youth so that no
child is left behind.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the hon. minister for a copy of his statement today.
All of our caucus is pleased to stand and support and recognize National Child
Day, but I say to the minister, it is our actions everyday on the children's
agenda that will testify to our real commitment to children in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to give special consideration on this
occasion to the needs of autism children in our Province, to pay heed to the
statements that are being made by the Child Advocate in Newfoundland and
Labrador and the growing need of Aboriginal children in Labrador and the
statements the Child Advocate has made.
I, also, Mr. Speaker, want to point out that we were the government that
started and enhanced a number of the initiatives the minister has outlined today
with regard to family resource centres and the Mother Baby Nutritional
Supplement, and we were partners, as well, for a number of years with the Kids
Eat Smart Foundation. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to continue to build upon our
children's agenda and that includes looking at the recreational needs and the
infrastructure and the programs that children need all across our Province.
Today we are celebrating the creative arts festival and drama festival in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, where children in Labrador and in that region have lobbied for
an auditorium for their school to be able to carry out the arts and drama
programs they started almost thirty years ago. So, I say to the minister today,
look at all of those needs and carry forward with an agenda that we can be -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS JONES: - proud of collectively for children in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, but I have to
say, Mr. Speaker, it is like another day and another resolve: the more things
change the more they remain the same.
In 1989, in the House of Commons, there was a unanimous resolution agreed to
that was presented by Ed Broadbent to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000 child poverty was greater than it was
when the resolution was introduced.
What we need to do in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we can take things into our
own hands that will greatly enhance the elimination of child poverty and to make
life better for our children. Some of things that this government could do is
have a universal school lunch program. Another thing they could do is eliminate
the school fees so that parents are not saddled with the financial burden of
sending their children to school.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: By leave to wrap up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: A higher minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, that would put more
money in the hands of parents to be able to take care of their children's
needs. So, all of these things, Mr. Speaker, are things that this government
could be doing and should be doing and it is time that they take affirmative
action on this, not put out a release saying what they resolve to do but
actually put some concrete programs in front of people of this Province to
demonstrate what they are doing.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In asking my question of the Premier I would like first to advise Your Honour
and the House that I will be introducing a motion, at the appropriate point
after Question Period, to ask that we adjourn the Orders of the Day to hold an
urgent and emergent debate on the Atlantic Accord in advance of tomorrow's
critical meeting.
We want, I think, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity here - and this is our first
opportunity to do it - to send a united message to all of those in Ottawa that
all members of this House support the Province's position on receiving 100 per
cent of our offshore revenues without equalization clawback.
Mr. Speaker, we have even put together - and I think some people have seen it
- a pamphlet that puts our position with respect to the Accord, in an attempt to
put it in everyday street language for people that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now if he could get to his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we, as the Opposition, are very hopeful and expect that an
Accord deal will be finalized tomorrow. My first question for the Premier is: In
advance of this important meeting tomorrow, is he prepared to support an
opportunity for this Legislature to have an urgent and emergent debate with
respect to this issue today so that there is no misunderstanding from anybody
else, anywhere in the country, about the united position of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly welcome the question from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
As he can appreciate, and as all hon. members opposite and all of us can
appreciate, this is a very delicate and difficult time in these negotiations.
Although I appreciate the offer to have a debate, there certainly is opportunity
this afternoon in the Address and Reply for hon. members to sort of state their
positions and attempt to clarify, in their own way, the positions and the issues
that are before us with the Atlantic Accord.
But, tomorrow is a critical day, and as I said before, things are delicate.
We have to be very, very careful. We are all in this together. As
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are all in this together, and this hon.
House, and the last thing we need is debate because there really should be no
debate, just as there should be no negotiation. There is really nothing to talk
about. We know what we asked for, we know what was agreed to, we know what we
want as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Therefore, I would certainly ask the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to - under the circumstances - reconsider that request because I just
do not think it would appropriate and I do not think it would be helpful under
the circumstances.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will be making the request at the appropriate point and
explain my reasons for doing so as we move through the agenda today.
Mr. Speaker, during the June 5 conversation between the Premier and the Prime
Minister, I would ask the Premier this question: Did he receive any commitments
as to whether the new payments under the Accord will be retroactive to a
particular date? The people of the Province have been going without these extra
revenues since first oil in late 1997, despite the best efforts of previous
governments to have the changes effective. Has the Premier secured a retroactive
date for these payments to commence, either at first oil back in late 1997, at
the beginning of the fiscal year, April 1, 2004, or at least no later than the
commitment date of June 5 when the conversation was held?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. gentleman opposite can appreciate, and I can repeat it again,
this is a very delicate time, we have to be very careful. I understand you have
a job to do as Leader of the Opposition and you have to ask questions.
The issue of retroactivity has been discussed throughout, both before and
since the agreement was reached on June 5. I don't want to do anything here
today that is going to give away our negotiating position in any manner
whatsoever. When I say negotiating -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is a good point, a good point, a fair point.
What we are trying to do is wrap a package for the federal government, so
that they can live with their commitment. What we are going to try and do is
find a way for them to deliver exactly what we need, but we wouldn't want to
do anything today to jeopardize that.
In answer to your question, there have been discussions on that before, there
have been discussions since, and that is a matter that will ultimately be dealt
with at the end of the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everybody is glad to hear that issue is part of the discussions, the talks,
the negotiations that are proceeding.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier decided not to get the Prime Minister's Atlantic
Accord commitment in writing during the federal election, and he has explained
why several times to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. A week and a half
ago, Mr. Speaker, it was reported on VOCM that the Premier now has a
written commitment as a result of the meeting with Premier Hamm and Prime
Minister Martin in Ottawa on November 10. In the spirit of openness,
transparency and accountability, which the Government House Leader talked about
this morning as being the hallmark of this session, I would ask the Premier if
he would table the written commitment that he told VOCM he received on
November 10 in his meeting with Premier Hamm and the Prime Minister in Ottawa.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know where that is coming from but it is inaccurate. Why it is
inaccurate, I have no idea. It is not to sort of lay blame on anybody for
recording it incorrectly, because it is the first I have heard of it. There was
no written agreement in that particular meeting, just to make the record very
clear. There were actually note takers in that meeting. There was an note taker
on behalf of the Premiers, there was note taker there on behalf of the Prime
Minister, so notes were actually taken, but there was no written agreement
reached.
Also, with respect to a criticism, for want of a better word, that there was
never an agreement in writing, you know we put our proposal in writing to the
Prime Minister. He indicated here in Newfoundland and Labrador on the morning of
June 5 that he accepted our proposal which was the proposal that was put in
writing. He publicly acknowledged that, in the media afterwards, to the witness
of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, including Walter Noel and including,
of course, all the Newfoundland and Labrador MPs.
Following that, on June 10, I wrote him and clarified exactly what out
position was, what the agreement was that was reached. I wrote him again on
August 5, I wrote him again on August 24, and clearly set out what the
unconditional, unequivocal agreement was. He did not reply. He did not renege.
He did not dispute. He did not disagree at any point in time with that
particular commitment.
With regard to obtaining a commitment from the Prime Minister in writing,
that commitment was requested time and time again. It was not done. I was not in
the position to basically go over and strong-arm him and put his hand and put -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier if he could finish his answer rather quickly.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was not in a position to go over and take him by the
hand and put a pen in his hand and put it to writing. There was absolutely
nothing we could do about that, but we bookended it on both sides to the very
best of our ability, and in my opinion we have a very, very strong and binding
commitment by the Prime Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer and the information, with respect to a VOCM news report that there
was a written commitment given in Ottawa, is part of the problem when there is
no information and no debate, that we have to rely on the news services to
report what was happening. They quoted our Premier as saying: I have it in
writing this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask this final question - and I know there is a sensitive
meeting tomorrow which is why we want to show our support today so that nobody
misunderstands the resolve of this particular Legislature. The Premier and the
Finance Minister have been saying that the two major stumbling blocks - and this
is in the public media - have been an annual cap and some problem with a time
limit. Could the Premier confirm that along with retroactivity, which is being
discussed, that those are the two major issues that they are trying to resolve
tomorrow?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the most important word that was used in that question was that they
are with us and in support of us today, because we really did not know where
they were a week ago just before the convention. Just before the convention they
were against us and then they were with this, and they were against us. It
depends on which way the wind is blowing, but I am delighted that the day before
this very, very important meeting that you are with us because it is very, very
important that you are with us. We want your support, we need your support, just
as we need the continued support of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as we
called on in Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I hope that you not only stay with us today, that you
stay with us tomorrow, and if the federal government does not deliver exactly
what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were promised and are entitled to,
that you stay with us the day after, and the month after, and the year after
until we receive fairness and justice for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last spring I asked - my questions are for the Premier by the way - the
Premier questions about the sale of certain assets of FPI. At the time the
Premier told me that he could not comment on this matter because FPI was a
private company. However, he did assure this House and the people of the
Province that he would stay on top of this file and do what was in the best
interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would assume by staying on top of this
file the Premier meant that he was going to be kept apprized of what FPI was
proposing to do, not only in the United States but also here in this Province.
In that case, I ask the Premier: Would he tell this House today when he first
learned about FPI's plan to close the plant in Harbour Breton because the
union and the people of Harbour Breton only heard about it this weekend through
the media?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member opposite has indicated, we have been in discussions with FPI
since, I guess, late April on their proposed income trust transaction and also
we have had numerous discussions with them on the state of processing in the
Province: shellfish, shrimp, crab, and groundfish as well, Mr. Speaker.
We have a working group established with FPI, the FFAW and the Town of
Harbour Breton as it relates to the situation in Harbour Breton. There have been
numerous discussions on this issue. It has been certainly articulated to us on a
number of occasions, as it has been to the union, to the town and to the local
MHA, that there are potential structural problems associated with the plant in
Harbour Breton and there are ongoing problems with the raw materials supply and
frozen-at-sea cod.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding on Thursday past - I was out of the Province,
but on Thursday past there was a meeting of this working group, where FPI -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister if he could complete his question quickly.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, on Thursday past FPI informed the working group of the structural
problems in Harbour Breton and there was a press release that went out on
Friday. We were not informed that a press release was going out on Friday. We
found out about it the next day. Well, Mr. Speaker, we were fully aware of the
situation as it relates to the structural problems and what that could mean for
the Harbour Breton facility in the short term and the long term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, so the minister never did answer the question. Did
you know that they were going to close the plant or didn't you?
But to go down to another one, Mr. Speaker. The Premier - I will ask this of
the Premier. Premier, your Minister of Fisheries, when he sat on this side of
the House, assured the mayors of Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton that the
Tory Party would only accept layoffs at FPI if the union and the employer, FPI,
mutually agreed to them through negotiations. Premier, you now have the ultimate
layoff in Harbour Breton. Four hundred people were told this weekend that they
no longer have jobs. Will the Premier now live up to the commitment that his
minister gave these mayors two years ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are engaged in a process with the company,
with the union and with the town, to try and find a solution for Harbour Breton.
There is a problem with the plant in Harbour Breton. There is a problem with raw
material supply in the form of frozen-at-sea cod that has increased to over
$3,000 a metric ton right now. There is a problem, as everybody in this country
knows, with the Canadian dollar that is now trading at roughly $1.20 versus over
$1.40 a couple of years ago.
Mr. Speaker, there are problems in the groundfish industry throughout the
world, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are
engaged in a process with the company, the union and the town. We are going to
stick to that process, and hopefully at the end of it we will find a solution
for Harbour Breton. That is all that anybody can commit to right now, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: I guess the answer, Minister, is that you are not going to
honour your commitment. I just wonder what happened in your short journey from
right here to where you sit today.
Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier. He stated in the media
this morning that FPI's corporate restructuring plan would be put to a free
vote before this floor. Mr. Speaker, as the Premier knows, this is a complex
issue. What I am asking him today is that he establish an all-party committee or
a standing committee from this House, so that we can review this plan that FPI
has put forward, as well as look at the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed FPI income trust transaction is a continuing
negotiation between the Province and the company. If we arrive at a point where
there is something to bring before the House, we will bring it before the House.
In advance of that, Mr. Speaker, there will certainly be a communication between
this side of the House and that side of the House on what is entailed; there
will be a full briefing. Certainly, we will be prepared to give a full briefing
of the situation. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have committed to.
The Premier has had discussions with the leaders of the opposition parties
back about a month ago, on our intent as it relates to the FPI Act and what
might be done with that. When we have something to bring before the House, all
members will be fully apprised and fully informed of the situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &
Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has informed us of today is: he
did not know that the plant was going to close in Harbour Breton; he will not
honour the commitment that he made to the mayors and people of these particular
towns; he will not establish an all-party committee to do something for these
people. I ask the minister: What will you do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what we will do is ask the appropriate questions; more than this
government did when they were on this side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I remember vividly, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition, when he sat in the Premier's chair, saying, I didn't have enough
interest to ask a question.
Well, we have enough interest, Mr. Speaker, to ask questions. We have been
asking questions since April. We are engaged in a process with the company and
the union and the town. We will remain engaged with that, and, as we did with
Arnold's Cove, if there is a viable solution we will engage. If there is not a
viable solution, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is also for the Premier, or the Minister of Fisheries if he
wishes to answer.
The Harbour Breton fish plant is an economic anchor for the Town of Harbour
Breton and for the entire Connaigre Peninsula. It provides 400 direct jobs, and
more than that number in indirect and induced employment. This is a devastating
day for Harbour Breton, and a dark day for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
My question to the Premier or to the minister is - and I know about the
meetings being held, but I do not trust the company - what immediate action is
this government going to take to ensure the future of the Harbour Breton fish
plant and the Town of Harbour Breton?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, we have had a number of meetings on
this. There is nobody, Mr. Speaker, in this Province who could give any
community, in the face of the resource problems that we have, in the face of
competition in China, in the face of a changing frozen-at-sea cod market, in the
face of a substantially increased Canadian dollar, any commitment as to what
lies in the short-term future or the long term. All we can do, Mr. Speaker, is
commit to a process to try and find a solution.
This time last year, when we took over government, National Sea and Bruce
Wareham, and the people of Arnold's Cove, came to us to see if we could find a
solution. We told them then that we did not know if we could find a solution,
but we engaged in a process and, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we found a
solution.
Now, will we be able to do it this time? I do not know, but we did it the
last time, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House or
no one in Harbour Breton or no one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
who will want to see a solution to it anymore than I do, and the minister is
aware of that.
Mr. Speaker, last year FPI reached a tentative Memorandum of Understanding
with its unions for the company's groundfish operations on the Province's
South Coast, which was to see significant capital investment while protecting
workers and enhancing plant productivity. What happened to the proposed
investment in the plant at Harbour Breton? It did not happen. The company, as I
said, cannot be trusted. It is Harbour Breton today, tomorrow it will be
Fortune, and the next day it will be Bonavista. Will the government tell FPI
that the decision to close Harbour Breton is unacceptable and hold them
accountable for doing so?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member knows, and as I have said previously here in the House today
and in the media outside of the House prior to today, we have engaged in a
process with FPI, the company and the union, to try and find a solution in
Harbour Breton. Mr. Speaker, I understand that commitments were made by the
company in Harbour Breton. We will do what we can to try and facilitate the
honouring of those commitments. However, Mr. Speaker, we all must realize that
the water on the beans presents a serious set of challenges in Harbour Breton
just as it does in Englee.
Mr. Speaker, there is no easy solution in any of these communities when there
is a lack of resource. On the Connaigre Peninsula, just three weeks ago on
November 2, we announced a fin fish aquaculture loan guarantee initiative.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the minister now to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just three weeks ago we announced a fin fish aquaculture loan guarantee
initiative to help in feed financing. That, Mr. Speaker, is directly targeted in
the initial stages at the Connaigre Peninsula. That might solve some of the
problems, we do not know but we will see.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le
Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, without involvement from the provincial
government it is questionable whether this operation in Harbour Breton will
continue, and the one in Fortune and Bonavista will go next. It is obvious that
FPI sees no future for processing plants in this Province.
I am asking the Premier, is he prepared to have FPI live up to the rhetoric
of investing in new plants for these communities rather than investing in
floating offshore plants that will see the end of onshore processing in the
Province by FPI?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To directly answer that question, we will ensure that FPI lives up - and all
other fish processing companies in this Province - to its requirements for
producing in this Province, in our plants; not at sea, not to be shipped out.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why we will bringing a revised Fish Inspection Act to the
floor here in the coming weeks. That is why we are bringing a Fish Licensing
Board Policy to the floor here in the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, we will ensure that they live up to their commitments in the
short term; unlike, Mr. Speaker, some of the commitments that were not forced to
be honoured by the government opposite when they were over here in the previous
Administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions for the Premier concerns the Atlantic Accord. Is the Premier and
his government being pressured by Ottawa to dedicate Atlantic Accord payments to
debt reduction? Will he assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that his
government will not give in to such patronizing demands and tell the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that the fiscal and financial benefits of the Atlantic
Accord will be available to improve needed services for the people of this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman opposite that when it comes to
the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is the
Atlantic Accord or anything else, we will be pressured by absolutely nobody and
we have not been pressured.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand that he respects that and I appreciate the
support of the New Democratic Party in this particular issue.
Having said that, there have been suggestions at one point in time that this
possibly go to debt. There has been a whole myriad of suggestions that have been
put forward. The Minister of Finance sat through a twelve-hour marathon last
Thursday. Of course, there were all kinds of suggestions put forward but our
position has been consistent, has been solid, has been firm. We have resolve in
this. We are going to stay the course on this. We are not moving off the
position. The proposal that was put to the Prime Minister on June 5, the
proposal that was accepted by the Prime Minister on June 5, the proposal that
was not reneged on or negated by the Prime Minister and all the correspondence
since, and we are going to stay the course.
As I said before, I will say again, we will not back down and we will not say
yes to less under any circumstances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a
supplementary.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Premier knows, our party, both provincially and federally, has
consistently supported the position that Newfoundland should get 100 per cent,
with no clawbacks, from the very beginning.
What I want to ask the Premier, there has been a lot of numbers bandied about
during this debate and discussion. Can the Premier tell the House: What is the
amount of additional revenues that would be available if the Prime Minister, Mr.
Martin, meets his commitment? What is the additional money that will be
available under the Atlantic Accord in the next fiscal year? Can people in this
Province, like patients requiring Alzheimer's drugs or drugs for Multiple
Sclerosis, people on the minimum wage, those who are in child care and home care
workers, can all of these -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member now to complete his question.
MR. HARRIS: Can these people look to the Atlantic Accord, and new
payments under the Accord, for improvements in their condition as a result of
this deal being achieved?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. gentleman opposite knows, we were left with a fiscal mess in this
Province. We have a huge hole to climb out of as a result of the damage that was
done by the past Liberal government. The study that was done back in - I guess
during Christmas of last year, showed that we are facing future billion dollar
deficits. So we have a huge deficit to try and overcome.
A very simple answer to your question though is that there is no way of
predicting because we do not know next year exactly what the dollar is going to
be and we do not know what the price of oil is going to be. It is a moving
target, so it is impossible to pin that down. We have various projections done
on various scenarios but we cannot decide - not decide, we cannot say exactly
what the price of oil is because we do not know. Five or six years ago it was
down around $12 a barrel. It has been up over $50 a barrel. So, it is a moving
target. As a result of that there is no way to give you an exact answer, and I
am not trying to be cute. I am not trying to avoid the question. I am not trying
to be evasive under any circumstances, but the calculation is easy to make based
on various scenarios and you, yourself, of course can do that calculation as
easy as I can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated to the third party has expired.
The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Minister, the Premier announced
today in the media that certain legal opinions had been obtained with regard to
the FPI restructuring and their marketing arm in particular. The Premier also
indicated there would be a debate and a free vote in this House regarding that
issue. I assume such legal opinions would have gone through your Department of
Justice. Would you undertake to table these opinions in the House, or, if not,
at the very minimum provide copies of those legal opinions to the Opposition so
we can prepare for that debate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member now knows, or should
know, that legal opinions obtained by the Department of Justice are for the
benefit of the government and it would be inappropriate to disclose those
opinions unless the Premier and the government should authorize that disclosure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Well, it is nice to see at least one Marshall is allowed to speak for
themselves on that side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Minister, I ask you again: Could you at least tell us -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister at least tell us if the issue of violation that the
Premier referenced this morning in the media - there was a legal opinion that
said there was one possible violation of the FPI Act - could the minister tell
us if that relates to the 15 per cent shareholder issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that the legal
opinions that the department has obtained are for the benefit of the government
and will only be disclosed with the approval of the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is time for one more short question and an equally short answer.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Oh, I have plenty of questions, enough to keep us all winter.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have about twenty-five seconds left. The hon. member has been recognized.
A quick question and an equally quick answer.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can be fast when I have to be.
Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board. It is estimated that the Province will receive in excess of $200
million in extra oil revenues and gas taxes along with the new health care money
and adjustments to equalization. This does not include the anticipated new money
from the Atlantic Accord.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this new revenue, I ask the Finance Minister:
When are you going to give the people of this Province a financial update?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
For a short answer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure if that is in my repertoire.
Whose estimates are you using, number one. I hope it is not yours, because
they were never very accurate in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, I hope that before next week is out I will be
able to give a fiscal update (inaudible). I have been very preoccupied with the
Atlantic Accord. Unless something unforeseen takes an inordinate amount of time
over the next week or so, you should hope to receive them by next week and then
we will see the true, accurate figures that our government is so used to putting
forth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Public Tender Act Exceptions
reports for the months of May, June, July, August and September, 2004.
I wish to also table the 2003-2004 Activity Letter for the Consumer
Protection Fund for Prepaid Funeral Services.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 26(5)(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling eight Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the
2005-2006 to the 2008-2009 fiscal years.
Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 28(4)(
e) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council for the creation of one
new activity of expenditure for the 2004-2005 fiscal year.
Pursuant to
section 28(4)(
e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling two special warrants relating to the 2004-2005 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?
The Speaker would like at this time to note that, in accordance with
section
5.(4) of the Internal Economy Commission Act, I am pleased to inform the House
of Assembly that the hon. Tom Marshall, Member for Humber East, has been
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to replace Ms Elizabeth
Marshall, the Member for Topsail, on the Commission of Internal Economy as of
October 6, 2004.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities
Act, 1999." (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government
And Government Entities To The People of the Province." (Bill 39)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine." (Bill 34)
I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act,
1991." (Bill 40)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 35)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement." (Bill 44)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and
Labrador Affairs.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board." (Bill 36)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act To Provide For The Registration Of Lobbyists." (Bill 43)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996
And The Memorial University Act." (Bill 42)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act."
(Bill 38)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing
Agency." (Bill 41)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
I am sorry. I apologize; I did not see the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune standing.
Reverting to Notices of Motion.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS Fishery Products International is a critical part of the fishing
industry, provides economic and social well-being and contributes to stability
and prosperity in many communities of this Province; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador refused to lift the 15
per cent share restriction that is forcing an end to the NEOS Seafood bid to buy
all outstanding shares of FPI; and
WHEREAS in correspondence with government and reports in the media, John
Risley said in May 2001 - and I quote - "None of the FPI employees have
anything to fear" and "We are going to do this (expand the company) by
investing in the company, not laying people off"; and
WHEREAS in a Proxy Circular to Holders of Common Shares of FPI in April 2001,
Mr. Risley stated, "(We) do not intend to close any of FPI's processing
facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere."; and
WHEREAS in 2002 when FPI was preparing to implement an investment strategy
which would have resulted in more than 600 job losses in the three groundfish
plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, government undertook to ensure
that FPI lived up to previous commitments on employment related issues,
resulting in legislative amendments to the FPI Act to protect processing
workers; and
WHEREAS in January of 2003, FPI and its unions reached a tentative Memorandum
of Understanding for the company's groundfish operations on the Province's
South Coast, which promised significant capital investment while protecting
workers and enhancing plant productivity; and
WHEREAS FPI is a creature of the Fisheries Restructuring Act and later the
FPI Act; and
WHEREAS FPI announced that it will not be reopening the Harbour Breton fish
plant, rocking the entire Province, shaking the industry and devastating FPI
workers, families and communities along the South Coast;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly calls on the provincial
government to demand that FPI make the necessary investment to save the Harbour
Breton fish plant and restore confidence and trust in the company.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice that on Wednesday, Private
Members' Day, the motion just put forward by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape
la Hune will be the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly on the issue of
the minimum wage. The petitioners ask the House of Assembly to urge and call
upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the minimum wage to
at least $8 an hour by 2005.
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a big jump, from $6 an hour today to $8 an
hour, but $8 an hour is not even enough, when you look back at the history of
the minimum wage in this Province from 1976 when the minimum wage was $2.50 an
hour. In order for the minimum wage of today to have the same purchasing power
as it did in 1976, if you take into account inflation, our Province's minimum
wage would have to be $8.40 an hour, or 40 per cent higher than its current $6
an hour rate, to keep pace with inflation.
What, in fact, has been happening, Mr. Speaker, over the last twenty-five or
thirty years in this Province, is that the minimum wage is actually lower now
than it was before. This is a very significant problem for the low income people
of this Province. I know the minister is receiving submissions from various
bodies of people over the last little while on the minimum wage. It is a very
important consideration, a lot of people affected by it. Some 13 or 14 per cent
of our workforce is affected by it, one of the highest percentages of workforces
in the country affected by the minimum wage.
There are a substantial number of myths about it - I only have a couple of
minutes today on this petition, but I understand we have others coming - a
number of myths, often perpetrated by such organizations like the Board of Trade
or business organizations. They say, for example, in June of this year that
study after study on minimum wage impact found that increases in the minimum
wage are very likely to reduce employment opportunities, especially for young
and unskilled workers who typically occupy lower wage jobs. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, the research shows just the opposite. The research indicates that the
impact of increasing the minimum wage on employment is virtually negligible,
that the majority of minimum wage earners also live in low income households and
therefore increasing the minimum wage actually helps alleviate poverty. In other
words, instead of hurting those it is supposed to help, higher minimum wages
actually help the lowest paid and low income families.
Mr. Speaker, we have a significant problem in this Province because of
minimum wage. Many people's wages are directly at the minimum wage itself, but
there are also a number of other jobs that keep themselves ten cents, twenty
cents, twenty-five cents above the minimum wage as a matter of course. By
raising the minimum wage you are also effectively improving the livelihoods of
many other people who aren't receiving the minimum wage.
We have seen, over the last number of years -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: A few moments to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.
MR. HARRIS: We have seen many increases in the economy in the last number
of years, but it hasn't helped the people on minimum wage. The only way to do
that is to have this government substantially increase the minimum wage to $8.00
an hour as requested by these petitioners.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition again on behalf of the youth of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Creative Arts Festival was held in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, where schools from all across Labrador gathered to put off
different plays. Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of years they have had a big
setback, and that is they don't have an auditorium in which to meet and do
their plays.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism, to the Minister of Education
and to the Premier, that this is a shame. The previous government, that I was
apart of, committed $2.4 million to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose
Bay to serve all of the children in Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the upcoming Budget with no announcement from
this government yet, it puts them back another year. The sad part about the
Creative Arts Festival this year is that there are rumors going around that this
may be the last year.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why is because the frustration for the children in
Labrador not to have an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area to do what
students in other parts of the Province take for granted. Mr. Speaker, that is a
shame. That is a shame. The people in the Upper Lake Melville area have gone out
and raised over $25,000 of their own money to make their contribution. Today,
when the present government talks of being fair to rural Newfoundland and
Labrador in having an agenda, then I think that it is a big misjustice'
today to know that as these children leave the Creative Arts Festival in the
Upper Lake Melville area they may have performed their last play or their last
act and, Mr. Speaker, that is a shame. That is a shame. That is a shame by this
government to defer such an important, vital part that the children in Labrador
need to advance their livelihood, their little way of life that they want to
show the rest of Labrador while they attend the last years of their schooling.
Mr. Speaker, as groups book to perform plays and exhibitions across
Newfoundland and Labrador, they cannot do that in the Upper Lake Melville area
because they do not have an auditorium. The Upper Lake Melville area and
Labrador is losing out. I say to the Premier, to the Minister of Tourism and to
the Minister of Education, please do the right thing. Before the children leave
tomorrow to go back to their communities, not knowing whether they will have the
opportunity to come back again next year, do the right thing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. ANDERSEN: - and make the announcement that (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from
Labrador West. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker, calling upon the Assembly
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS all other residents of Labrador, except Labrador West, can travel to
Goose Bay or St. Anthony for medical services at a cost of $40 return airfare;
and
WHEREAS residents of Labrador West have to pay nearly $500 to access the same
services.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to amend
this discriminatory policy immediately so as all residents of Labrador West
can avail of the same services at the same cost as other residents living in
other regions of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for a long, long time, probably more than
thirty years, and it was not until recently that people in Labrador West, for
the most part, were aware that this subsidy existed for people in other regions
of Labrador. It is only right that people in Labrador West expect to be treated
the same as people living in other parts of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the services that are available - I will use
Goose Bay as an example - where now the hospital has facilities for CT scans in
particular, it is quite common now for people in Labrador West to be referred
there for that service. Mr. Speaker, why should the people in Labrador West have
to pay $500 to avail of that service? We have, by right as a Canadian citizen,
by constitution, have the right to access health care and financial reasons
should not be a barrier in obtaining that health care.
I ask government to review their policy in this area immediately to allow for
the people of Labrador West - when they are referred to Goose Bay - to be able
to do so at the same cost as people on the North Coast of Labrador can travel to
Goose Bay or people on the South Coast or The Straits can go to St. Anthony. We
are not asking that the subsidies in the other areas be dropped. We know the
cost of travel from Labrador to obtain medical services, and it is quite high.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, on a local phone in radio program we heard the
plea, or the case of a young woman in Goose Bay who wanted to bring her daughter
to St. John's for surgery. The fact that she had to have ten surgeries; nine
prior, this being the tenth one for her child. The cost is exorbitant. We heard
the response from - I think it was the Mayor of Wabush, who rallied the airlines
to provide tickets for her. I would certainly commend Provincial Airlines for
taking the initiative to do that, but, Mr. Speaker, we should not have to depend
upon the goodwill of private companies in this Province, or other people through
the different forms of charity, to obtain a quality health service. People in
Labrador West are demanding, and rightfully so, to be treated the same as any
other resident -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. COLLINS: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador West rightfully expect to be treated the
same as other residents within Labrador when it comes to obtaining health
services for them and their families.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district.
I am not going to read the whole petition because it is a little bit long, but
it is regarding the government's decision not to clear snow on the road
between Red Bay and Lodge Bay of the Trans-Labrador Highway during the winter
months.
Mr. Speaker, people in my district were as shocked as I was. When I was in
the Budget lock-up this past year and the government brought in the Budget, one
of the restrictions that they placed in the Budget was their inability to
provide funds for snow clearing in the Province. They outlined a number of
sections of road that would not be cleared. Many of them we have heard people
debate about in the Province over the last little while that were considered
class four or cabin or cottage roads. Since then we have learned that numbers of
families and residents actually live on these roads and have for a long period
of time. One of those other sections of road was no side road and no class four
road, it was a main highway system through Labrador and it was one of the pieces
of highway that connects both ends of my district.
Mr. Speaker, government's decision to not clear this road is causing undue
hardship for the business community and for the residents of this particular
area. I am going to give you a couple of examples because I think that you would
never see a decision like this on any other road in this Province other than
probably where this location is in Labrador. I did not see the hon. minister out
saying that he would close a
section of road going into Comfort Cove or
Laurenceton or Notre Dame Junction or any of those areas in his own district,
but he did make a decision to close a
section of highway, a main highway system
in Southern Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have become accustomed, yes, to the
fact that there are heavy snow conditions on that
section of road, and yes, we
have accepted the fact that there are certain times during the year when we are
restricted from using that particular highway, but for the minister to close it
down for four months of the year, from January until May 1, is totally
inexcusable. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, it is a lack of responsibility that
they are showing to the people of that area of the Province.
For example, before the highway was built, the people in my district had
storage tanks for fuel and they could store enough fuel for a four month period.
Well, that is not the case today, Mr. Speaker, and when this
section of road is
closed we are going to have difficultly getting a fuel supply on that part of
the coast to some of our operators.
We were accustomed to having large warehouses attached to our businesses so
they could bring in goods in the fall of the year and store them for probably a
period of four months, but when the highway was built they took out those
storage sheds and those warehouses because they thought they had another access
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
Does the member have leave?
MR. E. BYRNE: About 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: A small amount of time has been granted.
The hon. the member may continue.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, now they do not have that storage capacity and
there is no subsidy program in place to offset the cost of getting goods in. The
program that is there is already overextended. It is running out of money - it
did last year - on an annual basis, so there is not an alternative.
Government has not made a decision on a centralized airport for the region.
In fact, they still do not even have the study in their office that was started
more than two years ago, as I understand, Mr. Speaker. So what is the
alternative for access for people in this part of Labrador? Right now, their
only alternative is to get that road open and get it cleared this winter.
I ask the minister to have some heart and to honour the commitments that they
made in the election, to have some prosperity and some economic opportunity -
AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, no leave.
MS JONES: - in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to clear this road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Leave has been withdrawn.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Before we move to the Orders of the Day, earlier this afternoon when the
Member for Burin-Placentia West was speaking, we welcomed him back after a very
significant health challenge. We would also like to recognize and welcome back
the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader would know that when
I asked my first question today I gave notice that at this point in time, which
is the appropriate point in time pursuant to Standing Order 36 of our Orders,
that I had given notice earlier, and I was disappointed the Government House
Leader was trying to make sure that did not happen.
Mr. Speaker, this is the appropriate time to give notice, under Standing
Order 36, and ask for leave of the House, because we can do anything by leave.
We understand that the Premier, who is only one member and who believes in free
votes, does not think that what I am about to say is important and necessary,
but we all have an equal vote in this Legislature and I am sure that the members
opposite will make up their own minds.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to ask leave, to
move that the House adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent
importance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to ask for leave, he can stand up
and ask for it. He cannot stand up on a point of order and then ask for leave.
MR. SPEAKER: In the exchange that occurred just a few moments ago, when
both members were standing, the Chair recognized, of course, the leader of the
government on the government side. However, there had been a notification
earlier to the Chair that the Leader of the Opposition intended, at this stage,
to ask leave of the House. When the member stood in his place, the Chair is now
recognizing the Leader of the Opposition having spoken about it earlier. It is
not a point of order, but the Chair is prepared to hear the submission being put
forward asking for leave of the House to adopt a motion under
Section 36 of the
Standing Orders.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as you would know and some members would know, Standing Order 36
suggests that leave to make a motion for adjournment of the House, when made for
the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, must be
asked after the ordinary daily routine and before Orders of the Day, which is
now.
Mr. Speaker, then it says, where possible and appropriate, notice should be
given - which I did with your office this morning. Your office was contacted,
through the Clerk, to indicate that I planned to do this, this afternoon.
The member, Mr. Speaker, which is myself, in rising under
Section 36 to make
such a motion, rise in his place, ask leave for the purpose of discussing a
matter of urgent public importance, and then states the matter, which I am about
to do.
The matter, Mr. Speaker, is that probably by this time tomorrow - probably by
this time tomorrow, twenty-four hours from now - in the words of the Premier and
the Finance Minister and the Government House Leader - because they are the only
three that I have heard speak to this publicly - they suggest that we are going
into a meeting tomorrow that they are describing as a defining moment in the
history of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I think that makes it pretty urgent. Very few defining moments
come along. Now, the language of the Premier, the language of the Finance
Minister is that a meeting tomorrow is being described as a potential defining
moment.
The point is this, and I will forward to you in the Chair for your
consideration the motion that I would like for you to consider, to see whether
it is - as the Standing Order says, as to whether it is in order and whether
then it is of an urgent nature, in your opinion, and if so, I would suggest, in
making these few comments about the urgency of it. It is no good for us to try
to debate it tomorrow. We had asked to open this Legislature at an earlier date
a month ago. It was denied by the government and the Premier. We asked to open
the Legislature two weeks ago after the issue really came apart in Ottawa. We
were denied -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Orders are quite clear, that the member,
operating under
section 36, should stand in his place, state the matter and
which has been done. We are reluctant to enter into debates on the merits. That
would be debating the issue and that is not the purpose at this stage in our
proceedings.
The Chair - having received the notice here of a motion called resource
revenue commitment - will permit three speakers to very briefly, about a minute,
not more than a minute each, to say why this matter should be debated this
afternoon, and very brief submissions. We are talking here about the urgency of
the time not the urgency of the debate. The Chair will hear submissions of about
a minute each from the leaders of the three respective parliamentary groups.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.
This is a new twist, obviously, to permit three speakers, and that is fair
enough. Are you indicating one speaker from the Official Opposition, one speaker
from the NDP and one speaker from government as to whether this is urgent or
not? Is that what you have indicated?
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has to make a decision. The Chair's decision is
whether or not the Chair is satisfied that this matter is of sufficient urgency
to have this debated this afternoon instead of at some other time. The Chair
will call a recess and make that decision. However, before the Chair calls a
recess to make the decision on the matter of urgency in the debate, the Chair
will take advice from three speakers in the House. I have asked the three
leaders of the parliamentary groups if they would like to make a submission,
about a minute each, before the Chair recesses in the House to make a decision
on the matter of urgency in accordance with
section 36.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of clarification. It is my
understanding, reading the Standing Orders, that the member has to ask leave. It
says clearly, "The Member desiring to make such a motion..." - which I
have not heard one yet. So if he wants to make it, then let us hear it according
to the rules, not according to the rules that he wishes to make up but according
to the rules that all of us have to operate under here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: "The Member desiring to make such a motion..." -
matters of urgent public importance - "...rises in his or her place, asks
leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a
matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter." In
section 6 it
also says, "Except with the requisite leave or support the motion cannot be
made."
So, before we can do anything, according to our own rules, I suggest, Mr.
Speaker, the member must ask leave of the House to put the motion forward.
MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of clarification. When the Opposition
Leader was speaking, when he arose on the first occasion, he did indicate in his
commentary he was asking leave of the House under
section 36, and -
MR. E. BYRNE: He said he would be doing it.
MR. SPEAKER: He said he would be doing it. Well, I assumed that when the
hon. the member forwarded to the Speaker a resolution, then that would indicate
to the Speaker that leave was being requested. However, I would seek
clarification from the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess it is technically a point of order. I do not know if it is a response
to the point of clarification. Technically, a point of order says: Questions
raised with a view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing
Orders. That is the essences of a point of order.
My reading of
section 36(4) seems quite clear. "The Member then hands a
written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if
he or she thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and
asks whether the Member has leave...".
Now, the Leader of the Opposition told the Speaker this morning, through the
Clerk, what was going to happen today, when it would be raised. The Leader of
the Opposition stood in his place here at the appropriate time today, cited that
he was making this request under Standing Order 36, provided Your Honour with a
copy of the written statement that he proposes, that he is seeking leave for -
now, before we get to the leave stage, whether it is or is not granted, it says
very clearly - and I bring this up because we talk about departures from the
Orders. We are not discussing here whether one, two, three or anybody gets up
here to speak to the matter that has been handed to Your Honour.
The Speaker, I would submit, very clearly says, "The Member then hands a
written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker..."
Not who? The Speaker does not create new rules, I would suggest Your Honour, by
saying one, two or three people are going to speak. The question here is,
"...the Speaker, who, if he..." - in this particular case -
"...thinks it in order..." - number one - "...and of urgent
public importance..." - number two.
I would suggest that the proper thing we need done here first and foremost
before we go anywhere is Your Honour has to make a decision. Is what you have
been handed, the written statement that you have been handed by the Leader of
the Opposition, is it in order as a motion and is it of urgent, public
importance? Once that decision is made by Your Honour, then we decide where we
are going to go from here.
MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,
that is precisely what the Chair is attempting to achieve. Before the Chair
makes a decision as to whether the motion submitted by the Opposition Leader is
in order, the Chair is wanting to have some consultation with the leaders of
Parliament so the Chair can have that benefit before the Chair recesses the
House to decide whether or not this particular request or motion is indeed in
order.
With that, I recognize the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I understand the rule, Standing Order 36, we have never had this kind of
technical debate before in my experience in the House. It is very clear. What it
says, "If objection is taken..." - and what I hear from the other side
sounds like some kind of objection. If it is an objection taken to the request
for leave, it is very simple. The rule says that you ask the House and see if
there are twelve people who support the issue.
Under 36.(5), "If less than 12 but not less than 3 Members rise in their
places, the question whether the Member has leave... shall be put forthwith,
without debate..." Obviously, if twelve people support it there must be a
debate. So the issue here, the leave is required. The whole House does not have
to have leave to have the debate. There only needs to be twelve people.
There appears to be some objection to the leave over there, but it is the
Speaker who ultimately decides whether or not there is an emergency debate. The
only issue here is whether or not there is going to be a debate about whether
leave should be granted by the Speaker, because that is the way the rule is
written, Mr. Speaker. It is not whether or not this side is going to grant leave
but if it happens, if some objection is taken to the motion being put forward
then there is a question asked by the Chair who supports it. "...the
Speaker requests those Members who support the motion to rise in their places
and if not less than 12 Members rise accordingly the Speaker calls upon the
Member who has asked for leave." - and in which case there will be some
debate. If there are less than twelve then the motion is actually put to the
House and the votes taken, so it is all over with. If you only have three people
supporting the resolution there is actually a vote in the House, but if there
are twelve people then there is a debate on it and the Speaker decides.
That is my
interpretation of the rules, Mr. Speaker, and it seems to me that
is being ignored by my colleague opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the rules are clear, I am not debating. Here
is the process for it. I will go through it.
Leave to make a motion - which I have not heard the hon. member ask for leave
yet - leave to make a motion for the purpose of adjournment of the House, where
you consider a matter of public importance. That is step one, correct.
"Where possible and appropriate, notice of leave to make a motion under
this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker -" It doesn't say
shall but may, and I understand that the member did. Fair enough! - "to
make a motion under this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker before
the House opens on the day on which the Standing Order is invoked."
Thirdly, "The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his or her
place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of
discussing a matter of urgent public importance and states the matter."
"The member then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be
discussed to - you, Your Honour, - the Speaker, who, if he or she thinks it in
order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member
has the leave of the House."
We have done none of that yet. I don't know why we are even debating it. We
have not followed proper procedure here. That has not been handed, the Speaker
has not determined, he has not asked the leave of the House. Those are the
rules. That is not something I am making up. That is something we all made up,
that we govern ourselves by.
Fifth point, "If less than 12 but not less than 3 members rise in their
places, the question whether the Member has leave to move the adjournment of the
House shall be put forthwith, without debate, and determined if necessary by a
division.
My suggestion, I say to my colleagues in the House, lets follow steps
(1) through (5) and we will see where we get.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have been sitting here since the House started today and I don't know
where the Government House Leader says we haven't done subsections (1) (2)
(3) and we are in the first part of number (4). Number 36, subsection (1) -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Now, the Government House Leader has had his time to respond
to this. I would appreciate an opportunity to make my point as well.
Section 36, subsection (1) gives the time when a person must make an
application under this section. It must be done before we embark upon the Orders
of the Day. That has been done. We have done it now before the Orders of the
Day.
(2) "Where possible and appropriate, notice of leave to make a motion
under this Standing Order may be provided to the Speaker..." That was done
this morning by myself, as Opposition House Leader, to the Clerk through the
Speaker. That has been done.
(3) "The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his or her
place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of
discussing a matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter." -
which has been done.
(4) "The Member then hands a written statement..." That has been
done. The Government House Leader says that has not been done. To my knowledge,
Your Honour has in your hand a copy of the matter that the Opposition Leader
referred to here.
The next step in this process, as I read these rules, is that Your Honour
decides, now: Is it in order what you have been handed and is it a matter of
urgent public importance? Once you make that determination, then we go on to see
if there is an objection.
If you make a determination that it is not in order, or you make a
determination that it is not of urgent public importance, it does not go
anywhere beyond that, but if you make an order that it is in order and that it
is urgent public importance, then we go to the point of the process of how you
vote on it, and that is outlined in (5).
So, as I say, the point we are at now is, Your Honour has to make the
decision: Is it in order and is it of urgent public importance?
My point of order that I raised when I started this was because Your Honour
had suggested you were going to solicit opinions and guidance from three people
as to whether or not you, in making that order and making that decision about
whether it was in order and whether it was of urgent public importance - that is
my understanding of what you asked us.
What I am saying on my point of order is that, with all due respect, the
Chair is out of order to ask that, because that is creating a new rule. The onus
is upon the Chair, the Speaker, Your Honour, to make the decision whether the
Leader of the Opposition's written statement that he has given to you is in
order and is of urgent public importance. The voting procedure is quite correct,
as the Leader of the NDP has pointed out, but we only ever get to that point in
subsection (5) if Your Honour makes the decision on order and of public urgent
importance.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is satisfied that when the Leader of the Opposition stood in his
place, he started off by saying: I wish to rise to ask leave of the House to
discuss a matter of urgent public importance under
Section 36. I do believe that
Hansard will show that. Then, in the discussion when I mentioned that I would be
asking members for some advice, the intent was that the Chair would ask for a
short commentary on the urgency of the debate, not the urgency of the matter.
The Chair wishes to consult at all times with the political leaders of the
House, and to do so sometimes in a public forum, and in this particular case was
not creating new orders. The Chair is always anxious to engage in dialogue and
to seek advice.
With that said, the House will recess and the Chair will come back with a
ruling on the request made by the Leader of the Opposition in a short while.
This House is now recessed.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would like to rule on the matter of the urgency of the debate.
I note that the unedited transcript from Hansard quotes the Leader of the
Opposition as saying as follows, "Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36, I would ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House adjourn for the
purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance."
The Chair would rule that would meet the requirements of Standing Order
36.(3).
In considering the matter as to whether or not this matter should qualify for
an urgent debate in the House of Assembly this afternoon, I would like to refer
to some references. In Marleau and Montpetit, page 587, it says, "Although
the Standing Orders give considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a
matter should be brought before the House for urgent consideration, certain
criteria must be weighed. The Speaker determines whether a matter is related to
a genuine emergency which could not be brought before the House within a
reasonable time by other means, such as during a Supply day."
The Speaker also draws members' attention to the references from the House
of Commons in Ottawa. "A number of Speakers have refused applications for
emergency debates during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech
from the Throne because the Address debate allows for discussion on a wide range
of topics."
Members are invited to look at the Debates of February 18, 1972, April 4,
1989, and September 25, 1997, for references on this particular matter.
Also in reference to Beauchesne, we have several references. It says as
follows: Urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but means
urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the
House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public
interest demands discussion take place immediately.
Based on that, and the Parliamentary practices that we have had in this
House, the last time that a motion was successful for emergency debate occurred
in 1978. There have been many applications since then; however, Speakers have
encouraged, on some occasions, members to seek consensus from both sides of the
House. We have had emergency debates when both sides have agreed with leave to
carry on an emergency debate; however, on this particular matter, the Chair is
satisfied that on the Order Paper today there are opportunities for members to
debate this particular motion, so the Chair would rule, in accordance with
Standing Order 36, that this particular matter does not qualify and meet the
requirements for emergency debate this afternoon; in other words, for the House
to adjourn for the purpose of discussing this particular matter at this
particular time. There are other opportunities offered in debate for this matter
to be discussed.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 1, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 1, Address in Reply.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, when I stand here in the House, it is probably one of the most
difficult days that I have had since I have been here in 1989. We have had lots
of problems to deal with, and they are ongoing, with the Town of Ramea who have
seen their fish plant close and no other form of employment in the town, and
seen the population dwindle by about 66 per cent, probably even more.
We think of the community of Gaultois where, as we speak, the plant is not
open. They are hoping that somebody will come in and eventually open the plant,
but up to this particular time it has not happened.
Lo and behold, we have had problems with the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir,
on the Connaigre region, when I was a part of government. We paid out millions
of dollars in subsidies to the different groups and so on that participated in
the aquaculture industry. As the minister said earlier today, last month the
government put in a line of credit for the companies who wanted to buy feed for
their farms that they had there to feed the fish, and hopefully that, in itself,
would be a very major step forward to ensure that the aquaculture industry move
forward, and not only more forward but continue to grow.
Today, we have a situation where I never thought in my lifetime, when I grew
up on the South Coast, only twelve miles from Harbour Breton, in a small
community called Seal Cove, that I would ever be probably not even in the House
of Assembly - I guess you do not dream these things - but I never dreamed that
the plant in Harbour Breton would be closed and nobody would be able to work
there. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would happen. Sometimes you
even have to pinch yourself, I guess, to make sure that it is really happening
and that it is really true.
This just did not happen overnight, this particular problem in Harbour
Breton. It is Harbour Breton today, but it is not only going to be Harbour
Breton. There are going to be other plants that, hopefully, in the twenty
minutes that I have, will find themselves in the next situation; like Fortune,
like Bonavista, in the Deputy Speaker's district, and he recognizes, I am
sure, just as much or more than I do. Anytime you hear the word, you really
cringe as to what is going to happen.
So, here we are. I have participated in a number of meetings with the local
union in the plant in Harbour Breton, headed up by Eric Day. Eric and his group
of Mike, Gloria and Geraldine have done a tremendous job, and every time they
have come here to town I have been with them and I have had an opportunity to go
to FPI. It is the same thing with the council - Don Stewart. I have talked to
those guys often. I did yesterday, and I talked to them again today, and it is
very difficult for them, as it is for any person who has been involved in
municipal government, like the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Virginia
Waters, who knows that, and, I guess, the Member for St. John's Center and
others of you, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, knows it is very difficult in
a small town - and, of course, the Member for Lake Melville. Again, there are
others, but if I do not name everybody else then we will know we are in the same
boat here.
It is very, very difficult for municipal people in small communities to
generate jobs and be able to keep the economy growing. Harbour Breton really,
over the last number of years, has been a flagship on the Connaigre Peninsula
because the community has grown, and those of you who have gone down there
recognize that because it is a service centre for the Connaigre Peninsula.
We put a new medical facility in there, replacing a cottage hospital that was
built in 1955. We put an arena there that the people of Harbour Breton, through
payroll deductions at FPI plant and so on, paid for lock, stock and barrel. Of
course, there was government help involved but their portion they paid for; we
burned the mortgage on that.
Then, of course, there are the individual businesses: Pro Hardware, Home
Hardware, Foodland, Save Easy, and all of these different groups that are there,
and the community, last year, saw about twelve houses being built in that
particular community, and more were going to be done this year, and a new
subdivision about to be done.
Lo and behold, here we are, we find ourselves in this situation today, but it
did not start today. It started back, I guess, in 2001, when the group headed by
John Risley wanted to buy FPI through the NEOS, I think, was the acronym that
was used, and the government of the day, of which I was a part, said no to the
plan that they wanted to do. They wanted to lay off a lot of people in Harbour
Breton, in Fortune and in Marystown. We got a commitment from them, through the
new board and what have you, that there be no layoffs in those communities. That
particular company would then be vibrant, they would build new infrastructures,
they would invest in existing infrastructures in those communities that had been
there for time.
One of the plants was Harbour Breton. They made a commitment that they would
reinvest in Harbour Breton, but they did not reinvest in the plant in Harbour
Breton, to the point now where the company said they had an independent
appraisal done, saying that the plant is not fit for workers to go in. An
interesting proposal, though. I talked to the Mayor of Harbour Breton, because I
was not at the meeting on Thursday. At the meeting was an official from the
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, from the town, from the union and from
the company. They set up that small committee and they would inform the rest of
us about what happened, knowing what had happened, had gone to all of the
meetings that had happened up until that particular time with the minister a
number of times as well. Lo and behold, then, they did not invest into this
plant in Harbour Breton and now, as I said, they had an engineering study done
that says the plant is not structurally sound to allow the workers to go in.
Now, they probably knew about that in April but they did not tell the people.
They did not tell the people that when they closed the plant in April; but, do
you know what? The people at that particular time trusted the FPI people because
what they did when the plant would close over the years was, they would take
some equipment out of Harbour Breton and they put it into Fortune for the
Fortune people to use. When the plant closed in Fortune and operated in Harbour
Breton again, they would bring the particular equipment back. They were sharing.
Nobody thought anything about it.
In April of this year, when they closed, the people still had trust. People
like Eric Day, people like Don Stewart, the people of Harbour Breton thought
that the company was genuine and they would do the same thing again; but, do you
know what? It was their intention in April to do it, and as Eric Day, the
president of the union, said on Open Line this morning: If they had told us in
April that the plant was not structurally sound, that it would never open again,
we would have had some of our 300 people in Harbour Breton who would have tried
elsewhere for employment so they would have gotten the fourteen weeks and be
able to get top unemployment. It did not happen. The union was expecting and the
town was expecting. They were kind of, in a sense, being led along that the
plant would probably open.
Now, in the fall everybody knew about the structural defects in the plant and
now - you know, we talked, as the minister did today, about the increase in the
price of H and G cod, the frozen cod at sea, and all these types of things. The
value of the Canadian dollar has escalated so that the profit margin is less
than what it was. Everybody can understand that, but to lead the people to this
situation...
On Friday afternoon, by the way, I heard about the FPI, like many other
people did here, on the radio. They never had courtesy enough to phone and say
this is what is happening in Harbour Breton. I have been to their meetings, and
there were closed-door meetings. They asked us to be tight-lipped and not to say
anything about it, and I did not say anything about it. Like I told the people
in Harbour Breton, I did not want to be the one to blurt it out and cause some
problem for the people of Harbour Breton, because this problem is a lot bigger
than Oliver Langdon. It is a lot bigger than party politics. It is a community
that is at stake in this situation, and not only this community but other
communities as well, the whole way of life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I did not say anything. I kept it inside, like everybody else. I played along
with those guys, and they shared information with all of us. Then, on Friday
afternoon, on the radio, you hear that they had sent out a press release saying
they were going to close the Harbour Breton plant. Do you know what? The mayor
and the union rep were in St. John's on Thursday with meetings; they heard it
on the radio. They did not even allow them the decency to go home to their
people and have meetings and explain. They announced it Friday afternoon while
those guys were on their way home. That is how they treated them.
This is a lot of the problem here that has happened to the people, the way
that they have been treated and the way that they have been misled, as I would
possibly say. But, you know, there is a situation in Harbour Breton that the
whole community - I mean, it is like a sheet, a veil, over the whole community.
People did not spend because they were kind of scared about what would happen
this fall, but now, I mean, the situation where you have families that are going
to be running out of EI in February and nowhere to turn.
You know, to talk about the company and the way that they did it, they
brought in an independent engineering company to see if the plant was
structurally sound for the people to go back to work in. I do not know who the
company is - they did not tell - but what the town did, and this is where the
municipal leader comes in, the Mayor of Harbour Breton said to the guy: By the
way, we will get an independent study if you like. We will pay for it out of the
town's funds, to see if what you are saying is correct. They said no, we will
not allow you to do it.
Just look at the ramifications from that. Is there something that they have
to hide? If they did not have anything to hide, why wouldn't they have given
the town the right to select an engineer to go in to verify what they have
already said? It does not make a difference, they said. Exactly right. It did
not make a difference because the company, FPI, had a terrible third quarter
this year; a terrible third quarter. They are strapped for cash and they know
it. They themselves say: How can we get out of this situation for this third
quarter? We will close Harbour Breton. We will close the Harbour Breton plant.
Remember the plant is old. Remember that we have to find a way out.
By the way, they do have some fish that they can catch and process in Harbour
Breton this fall. They did not catch 2,500 tons of redfish. They can open in
January. They can process that 2,500 tons of redfish and can take next year's
quota for 2005, another 2,500. They can have 5,000 tons of fish for Harbour
Breton for next year, but they do not want to do that. My point, what I want to
get out today is the fact that FPI's whole philosophy about doing work in
Newfoundland has changed. Remember what they told us, and I read out some of it
earlier today where John Risley says: You don't have to fear about us. You don't
have to worry about jobs in Newfoundland. We are not going to lay people off. We
are not going to close plants down. We are going to reinvest millions of dollars
back into it. We are going to have people working. They said the talk but they
did not walk the walk. That is the situation we find ourselves in.
I tell you, they did not reinvest in Harbour Breton. They did not reinvest in
the plant in Harbour Breton. They did not reinvest in Fortune and they are not
reinvesting in Bonavista. Do you know what they are reinvesting in? They are
reinvesting in boats, floating factories. I guess you could call them floating
fish plants because what FPI can say - for example, if the company does get
really stuck for dollars they can sell the boats for money but they cannot sell
the plant in Harbour Breton because they consider it to be worthless to them,
and the plant in Fortune and the plant in Bonavista. That is what they are up
to.
The other thing that they want to do - and they have asked the government
over seven months to do that. I wrote to the Premier a couple of weeks ago and
got a reply from his office. I said: Premier, if, as a government, you are going
to allow them to sell the marketing arm of their company then get a commitment
out of them that they will build a new plant in Harbour Breton. The Premier's
office replied and said: We will take note of that and the Premier will be
getting back to you in the future.
Here is the situation, they want to sell the marketing arm. Just think about
the marketing arm and what they have done by the way. They have created an ocean
cuisine company down in the United States. It is not FPI anymore, it is Ocean
Cuisine International. Where are they setting it up? In Delaware. They are
hoping, by the way, that this new company - that they can get themselves out
from under the FPI Act. What will happen then? It will become an independent
company in the U.S. What is going to happen to Marystown and what is going to
happen to Fortune? What is going to happen to Burin and to Bonavista and to
Harbour Breton? This is the profitable part of their company. This is what they
have been doing over the years to make money so that if they needed some extra
dollars to run Harbour Breton or to run Bonavista or to run Fortune, they have
had an opportunity to do so. Now, what they are saying is: We are going to sell
that particular arm of the company. We are going to call it the Ocean Cuisine.
We are going to set it up in the U.S., independent from the Legislature here.
Make no wonder that they are investing in new boats, the factory freezer
floating fish plants on the ocean. Make no wonder. That is what they are doing.
The whole FPI aim is eventually not to process onshore in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Do you know what? I will predict here in the House of Assembly today
that within ten years the only operation that you will see of FPI in
Newfoundland is the headquarters up on O'Leary Avenue. That is all you will
see, if you will let them have their way for it. That is the only reason why the
headquarters is up on O'Leary Avenue, because
an act in this Legislature said
that they had to have their headquarters in Newfoundland and Labrador. If they
had their way for it they would not even be here. That is what we are dealing
with. We are dealing with people who are not up-front with us; people who will
not tell you the truth.
I was in a room only recently with a union leader and he said: I had a great
talk with Malcolm Rowe and it looks like there might be a little bit of glimmer
of hope at the end of the tunnel. Some glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel
all right. They will tell you one thing and then eventually they go back and do
something else.
AN HON. MEMBER: Derek Rowe.
MR. LANGDON: Derek Rowe, I am sorry. I made a mistake on that. I
apologize for that.
But here is the situation, they will tell you one thing and then they will go
behind you and do something else. I talked to Don Stewart on Sunday and Don said
to me: Oliver, ever since I have been in Harbour Breton we have had the fish
plant here. It used to owned by a company out of British Columbia. I forget the
name. It escapes me right now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. LANGDON: B.C. Packers, that is right. I remember when they did the
hearing and stuff. When I was a boy I would go to Harbour Breton and see it; not
by road but by boat because we were cut off. We had no road transportation and
they were going guns there then.
Then the FPI came in, and Don said: Oliver, we had great faith in FPI. I will
tell you one thing about Vic Young, when he was there - if you went in to Vic
Young's office he would probably give you the worst-case scenario that you
could expect, but you could believe it and, hopefully, at the end of the day you
would get a little bit more, but not with this crowd because they have an agenda
that they want to do that is contrary to everything that we wanted to do in the
rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador. The thing about it is, when we talk
about Harbour Breton, it is probably one of the rural parts of the Province, no
doubt about it, down the Bay d'Espoir highway. We are out on the Coast, here
on the Connaigre Peninsula, but we have almost become self sufficient, and
hopefully we can improve on what we are doing today.
As I said earlier, I can't believe what I am seeing. We will tell FPI, and
I will tell FPI today through the medium of the Legislature, that they will have
a fight on their hands. There is no two ways about that. The people of Harbour
Breton have worked for FPI, they have given their lives for the company, they
have made millions of dollars for them, sweat equity into the plant, and they
have done the things that have made the company profitable.
The other thing about it is, when I think of FPI I think of many of the tax
dollars of people who are in Harbour Breton and all across the Province, when
the company was restructured and government went in and bailed them out with
hundreds of millions of dollars. Those were taxpayers' dollars. Now they want
to walk away from it. They see it as a situation where they have the liberty, so
to speak, to do what they want to.
I remember when I did economics in Grade 11, and that wasn't yesterday, it
was a long, long time ago, and we talked about the different kinds of businesses
that could be formed. One of them was a personal property, an individual corner
store. Then there was the partnership, then of course there was the cooperative,
and then finally the corporation. The big corporation they defined as an
artificial person, an artificial person probably without any feelings, without
any sympathy, without anything at all to do with people.
AN HON. MEMBER: No conscience.
MR. LANGDON: Exactly, no conscience. This is exactly what we are seeing.
It is my turn today in the corner that I represent of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is not only going to be mine it is going to be
others. I tell you, they have no social conscience. It is the dollar. I
recognize that a company has to be profitable and make money, but you cannot
walk away from a community that you made a commitment to a year or so ago
saying, we will not close your plant, we will not lay people off, and we will
invest. These are the words of people who sit around the table and you believe
it because their word is a bond. Before you turn around, they have pulled the
rug out from under your feet and they have moved away and there is no future for
the people in the community.
That is what we are seeing, we are seeing that if FPI has its way, because
all of those plants - when you look at Marystown or you look at Fortune and you
look at Harbour Breton, they are all rural areas. If you allow them to walk away
from the commitments they have made, what does it do to that area? It devastates
it. There is no way that anybody or any company can go into Harbour Breton and
replace the 400 jobs directly at the plant and the 400 or so indirect jobs
outside. It cannot be done. It will have a ripple effect in Harbour Breton. It
will ripple through Seal Cove, and it will ripple through Hermitage and Gaultois
and all the other communities, and they are having problems of their own. As I
said earlier, the people in Gaultois thought that this year they were going to
get their plant open. It did not happen, but let's hope and pray that it can
or will in the future.
I am telling you, when we talk about the ripple effect, a lot of the people
on the Connaigre Peninsula have to go to Grand Falls-Windsor where they buy cars
and where they shop in the malls and other businesses. If that happens, and you
have 400 people directly and another 400 people indirectly, what do you think
happens to the economies in those communities? They feel the effects of it too.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. LANGDON: I just want a minute to conclude.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. LANGDON: Just a minute. I do not want to take any more of the time
than is