Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 9 May 2007 (45th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLV No. 10)
2007-05-09
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 9, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLV No. 10
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon, we are very pleased to welcome approximately forty high
school students from three schools in the District of St. George's-Stephenville
East. Specifically, these students are from Appalachia High School in St. George's,
from E.A. Butler All Grade School in McKay's, and Belanger Memorial School in
Upper Ferry. They are accompanied by their chaperones: Leandra Morris, Brendon
Quilty, Darlene Gale, Chris Cooper and Nancy MacDonald.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Also in the public gallery this afternoon, we are pleased to
welcome Ms Sara Green from Winterton, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.
Ms Green is the title holder of the Miss Summer Holiday Achievement Pageant for
2006-2007. She is also the recipient of a $17,000 Keyin College Community
Connections Award.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We are also pleased to welcome in the Speaker's gallery
this afternoon, Chief Joe Browne of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Deputy
Chief Bill Brown, Deputy Chief Robert Johnston, and Inspector Robert Shea.
Welcome to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A very special welcome this afternoon is extended to five
visitors in the Speaker's gallery from Brazil. They are visiting Newfoundland
and Labrador as part of Rotary International's Group Study Exchange. The team
leader is Mrs. Claudia Zanchett, and the team members are: Miss Gabriela Baratto,
Miss Rafaela Farina, Mr. Jean Ragnini, and Mrs. Denise Vieira Sperry. There are
accompanied by Rotarian Philip Osborne. These people come from a town in the
south of Brazil, from two communities named Passo Fundo and Erehim.
A special welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
Member for the District of Exploits; the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair; the Member for the District of Topsail; the Member for the District of
Humber Valley; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; and, the Member for
the District of Port de Grave.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication and
long-time service of three special parishioners of the Grace United Church in
Cottrell's Cove in the District of Exploits.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the privilege to attend the 100
anniversary celebrations of this historic church.
In 1906 a young Minister from England, Reverend Robert Samuel Smith, just
twenty years old, arrived in New Bay, later called Cottrell's Cove, and opened
the church in 1907.
Mr. Speaker, for the past 100 years the Grace United Church has been able to
survive because of the dedication of many volunteers in the parish. However,
there were three very special people recognized for long-time service awards
during the anniversary celebrations: Mr. Rufus Boone, forty-eight years as
caretaker and treasurer; Mrs. Hazel Boone, forty-eight years as church organist;
Mrs. Irene Boone, sixty-seven years as church organist.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating these three
dedicated volunteers of the Grace United Church.
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 in the House to congratulate St. Mary's All-Grade Wolves
Basketball team from my hometown of Mary's Harbour. This team recently won the
inaugural Boys' Small School Basketball provincial championship which was held
in Swift Current in April.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first provincial championship of any type for the
St. Mary's All-Grade School. While most teams consisted of Level II and III
boys, the St. Mary's team was comprised of students from Grades 7 through to
Level III. But what makes this win a truly unique accomplishment, is that even
though this was a boys tournament, the St. Mary's team had four girls who
participated on its roster.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, these four girls were the only girls participating
in the boys tournament and according to the coach, Mr. Todd Farrell, this was
the first time he has witnessed this in a provincial boys basketball
championship.
Mr. Speaker, not only were the girls competitive and equal in skill level to
the boys, they were an integral part of the team's victory. They played
regularly on the road to the championship. The Wolves defeated Hampden Academy -
another sorry loss, I say to my colleague, the Member for Deer Lake - on a
last-second shot to win their semi-final game and crawled back from a
seven-point halftime deficit to defeat Swift Current Academy in the final - my
other colleague, the Member for Bellevue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members in this Legislature to join me today as I
proudly congratulate the St. Mary's Wolves players, and I would like to read
their names into the record, please: Allison Rumbolt, Kevin Farrell, Chesley
Rumbolt, Otto Glynn, Ronnie Spearing, Wendy Fifield, Taylor Farrell, Niki
Rumbolt, Grant Pye, Kayla Smith, Lloyd Hicks, and their coach, Todd Farrell, and
a special congratulations goes to Thomas Simms, who was named the most
sportsmanlike player for the St. Mary's Wolves.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a little boy with a huge
heart from Conception Bay South.
On a recent Saturday night, Lori Critch of Manuels, planned to take in a Fog
Devils game at the Mile One Centre with her six-year-old son, Christan. Sometime
after the first period Mr. Geoff Eaton, cancer survivor and founder of RealTime
Cancer, spoke to the crowd and informed the audience about the: Shave for the
Brave campaign. The Critchs are no stranger to the sadness cancer brings. Her
grandmother lost the battle with the disease only five months earlier.
At one point during Eaton's speech, while he was addressing the people
wearing the yellow Shave for the Brave toques in the audience, Christan turned
to his mother and asked if he could shave his head to support the Shave for the
Brave campaign. Christan's mother initially thought if she waited a few
minutes he might forget about it, but the six-year-old did not forget.
As they stood in the line-up, someone asked Christan what made him want to
shave his head. Christan replied: Because I want to help people with cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join me in recognizing six-year-old
Christan Critch, a student at Topsail Elementary School, for being so brave and
wanting to help others at such a very young age.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize two
constituents from my district, Duncan and Mabel Nichols of Deer lake, who
recently celebrated a huge milestone of their sixtieth wedding anniversary.
Mr. and Mrs. Nichols were married April 25, 1947 in Fredericton, New
Brunswick. Mr. Nicholas, a native Newfoundlander, moved back with his bride to
Deer Lake in 1949. During their married life, they have had five children, three
of whom reside in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Nichols have been blessed with nine grandchildren,
four great-grandchildren. Mr. Nichols worked all of his life for Bowaters and
retired in 1984. Since that time, both have spent their time quietly together
enjoying family and friends. It is great to hear stories like Mr. and Mrs.
Nichols'. They are shining examples of the beautiful importance of family, and
family ties, and can be seen right across our great Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Nichols. May they have many more happy years of
marriage together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Glovertown
Salvation Army Corps. The corps is celebrating its ninety-eighth anniversary.
Today the corps is led by Captain George and Karen Crocker. These individuals
are both very active within the corps and are involved in a wide array of
activities for both children and youth.
The congregation remains vibrant with a strong corps of more than 150
families.
Mr. Speaker, this corps, as many other Salvation Army corps, plays an active
role in the Glovertown and surrounding communities, helping families and
individuals in need. This is very evident by the groups involvement with the
local food bank.
The eldest member of the church is Uncle Phil Collins, who will celebrating
his ninety-third birthday in August. He is still an energetic member, regularly
playing his tambourine in every service.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me today in
congratulating the Glovertown Salvation Army Corps on ninety-eight years of
spiritual and community leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday, May 4, 2007, I had the distinct pleasure of attending Prom Night
and joining 203 students of the forty-second graduating class of Ascension
Collegiate in Bay Roberts.
More than 850 students, parents, staff and invited guests attended the prom
service officiated by Reverend Doctor James Min of Central United Church. This
special service was followed by a dinner held at the Bay Arena.
Mr. Speaker, the evening of celebration was emceed by Jessica Hussey and
Michael Coffey. Valedictorian, Jonathon Neil, gave an inspiring speech outlining
the excellent rapport between students and teachers at Ascension Collegiate and
the inspiration each student will carry with them as they graduate and start a
new phase of their lives. During the proceedings, Bradley Dickson and Jessica
Petten were crowned prom king and queen.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
extending congratulations and best wishes to the forty-second graduating class
of Ascension Collegiate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, over the past two days, teachers piloting our
skilled trades high school courses have received training in occupational health
and safety. A two-day workshop was made available through Workplace Health and
Safety Compensation Commission to make sure the skilled trades suites are safe
and secure areas to learn.
The Departments of Education and Human Resources, Labour and Employment are
investing $30,000 to ensure all fifty teachers involved in this pilot receive
this important training. These sessions build on the first-aid training the
teachers completed in February of this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, combined with
the $100,000 already invested for extensive professional development, these
teachers are well-equipped to safely deliver these innovative courses.
Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, government has invested $4 million
in our Futures in Skilled Trades and Technology program for high schools. It is
the first time since 1982 that any government has invested this kind of funding
in skilled trades programming, and we believe it will open the world of skilled
trades to our young people. Budget 2007 provided an additional $1.5 million
which will be used primarily to purchase the same equipment and quality
resources that are used on job sites.
Since first announcing details of this program in 2005, the number of pilot
schools has increased. In September of this year the pilot will expand to
thirty-seven schools from the original twenty-five. There is a tremendous level
of interest among teachers, administrators and students. It is our hope that
with more students exposed to this type of training more will give serious
consideration to a career in skilled trades.
We know that in the coming years there will be increased opportunities in the
area of skilled trades. We need a highly qualified workforce to meet current and
future demands.
Budget 2007 also committed $2.8 million to improve our skills training and
apprenticeship system. This includes $660,000 to expand post-secondary
programming in skilled trades and technology offerings at the College of the
North Atlantic.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, government established a Skills Task Force to
recommend ways to address skill shortages in the Province. I anticipate the
release of the report of the task force in the coming days.
Mr. Speaker, our Futures in Skilled Trades and Technology programs is
exciting. It is relevant. Students are embracing it. This program, combined with
our initiatives to build a stronger training and apprenticeship system, will
allow students to look forward to a lucrative career here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say
it is, no doubt, a common known fact that in the very near future we will see a
shortage of skilled trades here in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the Premier when he said recently, that why he
left his comfortable living room behind and joined the wild world of politics
was so that there would be no more giveaways. Well, Mr. Speaker, I left the
construction industry to join the wild kingdom of politics to see that our youth
will not be shipped out of this Province. Yes, we have to train them right here
at home and hopefully they will get jobs here.
All you had to do, Mr. Speaker, was listen to the Open Line show this morning
to know that eighteen students are graduating at King's Point and twelve of
them already have their tickets bought to leave this Province.
I hope this government and the Minister of Education will stand together,
stand shoulder to shoulder, with the 203 students at Ascension Collegiate, one
school alone, so that they can get training here, yes, but make sure that this
economy is turned around so that they will find jobs here in this Province and
will not have to leave for other places, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the minister for the
advance copy.
I am pleased with this much-needed initiative by the Workplace, Health and
Safety Compensation Commission. According to statistics shared by the WHSCC
today, at a briefing for MHAs that I attended this morning with three of my
colleagues from the House, there were 373 injuries among young workers in this
Province last year. So, we cannot do too much to educate our young people in the
skilled trades program around the dangers of working in skilled trades.
I also express our hope that the occupational health and safety training
takes into account the different issues for males and females, because it is
proven by research and by experience that things that may look safe for a male
worker may not be safe -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS MICHAEL: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you.
Research has shown that things that may be safe for a male worker are not
safe for a female worker, and vice versa, so I encourage the ministry to be sure
that there is a gender sensitivity to the training that is going on.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today and recognize an exceptional individual
receiving an exceptional honour. Joe Browne, Chief of Police for the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary, has been chosen to receive the Order of Merit of
Police Forces award for his commitment to the country and his contributions to
the career of policing.
The Canadian Police Services have a long history of service to the people of
Canada. Officers and employees have distinguished themselves in many ways
through volunteering, creating new programs to better service their communities,
or working extra hours to create a safer environment for Canadians. Chief Browne
certainly fits this description, Mr. Speaker.
Chief Browne began his career with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in
1983 and has worked in many sections of the force including patrol, working
criminal investigations, accident investigations, and inside Communications and
Community Services.
He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1995, to Inspector in 1997, and was District
Commander until his promotion to Deputy Chief of Operations in 2001. It was our
government's pleasure to welcome him as Chief of Police in March 2006.
While his academic achievements are many, it is his community involvement and
his personable style for which he is possibly best known. Morale is now at an
all-time high within the RNC and, as Minister of Justice, I would like to thank
Chief Browne and his team for this achievement.
Mr. Speaker, Chief Browne is a graduate of the Executive Development Program
from the Centre for Management Development at Memorial University's Faculty of
Business Administration. His community involvement includes being a member of
Rotary, a member of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council, and the
chair of the Community Investment Committee of the United Way.
Chief Browne will participate in a ceremony in Ottawa later this month to
receive a badge of the Order, similar to the Order of Military Merit. I know
that Chief Browne will wear this proudly.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the House of Assembly, to join me
in congratulating Chief Browne on this honour and to encourage him to keep up
the great work that he is doing within the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to speak with respect to this statement today by
the Minister of Justice. It is good to see that the meritorious service and
traits of Chief Browne are finally being recognized nationally, because we have
certainly recognized them here provincially for quite some time.
I personally first met Chief Browne back in 2000 when I was Minister of
Justice. In fact, he was part of an interview process when then retiring Chief
Judge Len Power was about to retire. We had a very private conversation on a
particular Sunday morning. I will not get into the details of that conversation,
but suffice it to say that I think as a result of that conversation Chief Browne
knew where he was going at that time.
He actually became the Deputy Chief of Operations, I do believe, in 2001,
when I had the pleasure of being the minister at that time and promoting him to
that position, and very pleased to do so. He finally fulfilled and attained the
position of Chief, which he most certainly deserves.
I had the pleasure of dealing with him in the capacity for about four years,
as minister. We dealt with many sensitive files. I can say without reservation
or hesitation that he is a very mild-mannered person, a very intelligent, smart
person, sincere, dedicated to family and to the RNC. He is, in anybody's eyes
or in anybody's estimations, the true measure of a professional and I
congratulate you, Sir, and wish you all the best.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the
advance copy.
It is a real pleasure to rise today to join with the House, and everybody
else in this House, in the galleries, to congratulate you, Chief Browne.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting you. Some day that might happen. It
must be a great feeling for you to be honoured by your peers, and to be honoured
by your peers not just in the Province but by your peers on a national level.
It is also quite inspiring to see that, in spite of the onerous and heavy,
demanding position that you hold, that you can still hold a place in the
community and be a part of the community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to pass that on to the Chief.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to welcome Chief Browne and the members of the RNC into
our Chambers today. I feel much safer asking questions with you in attendance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, because of the ice conditions on the Northeast
Coast of our Province, our fishery has reached a critical stage where fishermen
cannot put nets nor pots in the water and their EI benefits have become
exhausted. Because of this, thousands of individuals along that coast are
without a source of income.
Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Fisheries went to Ottawa and met with his
federal counterpart, Mr. Hearn, on the weekend. I ask the minister: Did you
address this issue with Minister Hearn? If so, what was his response?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we have addressed the matter of an extension to
EI with the appropriate federal ministers, including Newfoundland's
representative in the federal Cabinet. I have to be honest and say, no, it was
not an agenda item that I raised personally with the minister on Sunday. We
spent two or three hours discussing FPI, and possible solutions to it.
I do believe, from media sources, that the union president took an
opportunity to raise that matter with our federal minister. I did notice, as we
were leaving the room to head back towards the airport, that he had him cornered
in the room. I found out since, that was what they were talking about.
Personally, no, I did not raise it at that meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister knows that I think it is incumbent on all of us to raise
this issue with Ottawa, because it is a very serious situation that exists and
there are people doing without right now as a result of it.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has field staff working in the area affected by
these severe ice conditions, and obviously these people know the individuals
affected and how many would require an EI extension. Has that information been
forwarded to the federal minister so that they could expedite the decision?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, yes, in normal instances the federal government quite often ask us
because we do, in fact, have field staff, as the hon. member indicated, in the
area who know the numbers involved, what communities they are living in and so
on, and the extent of the ice coverage and difficulty.
Whether or not we have been asked to provide it or not, I would have to take
that under advisement and see, but certainly we are quite willing, ready and
able to provide that kind of backup information, if it is required, for anywhere
in the Province. The North Coast of Labrador, the Northeast Coast, Southern
Labrador, there are a whole bunch of areas as a whole, a lot of areas in the
Province, having difficulty.
AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista to Nain.
MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: From Bonavista to Nain.
MR. RIDEOUT: From Bonavista to Nain, exactly.
It is anticipated that this is going to be quite severe for some time to
come. So, we are in a position to provide any information that is required.
Whether or not it has been requested I will take under advisement, whether or
not it has been provided I will take under advisement, but certainly we are
prepared, ready, able and willing to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Premier.
For the past two days I have asked the Premier the name of the individual who
oversees his blind trust, but on both of those occasions the Premier has risen
and said that it was none of my business.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that, while he thinks it is none of my
business, the taxpayers of this Province have a right to know because they paid
$34,000 to have this blind trust established.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, on behalf of the taxpayers: Is your blind
trust in any way connected, or your blind trustee in any way connected, to the
fibre optic deal? If not, prove it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier answered that question definitively
in terms of any connection between his blind trustee and his blind trust. The
Premier answered that definitively in the House a couple of days ago - I believe
two days in a row - so there was nothing further to add to it, except to say,
Mr. Speaker-
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: - except to say that in terms of the Premier's response
regarding the blind trust, and his response as to who the individual is, to the
Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is: Ditto.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess if none of your business qualifies as an answer to it, we did get an
answer. I am sorry, that is not good enough for the people of this Province. He
will give the answer eventually. He will give the answer because the people will
not stand not to have the answer.
Mr. Speaker, today we are going to continue probing into the fibre optic deal
and the decision to give $15 million untendered dollars on a contract to the
Premier's friends and former business associates. The Premier has continuously
stated that he had no involvement with this project. In a 2005 briefing note
prepared by officials in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development it states that Dean MacDonald, on behalf of Persona, sent a
confidential letter dated May 17, 2005, to the Premier requesting the government's
assistance in attracting federal funding for this project. On the same day the
Premier wrote then federal Minister John Godfrey endorsing that request.
I ask the Premier: Why was no copy of that letter from Dean MacDonald placed
in the boxes that were tabled in this House? Can we have a copy of that letter,
and why did the Province decide to take over the $15 million share, even after
it was stated that this project was not on a list of provincial priorities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that information was divulged by myself in this House and in the
public on a number of occasions previously, earlier this year, late last year.
It was clearly told to the people, to the members opposite, that Persona and Mr.
MacDonald had approached the Premier and the Premier's office looking for
support to access funds through Industry Canada for the construction of the
Trans Gulf initiative. That, Mr. Speaker, was clearly laid out previously.
What we did say is that after it became a provincial discussion, after it was
determined that this would probably - if it was going to proceed - require some
provincial funding, the Premier's office was removed from the file and it was
placed solidly in the hands of the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and
Rural Development, and then in my hands.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here untoward. It was divulged before. What can
I say? I do not know. The Opposition House leader, once again, Mr. Speaker, is
chasing down the wrong rabbit holes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Fine words from the minister of duct tape.
I say to the minister, it is pretty straightforward. It is a pretty
straightforward request. Can we have a copy of the May 17 letter from Dean
MacDonald to the Premier? That is what I am asking. I am not asking you to
reveal that there was such a letter. Can we have the letter? Now, that is not
complicated. Can we or can't we?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I can find the letter, which I am certain I
will be able to, I see no reason why the letter could not be released. We
released 6,200 e-mails. We provided the Auditor General with 60,000 pieces of
paper. We are providing - this afternoon a person from the Auditor General's
office is going to be upstairs going through 1,515 pages of information related
to the Cabinet documents. So, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why we could not
release a simple letter from 2005 between the Premier and the former Minister of
Industry Canada and the other letter from Mr. MacDonald. I see no reason.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Wow, that answer - I feel like a dentist here pulling teeth. That is all I
needed was: Yeah, we can have it and get it to us. Thank you very much,
Minister. Thank you very much. That is great.
Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 2006 an e-mail was sent from officials in ITRD
stating that the Premier would be meeting with the president of Allstream, one
of the proponents involved in the consortium in this deal. The officials thought
it would be a good idea if Dean MacDonald and Ken Marshall were included for a
discussion about the fibre link.
I ask the Premier: Can you confirm whether these meetings took place or not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether a meeting took place or not. I can
only tell you that when I took over this file, there was no involvement after
that with the Premier on this file.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader wants, once again today, as he did
yesterday, as he has been doing for twenty-four, thirty-six hours now on the
e-mails, cherry-picking little pieces here to misrepresent what happened. That
is what is going on here. There is a campaign of misinformation underway,
publicly and inside of this House.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, all of the information is provided.
In the absence of anything that proves - that demonstrates that the Premier did
anything untoward and that anybody else did anything untoward, the only option
for the Opposition is to throw around little snippets of information to try and
portray something that is not there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The only cherry-picking that has gone on here is the cherry-picking by
government to decide what went into those boxes. That is the only cherry-picking
we had here.
I challenge the minister, I challenge the media, and I challenge the
officials who I have presented anything about, to come forward and prove
anything that I have said in this House, or outside of this House, has been
misleading, misinterpreted or not factual. Now that is the challenge I issue to
you, Minister. Prove it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, throughout this whole process officials hinted
at the relationship between the proponents and the Premier's office.
In an e-mail dated July 26, 2006, the Deputy Minister of Industry at the time
wrote an e-mail to Paul Hatcher of Persona , "...Robert hasn't heard from
on-high, which is disappointing because the Council of the Federation will now
consume the rest of the week. I wonder if a well-placed call to someone like
Brian Crawley..." - the Chief of Staff to the Premier, that is -
"...would advance the decision?"
I ask the Premier: Can you confirm or deny that contact was made with Mr.
Crawley, your Chief of Staff, and did he discuss this with you?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that e-mail does exist. Again, Mr. Speaker, you can do anything
with a piece of paper if you do not put it in context, if you do not talk about
what actually went on, if you do not put it up against the rest of the
information around it.
Now, the Opposition House Leader knows full well that what we were trying to
determine, what the deputy minister was trying to determine at that time, what
Hatcher was trying to determine, and the other official in my department was
trying to determine, was what we were supposed to do around the issue of public
consultations.
We were directed by Cabinet to engage in public consultations on this file.
Our legal counsel told us that is the mandate of the CRTC, and if we engaged in
public consultations on this then we were going to infringe on CRTC
jurisdiction. At the time, there was a question asked so that we could get an
answer -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, will you gag the Member for Bay of Islands for
me, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked and the minister has about fifteen seconds left to
finish his response.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was clarification required as to what we should do with that Cabinet
directive. That was what was being sought and that, Mr. Speaker, is all that was
being sought.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let's see how many cherries we have to get before we have a pie here.
On October 24, two days before Cabinet approved the fibre deal, an official
in ITRD writes the deputy minister at the time and states the following,
"Just spoke to Paul Hatcher." - that is the CEO at Persona - "It
might be good for you to call him on his cell... when you get out of your
meeting. I'm not sure if he got this direct or not, but it was
"suggested" that YOU should call his friend and former
colleague."
I ask the Premier: Do you know who that friend and former colleague
referenced in that e-mail might be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have no control over what officials say in e-mails or
telephone conversations or what have you. All I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that
the people who were appropriate to be involved in this file were involved, and
the people who were not appropriate to be involved in this file were not.
There is absolutely, Mr. Speaker, in the 6,200 - I ask him, Mr. Speaker, if
he has evidence that the Premier in any way interfered with this file to cause
this deal to be put through, then table it here in this House. If not, close his
mouth about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it seems very coincidental that the deputy minister responsible
for overseeing this deal was shuffled and became the new Clerk of this House at
the same time the deal was approved, and a new deputy minister was appointed by
the Premier.
On October 30, another e-mail from an ITRD official, Mr. Robert Parsons, to
Paul Hatcher again of Persona, one of the proponents, referencing the new deputy
minister, said, "....she is one of the "good guys" too. You'll
like her no nonsense approach just as you did Bill's, and I'm looking
forward to working closely with her on many ICT projects that will be near and
dear to your heart."
I ask the Premier: Do you have any idea what the statement, another one of
the good guys, means, that you appointed this person, and what projects might be
near and dear to Paul Hatcher's heart?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is no level low enough that the Opposition House Leader
will not stoop. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of this House,
an hon. man, was the Acting Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development, and when the job came up for competition, Mr. Speaker, for his own
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair reminds hon. members there is a long-standing parliamentary
tradition that members who serve as Table Officers in the House should never be
referenced either in questions or in answers. That is a long-term parliamentary
tradition.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development. I ask him to complete his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It would have been nice if you had done that in the question, Mr. Speaker, as
opposed to the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker - and I apologize. I
was not aware that was a rule, and I apologize for it. I am going to say this,
though: The acting deputy minister of the department at the time, regardless of
where that person went, chose for his own reasons not to apply for the job
because he did not want the job.
The fact of the matter is, the good guy, she is one of the good guys. Yes,
Mr. Speaker, she is one of the good guys. She is one of the good guys, and that
is what we have done since we got in this government, Mr. Speaker: we have put
very capable people in the appropriate positions in this government so we can
get the advice that we require.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not seen anything yet from the minister to stop this pie from cooking
and baking, I tell you.
Mr. Speaker, after the Aliant fire on Allandale Road, instead of having any
discussions with Aliant, or approaching the CRTC to file a complaint, government
rapidly moved toward an untendered contract to the Premier's friends and
associates.
In an e-mail dated October 31, 2006, the following was sent from an official
in the Department of Industry. "I have been told that the Premier does not
desire for our government to bring to the CRTC the recent event that saw a full
service disruption for 6 hours. Should others raise the matter and the Federal
Minister seek our opinion, at that time we will deal with it. Hence my oblique
reference to quality of service and penalties."
I ask the Premier: If you are so concerned with the service disruption caused
by the Aliant fire, why didn't you approach the CRTC instead of rushing to
justify the awarding of the contracts to your friends?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, in 6,200 e-mails, it
is abundantly clear to everybody that over the course of eighteen months this
deal was receiving a very comprehensive review and evaluation of the merits, the
pros and the cons of it, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the
taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions,
whether the Aliant fire took place or not, this deal would have gone ahead. This
deal should go ahead. It should have gone ahead, Mr. Speaker, a year ago. Only
for the political foolishness that the crowd opposite are getting on with, it
would have gone ahead, Mr. Speaker.
The only thing that they have, that they think they can wrap something
around, is the Premier's relationship with former business colleagues. Outside
of that, there is not one scrap of evidence that there is anything wrong with
this deal, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After the deal was announced, government officials were concerned with the
public relations message and whether the justification being used for the
project was accurate. An e-mail from the Premier's public relations director
to the Department of Industry on November 2 shows this concern:
"Aliant are adamant that the second fibre optic would not have helped in
the situation that occurred last week. I hope we are fully confident of this,
otherwise I am nervous about the strong focus on that issue."
In addition, the Premier began his media campaign by doing interviews with
various provincial media outlets. An official from the department came back and
said, "This is not consistent with everything we have been saying...The Min
might need to fine tune his message. I am not sure how this meshes with our
messages."
I ask the Premier: If this deal was so squeaky clean, why was government's
lack of detail and mixed messaging of such concern to the officials,
particularly those officials in the Premier's own office?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would think, as a matter of course, on any
number of fronts in this government and the previous government, that from time
to time senior communications officers, senior communications personnel, in the
government would enquire of their colleagues in departments as to whether or not
we were absolutely certain of what we were saying. Because, of course, those
people are dealing with communications, not with the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, irregardless of what I said,
regardless of what the Premier might say, go back to what Cindy Roma said.
Forget what Aliant said, they have a vested interest, Mr. Speaker. See what
Telelink said, see what Cindy Roma said, see what the Newfoundland Association
of Technology industry said, see what the Board of Trade said, see what the City
of St. John's said, see what the Federation of Municipalities said. They said,
this is a vital piece of infrastructure, they said this is absolutely required,
and if we had carrier redundancy in this Province the Aliant fire would have
gone ahead and the Aliant system would have been temporarily disabled, but with
emergency inter-connectivity protocols we would have been able to bump over on
somebody else's system and we would have continued out telecommunications.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have just one more for today.
The minister was outside the House of Assembly shortly before today's
session having a rant. I say, the minister is becoming just like the fibre deal,
a moving target. He said, as a part of his rant today, that he is now going to,
at this late stage - this is about seven months after the October approval of
the deal - he is now going to get a new EWA. That is the electronic warfare
crowd that we had a review from last June or July. It never worked then and that
was full of holes, because we presented that here.
I ask the minister: Here we are seven months out, we are getting a new EWA
report to see if this deal is and can be a supported substantial business deal.
Minister, with all of the holes and the shortcomings that was in the first EWA
report, why, in the name of God, would you go back to the same crowd? Do you
think maybe you should do an RFP on that, even?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the only hole, and it is a pretty big one around here, is the
one that the Opposition House Leader is continuing to dig himself into on this
file.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if he had been paying
attention back in late October and early November, if he had been paying
attention on November 2 when we had the press conference, he would know full
well, and if he had been paying attention when I read the MC on the airwaves
back in November or December, or whenever it was, he would -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: You know why I said it, ask him. He listened to what was
going on out in the scrum this morning. Go find out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they were supposed,
as directed by Cabinet in late October, to come back and do an evaluation of
this when we had finalized the deal. That is why they are supposed to come back,
as directed last fall.
Mr. Speaker, at least he should get his facts straight. He has all the
information, he might as well, at least, put it out there in an accurate form.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The government finally has a waste management strategy, though the details
are sketchy as to how much money will be spent each year and what the annual
targets are, as well as why it will take so long to implement. We have only $22
million coming from Municipal Affairs capital works money going into this over
four years, another $22 million is coming from the gas tax and we understand
that other funding avenues are being pursued.
I guess I have two parts to the question, Minister. When will the details of
the strategy be known, including what the other funding avenues are that you are
looking at, and why would the government not invest more money upfront so that
the whole strategy will be in place much sooner than 2020?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for her question. It is simple logistics. It is not
something we are going to spend $200 million on that you can spend in a week, a
month, a year or two, or five even.
Mr. Speaker, the $22.4 million, or $22.5 million that the hon. member refers
to is the money that is coming out of the gas tax, that is 25 per cent of the
gas tax, so $82 million over the next four years. Municipal Affairs is putting
in $5 million a year out of their capital works. MMSB is putting money in, in
due course. The gas tax program with the federal government has already been
extended for another four years, so we expect there will be another $22 million
come out of that. It is not something within our Budget to do within a year, or
two, or five. The strategy that was in place since 2002 is now going from a
strategy to an implementation plan and I think it has been well received by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. It is well received by
various municipalities. It was well received by the Newfoundland Environmental
Industry Association, Mr. Speaker. These people do not seem to have any problem
with it, so I do not understand why the hon. member would have any problems.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have problems. I just have questions that I would like answers to,
that is all. We are very pleased that a plan is being put in place. We do not
have a full plan yet. You have a strategy. We do not have a lot of details.
Are there any of the funding avenues that you are looking at going to be able
to come up with larger lump sums in the beginning, because people are not happy
with the fact this will not be fully in place until 2020 and that has already
been out there today in the media?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what people are not happy with. I
don't understand. There is one individual from the Sierra Club who had some
problems, but from the information and the feedback that I am getting, most of
the groups and organizations within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
are quite pleased with this right across the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE: With respect to the detail, Mr. Speaker, we have fifteen zones
across the Province; eleven in Newfoundland, on the Island, and four in the
Labrador part of the Province. There will be regional authorities. All of this
is being laid out for the media, for the people within the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of consultation has gone on with the various
organizations across the Province.
So, with respect to the detail; again, there has to be certain logistics to
flow. The regional authorities will be putting in the plans for each given
authority, each zone within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again,
with respect to the detail and the plan itself, we are at a point now that we
can go no further until those zones are put in place, those authorities are put
in place. We did have an issue with the government with respect to the Avalon
region. I have had a meeting with the City of St. John's who have accepted a
different governance proposal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for a very brief supplementary by the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quickly then, I am disturbed that recycling is not included in a mandatory
way.
So, my quick question is: Why is this government not committing to more
provincial level financing of recycling and composting as essential parts of
waste management in every municipality so that these can be in place sooner
rather than later?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, time
for a very brief response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As my colleague has said, this is good news. We have received good responses
from mayors across the Province - a phone call just before I came over here. I
can assure the member that recycling will be an integral, important part of this
entire strategy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!
During the process of Question Period, there was one expression that caused
concern to the Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development used the expression, in reference to the Opposition House Leader, of
carrying on a campaign of misinformation. This particular expression I do find
to be unparliamentary and I ask the minister if he could withdraw the
expression?
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I withdraw the statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to report today that the Resource Committee have reviewed and
passed, without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following
departments: Business; Environment and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture;
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, excluding subhead 2.1.01 Labrador Affairs;
Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Natural Resources; Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development, and the Rural Secretariat Division of Executive Council, subhead
2.1.01.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of: the
Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of
Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works; the Labrador
Affairs subhead of the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs 2.1.02, and
the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I would like to table, on behalf of my colleague, the Member for
Lewisporte and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Annual Report for
2005-2006 for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?
Notices of Motions.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that it being Wednesday, the Order of the Day
will be the Private Member's motion put forward by the hon. the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo.
We will dispense with the Whereases and it reads: "THEREFORE
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the establishment of an all party
committee to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI."
The Chair recognizes the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess for expedience on your behalf you dispensed with the Whereases, but I
have to read them, I say to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a Private Member's motion here this afternoon
that deals with FPI and I will read it into the record. It says:
"WHEREAS the fishery is the mainstay of the economy of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS FPI was originally established to be the flagship of the fishing
industry of this Province; and
WHEREAS over 2,000 people in this Province look to FPI for direct employment;
and
WHEREAS the sale of the marketing and secondary processing division of FPI to
a Nova Scotian company would not be in the best interest of FPI workers or the
fishing industry as a whole; and
WHEREAS the government has been unable to negotiate effectively with the
Federal Government to gain control of FPI quotas, which was supposed to be a
precondition to the sale of FPI or any of its assets;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the
establishment of an all party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing
FPI."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we all, or most people, know the history of FPI. It was
established in the mid to late 1980s as a result of a collapse and bankruptcy in
the fish processing sector of our Province. A number of plants had run into
trouble, they were closing, and there were a number of people being displaced in
areas around the Province. As a result - and the present Minister of Fisheries,
I think, was the minister at that time - the first FPI Act was brought before
the House. The government decided, rather than leave all of these communities in
the lurch, all of these communities without a means to sustain themselves, all
of these employees of various fish plants around the Province that had gone into
bankruptcy, that they would step in and create FPI, and under the umbrella of
FPI they would operate a number of fish plants around this Province.
At that time, FPI was set up, Mr. Speaker, to lend stability to rural
communities in the Province, but it was also established to be the flagship of
the fishing industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think that FPI, up until
about 2003, was the flagship of the fishing industry in this Province. It was
recognized not only provincially, not only nationally, but internationally. It
was known around the world. They built that company into the assets that we see
today, with a presence in Great Britain, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see what has happened to that company over the last
two or three years. I have said it once, and I will say it a hundred time, one
of the reasons we are in the predicament we are with FPI is because the current
government didn't act quickly enough. They dropped the ball on FPI. They
allowed the current Board of Directors, and Mr. Risley especially, to run
roughshod over the employees of that company. They allowed them to walk away
from fish plants, and allowed those fish plant to close and throw hundreds and
hundreds of people out of work.
They bought into the line they were being fed by directors of FPI, that being
that there was no money in groundfish and that we couldn't compete with the
Chinese market because of our high Canadian dollar. They bought that hook, line
and sinker, and as a result we have seen FPI close the plant in Harbour Breton,
close the plant in Fortune, and close the plant in Marystown.
We see today the situation that company is in, whereby FPI is now going to
sell it piecemeal. They want to break the company up and sell the marketing and
the secondary processing division to a Nova Scotia company. They want to sell
off the new asset that they bought last year even though I opposed them buying
it. That didn't seem to matter. A lot of people opposed them buying a fish
plant in Great Britain. They bought that for $40 million, Mr. Speaker, and I
wonder today had they invested or reinvested that $40 million into the plants in
Newfoundland and Labrador would they be closing them. So they are breaking it
off and they breaking off the reminder of the assets. It looks like there is a
potential sale of that to a company that is based here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a brief period of time, but what we are proposing is
that we strike a committee of this House to examine very seriously whether or
not what the government should do today is what they did in the 1980s, and that
is to go out and purchase the assets of FPI.
I happen to think, personally, that is where we should be going. We should be
buying the assets, all of the assets, of FPI. It was established as the flagship
of the fishing industry, and I think that, with the right people at the helm of
that company today, if we were to purchase it by a government, set it up as a
Crown corporation, and set it up with the right individuals to run that company,
that company could revert to where it was a few short years ago before the
current board of directors took over, led by Mr. Risley.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could accomplish that, and I do not see why
anybody would have any problem doing it. We have a government today, led by the
Premier of our Province, who is out there every day talking about going it
alone, and how we want to be part of each and all of our other industries.
Let me give you an example. They want ownership - they either want to run it
completely by themselves, as a government, or they want ownership in it - in our
oil industry offshore. The reason we are not moving ahead with the Hebron-Ben
Nevis field today is because the Premier demanded an ownership position in our
oil and gas industry. He wanted an ownership. They call it an equity position
but, for anyone out there who does not know what equity means, it is an
ownership position. He has no problem with taking an ownership position in our
oil and gas industry.
The Premier has no problem whatsoever taking an ownership in our hydro
industry. In fact, he said on many occasions in the past year or so - that is
our electric industry, I say, Mr. Speaker - he has no problem with that because
he says we are going it alone on the Lower Churchill. We will be the masters of
our own destiny. We are going to go it alone in our hydro industry.
Mr. Speaker, in our high-tech industry - which this government pats
themselves on the back for, what a great high-tech industry - we are debating in
the House of Assembly today an ownership position we have in a high-tech
industry, namely through our fibre optic link with the mainland. The Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador has bought into that high-tech industry through $15
million that the Premier gave to his friends and business associates. Now, that
might not be the right reason to do it, but we still have an ownership position,
and they applaud themselves for having an ownership position in our high-tech
fibre optic industry.
In our forestry industry, we all remember when the mill in Stephenville was
going down - the Abitibi mill in Stephenville was going down - we all heard the
Premier on Open Line shows and in the media talking about expropriation of the
mill in Stephenville. That means taking ownership of a mill in our forest
industry. He was also prepared, back some two years ago, to invest $150 million
of our taxpayers' money - our money, your money, any of those people who are
watching us here today - $150 million into the forest industry, namely to keep
Abitibi alive out in Stephenville.
So, he had not problem investing in our forest industry, our high-tech
industry through fibre optic, our hydro industry through the Lower Churchill,
and our oil industry, through ownership, no problem. Mr. Speaker, why can't we
have a part ownership in our most valued industry, our fishing industry? Why can't
we take an equity position in our fishing industry, an ownership position? We
are not out there talking about buying out every fish plant and taking complete
control. Why can't we take an equity position by owning FPI, and let that act
as the flagship for the fishing industry in the Province?
I think what it is, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier does not want to get the
smell of fish on his hands. For some reason he is interested in the oil and gas
industry, the high-tech industry and those industries, but he has no interest
and no knowledge of what is happening in the fishing industry. As a result, we
see communities around this Province that have been devastated by the closure of
plants belonging to FPI over the last two or three years with very little, if
any, response from this government except that FPI has to do it.
In fact, the Premier even went so far as to agree with John Risley a few
short months ago, that not only should he close plants in the Province but those
who remain working for FPI should take a wage cut. He agreed with Mr. Risley,
when Mr. Risley went out and talked about the need to slash the wages of the
plant workers in the Province. The Premier went out and said he agrees with him,
and the plant workers should reconsider this.
Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that we should put FPI back the way it was.
Look, the thing that I find the most distasteful about all of this deal is the
fact that we are selling off what most in the industry would consider to be -
most people who know that industry - the most valued asset of FPI being sold off
to a Nova Scotia company, and that is the secondary processing and the marketing
division.
In the secondary processing division we only have one plant, and that is
located in Burin. They make a tremendous product and they have seen some
semblance of a normal work year down there in that plant. Years ago they worked
year-round, and even up until recently, in the last few years, they worked
year-round and employed 150 or 170 people.
The other part of that secondary processing facility is located in Danvers,
Massachusetts, along with the marketing division, but there are people on O'Leary
Avenue who are also connected with that division, Mr. Speaker. We often forget
them, but there are 140 people or 120 people on O'Leary Avenue who will lose
their jobs as well if this deal goes through.
I do not, and I think that government would be negligent if they allow the
marketing division and the secondary processing division of FPI to be sold off
because anyone who knows anything about FPI - you can talk to Mr. Vic Young or
anyone who has been connected with FPI over the past twenty years, they will
tell you that what kept FPI alive in Newfoundland and Labrador - when I mean
alive in Newfoundland and Labrador, kept the plants open during the moratorium
when there was no fish or little fish to process. What kept those plants open in
this Province was the fact that FPI owned the marketing and secondary processing
division in the United States. They took the profits that they were making on
marketing fish, under the FPI banner, they took the profits from that portion of
the company and subsidized the plants that they operated here in this Province.
Unfortunately, with that division being sold off there will be no more subsidies
coming from that division. And so they should subsidize. It is one company.
The marketing division is one part of FPI. That is all it ever was, one part.
It was all under the one management, one board of directors, and it was run out
of O'Leary Avenue up here. So, obviously if one portion of your company is
making money, you are going to subsidize the other until they get back on their
feet. You just do not chop off the portion of the company that is not making
money because that portion is falling on hard times. The groundfish division
made money for FPI. That is how they got their start. That is how they were able
to be successful in buying the marketing and secondary processing division.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing, some might argue that government should not be
involved in the private sector. Well, I say to the Premier, or anyone else who
wants to argue with that, they have no problem about investing in other private
sector industries in our Province. None whatsoever, and nobody seems to complain
in this Province when the Premier says we want an ownership position of our oil
and gas industry. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people might say: What is the cost
going to be? Well, it is my understanding that there are roughly 13 million
shares in FPI and today I think the shares are selling around $14.95 a share,
but six months ago we could have picked up the shares in FPI for less than $5.
Less than $5, I say to the members opposite. So, what is that? That is $65
million, we could have picked up FPI for. We could have picked up all the shares
in FPI for roughly $65 million, five months ago.
Today, because the shares have gone up, because people know it is going to be
sold off piecemeal, it would probably cost the Province in the area of $200
million. Not a large amount of money to take control of that gem of an asset
called FPI, or what used to be called a gem in our fishery, FPI. I have no
problem with it. If you want to, you can write part of that down, I say to the
Minister of Fisheries. Because what we have done, FPI went to Great Britain and
bought a seafood company for $40 million that did not benefit anyone in this
Province. Now I understand that is for sale. If the Minister of Fisheries for
our Province is correct, he said that FPI bought that two years ago for $40
million and today it is worth $80 million. If you want to reduce the cost of
buying FPI from $200 million, round figures, down to $120 million, all we have
to do is sell off the British seafood company. Because it is going to be sold
off now anyway, Mr. Speaker. You can rest assured, that no one in Newfoundland
and Labrador is going to own it once they sell it off because they have already
announced that they are doing a deal with an European company. Where the profits
of that sale is going to go, I have no idea.
If you talk about it, Mr. Speaker, that we can have the FPI that was passed
over to John Risley and group back for $120 million, why don't we purchase it?
The Premier had no problem offering the mill workers in Stephenville 300 direct
jobs in that mill, $150 million. That is what he was prepared to put in for that
mill. Yet, we have 2,000 employees with FPI, more than 2,000 direct jobs
associated with FPI, and we are quite prepared to see that company divvied up
and sold off. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should do it. What I am saying is that
we should strike a serious committee of the House of Assembly and do it rather
quickly, hold some talks with individuals who know the fishing industry in this
Province, hold some talks with people who know something about finance, hold
some talks with people who know about investing money and do an analysis of the
benefits that that purchase would be, not only for the people who work in the
fish plants and work on the draggers of FPI in this Province, and work on O'Leary
Avenue, but we should also know what the benefit of having that company continue
to exist in our Province as a whole rather than just parts of it.
Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you, the plant in Europe is going to be sold
off. We will have nothing to do with that and my fear, as it has always been a
fear, is that once we break off the marketing and the secondary processing
division, it is only a matter of time before the plant in Burin is sold off and
the equipment in that plant is shipped off to Nova Scotia to a High Liner plant,
because that is who is buying that, or end up in Danvers, Massachusetts. The
most valued asset, that American marketing division, that is what we should be
holding on to because, Mr. Speaker, they purchase fish around the world and sell
it around the world. Most of that fish never sees the shores of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Vic Young told me, when he was the President of FPI, they were buying fish
out of Victoria Lake in Africa and selling it somewhere else in the world and
making money. That money was coming back to the bottom line of FPI in this
Province. While there was no work attached to it, direct work in terms of
processing that fish, there was money made off the sale of that fish and it was
coming back into this Province to keep that company strong.
Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that when I was minister - and even before
when I worked for the previous two ministers before I became minister myself - I
felt proud when I walked into the Boston Seafood Show, which is the largest
seafood show in the world, and you look around that facility with thousands of
booths. I have never been to a show as large in my life. Three floors of a
convention centre with individual booths set up all around it and down through
it, representing companies from most of the countries around the world that have
a seacoast. When you walk -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has lapsed.
MR. REID: Just a minute to clue up Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MR. REID: When you walk into that building on the first floor, you turn
to your left and you see the big banner, FPI - larger than any other one there.
The individuals who were standing behind that booth, as smart as anybody in the
fishing industry in the world. They were a showpiece for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we are forgetting, as well, that a lot of companies in this
Province, a lot of the small processors marketed their fish through FPI. Today,
some of them are going to be left in a lurch. FPI can continue to operate. I
know there is a fear that if the government owned FPI that they would be
unfavourably, or unfairly competing on the head of the wharf for product with
other fish companies. Well, we did that for twenty years here in the Province.
Those companies - I am not aware of any company or any smaller fish plant owner
who was driven out of business because of FPI. I am not aware that it has ever
happened.
Mr. Speaker, there are ways, if we strike an all-party committee, to get
around that, too, and to alleviate the fears that some people in this Province
might have, that FPI will be unfavourably competing with the smaller fish
merchants in the Province because we can put stipulations on it. We do not have
to be running them under our thumb on a daily basis, but they would have to be
responsible, especially if we set them up. We could not have FPI and its board
of directors out trying to drive other companies into bankruptcy. It never
happened when they were there before, at least under the board of directors that
were there prior to 2001, and I do not think that it would happen again. I also
think that having a strong company, one with the ability to market other fish
products from other fish plant owners in the Province would be an asset.
The Premier and the Minister of Fisheries attended a summit last spring down
here in St. John's, and what the Premier came out of it with, right off the
bat, was: Look, what we need to do is, we need to buy the marketing division of
FPI, because we need that division to remain here in this Province.
The minister is probably going to get up later on and say why that could not
happen: because no one was interested. I say to the minister, before he even
says it, the government should have still bought it, because Iceland controls
its marketing divisions. It might not be true, but Iceland, I think, markets all
of its fish under one or two marketing divisions. It used to. It worked very
well for Iceland, I say to the minister. It used to work very well for Iceland.
What would be wrong with having the marketing division of FPI market all of
the fish for all of the processors here in this Province if it were run
properly, if the other processors were given an incentive to market through FPI
and if the other processors knew that they were not going to get ripped off or
swindled by the Board of Directors of FPI?
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up, but I do believe that the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador should purchase FPI. I am willing to say today that we
should strike an all-party committee first to examine this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are out there saying that the provincial
government should not be nationalizing industries, I say, I am not talking about
nationalizing all industries. I am talking about nationalizing one company in
our most important industry, the industry that brought us here in 1497 and the
industry that is going to maintain us. Long after our oil and gas is gone, long
after our mines have been cleaned up, what are we going to be left with? We are
going to be left with our fishery, Mr. Speaker. That is what is going to sustain
us, and we cannot sit back and watch as FPI cuts, slices and dissects that once
proud company into divisions, into parts, and sell them off piecemeal to people
who live outside of this Province.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and somebody else can have a few
words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to the motion on the floor, and to
speak in support of the motion on the floor, and to speak in support of it
because I really do believe what this motion is about. I absolutely believe that
we can own FPI, as a government, and that owning an industry that is connected
with one of the most important resources in our Province is something that we
should not only just talk about but we should take as a given.
As I was preparing for today, as we all know, this is my first time standing
and speaking to the issue of the fishing industry. Even though I have not done
that before, I have, over the years, been always interested in our fishery and
have worked on various aspects of research around the fishery and have some
sense of our fishery, but part of my research for today was to look at some of
the discussions that have taken place in this House over the years.
I could not help but note - and I hope my colleagues will find this a bit
humourous - that I think we are having what we could call in this House the
annual FPI event. All the dates I looked at over the past while in Hansard,
discussions were happening in May of each year on FPI. To me, that says we have
a problem that has not been resolved.
I noticed last May - on May 25, actually - when discussion was going on in
this House with regard to amendments to the FPI Act, that my predecessor, the
then Leader of the NDP and MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, had this to say when
speaking to the amendments that were on the floor at that time. " I say
again today, that I do not believe that these amendments are going to do what
needs to be done to ensure that Fishery Products is going to be the vehicle that
we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, hope and expect it can be for the fishery of
the future in this Province. I believe that we are going to be back here again
in a number of months dealing, for the fourth time in four years, with Fishery
Products Act legislation."
Now, our discussion today is not on the legislation but our discussion is on:
What can we do with regard to FPI?
You know, my predecessor had the foresight to understand that what was
happening last year was band-aid treatment. It has been band-aid treatment every
year for the past number of years, so what can we do to make sure that this time
we fix it? We have to fix it. We have to fix it for the good of the people in
this Province. We have to fix it for the communities and for the individuals,
and we have to fix it so that we are involved as intimately as we can be in
saving our resource, in making sure that the future is there for our people in
the fishing industry. We have to fix it, so I think that we have to be open to
every discussion in looking at how to fix it, and I urge my colleagues in the
House, especially the colleagues across the House from me, to be open to this
motion that is on the floor.
We have a situation that is a very distinct situation as we all know. Maybe
some people watching us don't know, so I would like to talk about it a bit. We
have a hybrid with FPI. We have a private company, but that has legislation, an
actual Act, controlling it. We are trying to have control over something that we
don't own. I think by now we should have a lot of experience in understanding,
as a Province, that trying to control something we don't own or to control
something that others perceive or think that we don't own, is a very, very
difficult thing to do.
For example, the control of fish quotas by the federal government is
protected in Constitution. Therefore, when we try to have conversations with the
federal government they take that role to mean that they own it and they control
it. That is why governments, and our current government, have not been able to
negotiate with the federal government about a transfer of quotas directly to the
government, because it is a federal government jurisdiction.
We have to find a way, a systemic way, in which to get at that. Because, you
know, the people inside of FPI don't like the hybrid. Certainly the ones who
are there now and who have been there in the past couple of years, they don't
like the hybrid. As Board of Directors, they want to have total control over
that company because they own it. While I disagree with that, and I do believe
that my colleagues on the other side of the House disagree with that as well, we
all have to understand the dilemma of asking people who own a private company to
be controlled by legislation.
I just don't see any other way out. Trying to maintain this hybrid, no
matter how we try to configure the Board of Directors, doesn't seem to be
working. You know, it was only last year that we had this struggle going on -
well not a struggle, I mean a situation going on, where, in spite of
legislation, in spite of everything the government tried to put in place, when
the CEO of FPI left the company there was a long period of time when a select
committee composed of three members of the Board of Directors actually ran the
company. The very thing that the government wouldn't have wanted to happen was
happening.
Legislation wasn't working because the people who run that Board of
Directors were going to find their way around the legislation. They would find a
way of doing it, because they do not understand ownership without control. To be
honest, I do not understand ownership without control. Therefore, the only
logical way I can see going is that we go for the ownership, and that means
forming a Crown corporation which we had before.
Now, as my colleague, the Leader of the Liberals, said earlier, we should not
be afraid of that. I want to go through it again. Crown corporation is not a bad
word. Crown corporation is a common thing. It is something that we know a lot
about. We have them all over our country and we have them in our Province. We
have our Crown corporation dealing with energy, a good corporation. We are proud
of Newfoundland Hydro. We show what a well run Crown corporation can do. Why
wouldn't we do that for the fishery?
When the people in Arnold's Cove ran out with the problem they had with the
closure of the plant, the government found a very interesting way to deal with
getting the quota: by forming a Crown corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Industrial Development Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation, and it was
the corporation who got the quotas and then leased them to the plant in Arnold's
Cove. That was really creative. We were not afraid of Crown corporation there;
and, while the involvement in the fibre optic project is not a Crown
corporation, the government wants ownership, and the government wants control
over what it owns, and that is what is really interesting.
In the Estimates Committee the other day, the minister was talking about how,
in the negotiations that are going on with regard to the final agreement around
the fibre optic project, one of the things that the government needs to know is,
number one, how many strands it is going to own, and, number two, shoring up the
control that they have over those strands.
So, ownership and control go together. I get confused when I hear members of
the opposite side of the House sometimes speaking about them as one without the
other, that they are distinct. I cannot see how they are distinct. We have tried
it. We have tried doing it in a way that makes them distinct by having the
hybrid FPI that we have, but that hybrid FPI is not working. Unless we have a
board of directors that is totally committed to this Province, totally committed
to being sure that the resource is there for this Province, totally committed to
having people work in this Province, totally committed to having secondary
processing begin in this Province, unless we have that kind of a board of
directors completely, we are not going to get what we need from FPI.
I think the only way that we can get that kind of a board of directors
completely is by us owning that company and controlling that company, and
thereby controlling the resources of our Province. That is the only way we are
going to do it, because we are not going to be able to arrest the quotas from
the federal government. We are not going to be able to do it. I would love to
think we could, but I know we cannot; however, if we own our company, they
cannot keep the quotas away from us. If our government owns the company, if it
is a Crown corporation and that is the company that is in charge of the fishery,
the large part of the fishery in this Province, then that corporation has to get
the quotas.
It just seems so logical to me, it really does. I do not think this has
anything to do with ideology, you know. I do not think it has anything to do
with whether we are talking about being pro-business or being socialists in our
thinking or whatever. I think this is about common sense. It is about common
sense. We want to make the decisions, we want the control, we have to own it.
It bothers me the way the federal government looks at us, just like it
bothers all my colleagues in the House and everybody in this Province, I would
say. The fact that we do not have a constitutional right over our fishery
bothers me. If we keep fighting that, if we keep beating our heads against the
wall, that is all that we are going to be doing, so we have to become creative
in how to deal with this.
I noticed as I read, again, the various Hansards from the different
discussions that have taken place in the House, that all of us are expressing
the same concern. All three parties in this House are concerned about the people
of this Province. We are concerned about maintaining as many communities as we
can, dependent on the fishery, knowing that some are not going to be able to
depend on having processing, for example, in their community - we all know that
- but we want to maximize the number of communities that can stay alive in this
Province and stay alive as fishing communities. We all want to do it. I have not
read anything, in the Hansards that I have read, that says that we differ on
that.
When you had the all-party committee, I was really quite impressed again when
I read Hansard, and read how the three parties worked together on the committee,
and read the excellent recommendations that the committee came up with. Why did
that committee work? Because we all had the same goal. We want a viable fishery,
we want viable communities, and we want people to have work. So, let's be
creative. Let's work together. If ever there was an issue in this Province
that demands that we work together, it is this one.
In thirty, forty or fifty years time we have no idea how much oil or gas is
going to be left out under the Atlantic where we can access it. We do not know.
We have no control over it in the sense that as it gets used it does not
replenish. We all know that. It is non-renewable. However, we do know that with
a well-kept fishery, and with a fishery that has environmentally concerned
people in charge of it, and making the right decisions, in fifty, sixty or
seventy years time the fish is still going to be there, just like the fish was
there in 1497. Now, we do not have the fish jumping into baskets the way it
happened when John Cabot arrived on our shores, I know that, but we know the
damage that was done to this fishery. We can learn from the damage that was
done, and we know that in fifty, sixty, seventy years time we can still have a
viable fishery.
Why wouldn't we want, as a government, to have ownership? Why wouldn't we
want to have as much control as possible, just like, why do we want to have
ownership in the oil and gas industry? I agree with my colleague again, the
Leader of the Liberal Party, that equity is ownership. If we are willing to say
we want ownership there, and we want ownership in the fibre optic deal, why don't
we want ownership in our fishery?
Ownership in oil and gas, yes, it means that we will get a lot more money
back, there is no doubt about that, but ownership with the fishery has to be
about more than just getting money back. It has to be about maintaining our
communities. It has to be about creating new employment opportunities for our
people.
The people who work on the rigs out in the offshore, it is a limited number
of people, it is not a lot of people, but the people who work on land in our
fishery, or work off the land - they work out in the ocean, but off the land -
in this fishery, are people who are multiplied many times the number of people
who will ever work offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many, many times.
We know that, so I do not understand it. Why would we not, then, keep our
communities alive? Why would we not only work to keep plants open that we have,
but come up with more creative ways around secondary processing, new secondary
processing, not secondary processing that is going to compete with China for
example -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that her time for
speaking has lapsed.
MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much. I will just take a minute or so.
As I was saying a couple of minutes ago, and that is what I want to clue up
with, we have shown in the past that we have common concerns in this House. We
have shown in the past that this House can work together on a committee dealing
with the fishing industry. We have shown that we have a lot of common concerns
and a lot of common creative ideas. So I would really ask my colleagues to
support this motion, to let's do it again, let's put a committee in place
again. This time it has a very specific reason for being in place. It is to look
at ownership and what ownership would look like.
What I hear from all member in the House, including my colleagues on the
opposite side, what I hear you saying is, it is ownership that you want. Because
if you are talking the control you are talking, you are talking ownership.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to say a few words on
the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
In many respects, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, but I don't want to
disagree with as lot of the sentiment expressed by the Leader of the Opposition
in his remarks. I certainly don't want to disagree with a lot of the thoughts
and sentiments expressed by the Leader of the third party in this House in her
remarks.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador
have a common goal when it comes to the fishery. Whether you are from Long's
Hill in the centre of St. John's, you know something about the fishery. If you
are from Fleur de Lys in White Bay you probably are a little closer to it. If
you are from Marystown or Grand Bank or Fortune or Harbour Breton or the North
Coast of Labrador, you are even closer to it again, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't really matter who you are, as a
Newfoundlander or Labradorian, the fishery has been part of us. The fishery is
who we are. The fishery is what brought us here 500 years ago, or our
forefathers or our ancestors. The fishery, to a large degree, Mr. Speaker, has
been what has sustained us and kept us alive and kept us rooted to this place
that we love so much, to this place to which we cling with such a fierce
determination to hang on and survive. That has been kind of inbred in us, Mr.
Speaker. It is part of our nature. It is part of our culture. It is why, to a
large degree, Mr. Speaker, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian considers him or
herself to be an expert in the fishery. Because we are, in a way, an expert in
the fishery because it is us. We grew up with it in some degree, more or less,
depending on where we came from.
It is for the same reason, Mr. Speaker, that if you asked a car salesperson
in Gander or Grand Falls how their business is, they will be able to tell you
that, to a large degree, their business is flat or prospering or declining,
depending on how the fishery is in Bonavista or how it is in Fogo or Valleyfield
or La Scie. That has been the yardstick, Mr. Speaker, that has measured the
fishery and the impact that it has had on rural Newfoundland and Labrador but,
in general, the whole of the economy of this Province. So, when we say we have a
common bond, yes we do. It is what brings us together in many respects and what
makes us as a people, Mr. Speaker. Now, that is distinct - nobody can disagree
with that, but that is distinct and different from trying to wrestle with the
question of: What do you do about FPI as it currently exists and what should we
do in relationship to this particular resolution that is before us?
Mr. Speaker, nationalization of FPI, of course it is an option. It is an N
word that a lot of politicians in many walks of life in this country are
reluctant to mention but, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be part of a government in
my political past that engaged in nationalization. We were the government back
in the 1980s when what we now know as Fishery Products International was formed
from the bankrupt remnants of what was left of the offshore deep sea fishery, in
most cases, in Newfoundland and Labrador. The old JC Penney operation on the
South Coast was part of it. The Lake group on the South Coast was part of it.
Fishery Products itself, the old company called Fishery Products, which operated
in many places - again, on the South Coast, but also in places along the
Northeast Coast; parts of what were, at that time, National Sea Products, some
other independent groups that were associated with some or all of those
companies. Mr. Speaker, because of a whole range of issues, because of a whole
range of circumstances found themselves bankrupt.
the Bank of Nova Scotia, allowed a Crown corporation, a Crown held corporation
set up under the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, Mr. Speaker,
although controlled by the federal government, because the federal government
held 60 per cent of the shares, it was a Crown corporation that was set up under
the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador and was therefore a provincial Crown
corporation; a provincial Crown corporation with 60 per cent ownership by the
Newfoundland and Labrador, and, at that point in time when it was set up, 12 per
cent ownership by the Bank of Nova Scotia. That was the forerunner. That became
the Fishery Products International that we are dealing with here today.
Mr. Speaker, after the reorganization and the setting up of the Crown
corporation of FPI, and the taking over and the direction of that company by
people like Vic Young, Dave Norris and other people who are well-known to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that company, Mr. Speaker, proved to be a very
effective and a very worthy operator in the fishing industry, not only in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but worldwide. Now, things were not perfect, Mr.
Speaker, under that operation. No question about that. There were times when the
company, particularly when the resource became difficult as we headed into a
declining resource, as we got into the motorium it became worse. But, that
company, even under the excellent guidance and stewardship of people like Vic
Young, at times had to make very difficult decisions. They had to decide whether
a Trepassey had to close down, or whether a Harbour Deep, or whether a - I am
thinking about Grand Bank. They had to make decisions regarding Charleston, out
in Your Honour's district. There were a whole bunch of plants that FPI had to
decide whether they could continue to operate them or whether it was better to
spin them off to the private sector, and maybe the private sector inshore
operators had a better opportunity to operate them than did this large fishing
company called Fishery Products International.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the mix of what was happening globally in the world at
the time, you had this vision of returning FPI from a Crown owned company to a
privately held company, but publicly traded. That is the animal, I suppose for
the want of a better word, that is still in existence today. It was at the
request and the insistence and the recommendation of the people who were running
that Crown corporation back in the middle 1980s, that we return it to the
private sector; that we offer shares widely in the private sector and public
sector to the world; that we reserve a bit of it, perhaps for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. Certainly, there was some share ownership reserved for the
employees. There was a share restriction put on, in that no individual or
company could control more than 15 per cent. All of that continued to operate,
pretty well positively, for quite a long time. Mr. Speaker, a lot of that has
changed now. We find ourselves in different times and in different
circumstances.
So, if we were to nationalize - and I said at the beginning that
nationalization is not a nice word to a lot of governments. It is not something
that scares me politically, or scares me as an individual. I was part of a
government that created a Crown corporation to hold the assets of FPI in the
beginning. I was part of a government back around the same time that
expropriated, by
an act of this Legislature, the assets of what was the old
Advocate Mines in Baie Verte and then we turned it over to a private operator
after that, known as Baie Verte Mines. So, the nationalization, or expropriation
of private assets - gosh, I forgot, I was also the Minister of Fisheries back in
those days who expropriated the assets of Rose Ting. Who could ever forget Rose
Ting? The Tom of the Rideout, she used to call me. Rose Ting who operated a
number of plants down on the South Coast, St. Lawrence and over in Port aux
Basques, Rose Blanche. Anyway, a wonderful entrepreneur who came here with an
idea.
MR. TAYLOR: She was a thing to behold.
MR. RIDEOUT: She was a thing to behold.
Anyway, it just did not work out and there were other people interested in
those operations. Rather than see those operations tied up, Mr. Speaker, for the
good of the people in those communities, I was the minister who presided over
the expropriation, in other words the nationalization, taking back to government
of those assets of that company. Again, we spun them off to another private
operator.
Nationalization or expropriation, the point I am trying to make, it is not
something foreign or something that I am scared of or something that I am not
prepared to deal with. The question, though, becomes this. In the current
environment that we find ourselves in today, what do we gain to Newfoundland and
Labrador and for the 2,000 people or so who worked with FPI when it was
operating in Marystown - and, hopefully, when it will operate there again - and
the other communities like Port au Choix, Catalina, Bonavista, Triton? I do not
know if I am leaving out a place where they currently operate. If we were to
nationalize the assets of FPI today, what do we gain for the future of those
people in those communities? If we were to gain control of a public resource
called quota, forever and a day to be held by the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, you know, I probably would be the first one lining up to support that
kind of initiative. But, it has been made abundantly clear that the present
the fact that he is a minister from this Province, will not allow the quota
currently held by FPI to sit with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or
a Crown corporation controlled by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, none of us in this House might like that, but that is the
cold, hard facts. We are trying to find some way to perhaps massage that so that
we can find a way to protect, as best we can, the long term of people where FPI
currently operates. But, for us as a Province to nationalize, or expropriate the
assets of FPI, minus the quota, minus the fish quotas, is of very little value
for the long term of those people in the communities where FPI operates. What do
we have to turn over to them? What do we have to turn over to an operator? We
have hard assets in plants and ships, but no fish to catch. So, what would be
the use of that particular exercise if we could not find a way - and we cannot
at the moment. We are told the answer is no, the Province cannot hold those
quotas. I will not agree to the Province holding those quotas either directly or
through a Crown controlled corporate entity.
If the answers is no, and there is no legal way that any of us are aware of -
there is no question, Mr. Speaker. This does not put bread on anybody's table
in Bonavista, but there is no question about the constitutional division of
powers in this country and who controls fish while it is in the sea and who
controls fish once it gets onshore. There is no question about that and there
isn't any question in the mind of any court, as far as I know - up to and
including the Supreme Court of Canada - about that, so what do we do? Would it
be prudent to nationalize and expropriate anyway, in view of staring in the face
the reality that those quotas will not be held by the people of this Province? I
do not know how you explain that, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister, federally, tried to explain the difference between Arnold's
Cove - because that is what was done in Arnold's Cove, the Province bought it
for $3.5 million. The Province holds it. The Province holds those quotas in a
Crown corporation in the Department of Finance today, just as they did when we
first purchased the quota back in 2004, whenever it was.
The federal government says we cannot allow you to have ownership. My
question is: Well, who owns that quota? I think we own it. We paid for it. We
bought it.
MR. TAYLOR: We pay for the licence fees every year.
MR. RIDEOUT: We pay for the licence fees every year. You allowed us to do
it. Who owns the quota that John Risley lands as part of the Clearwater
operation up in Nova Scotia? John Risley, I think, would swear on a stack of
bibles that he owns it. I know it is a public property resource, but he would
say it is his and he can go to the bank with it. Who owns the quota that FPI
holds? FPI and their board of directors, their owners and their managers would
say it is theirs. Who owns the quota that Bill Barry owns? It is a public
resource but they would say they own it under licence from the federal
government. Well, I say the quota for Arnold's Cove, Mr. Speaker - and make no
apologies for saying it, despite the fact that this drives temperatures in
Ottawa through the roof - I say we own it. If we were to be given the right and
responsibility of acquiring the quota that FPI currently holds, I would say we
own that, too.
The federal minister will always have the responsibility, and does have the
constitutional responsibility to manage those.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. minister that his time for speaking has lapsed.
MR. RIDEOUT: And I appreciate the fact that others are waiting, so I will
sit right down, and just conclude -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. RIDEOUT: I will just conclude very, very briefly by saying this: I
growing up in Fleur de Lys we used to say a lot of things, and some people are
pretty familiar with one of them. One thing we used to say, Mr. Speaker, was:
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Now, if Nunavut is allowed to hold quota, why can't we hold and own quota?
If Pche Nordique in Quebec is allowed to hold quota, why can't we hold quota? If
a New Brunswick firm can hold quota, why can't we hold quota? If we can hold
quota for Arnold's Cove, why can't we hold it for FPI and the successor to
FPI? If we could own quota for our middle distance fleet, as we did before there
was a moratorium, what is wrong with us holding the FPI quota?
If the answer to all of this is yes, what is wrong, Mr. Speaker, what is
different about those of us who live in Newfoundland and Labrador than those
Canadians who live in Nunavut, than those Canadians who live in Quebec -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: - than those Canadians who live in New Brunswick, than those
Canadians who live in P.E.I. where there are shrimp quotas held? What is
different about us? Why can't we hold it?
The bottom line, though, Mr. Speaker, is we have a current government and a
current minister who say, no, so therefore in my view expropriation of the
assets of FPI would be useless and would be without benefit to the people of
this Province. The all-party committee would have very little time to do
anything in view of the fact that whatever is going to happen with FPI, whether
it is something new or retaining the old, will happen between now and this
weekend. So, I see no basis at all in logic for an all-party committee and I,
personally, am not going to support the resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak in support of the Private Members' Motion on FPI.
I think the operative word here, the key word, that we are missing is, we are
looking to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI. At this point in time we
are not saying it is something that should happen. What we are saying is: Why
not put in place an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing
FPI? Yes, we think that is something that government should certainly consider.
We think it is doable. What we are saying is: Why not put in place an all-party
committee representing all of the people in the Province to explore the
possibility of purchasing FPI?
I have listened to the Minister of Fisheries go on about the issue with the
federal government and the federal Minister of Fisheries, and the fact that they
will not, or they say they cannot, turn over the quotas to the Province, or to
the government, to own. The interesting thing about this is that I agree with
the Minister of Fisheries and I disagree with our federal Minister of Fisheries,
but what seems to be happening here is a difference of opinion. Because I get a
sense from the Minister of Fisheries, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, that
if they could own the quota then they would have no issue at all, but for us the
issue still is: If the Province owns the quota you are quite willing to see FPI
dismantled.
What we are saying is that if you can get the federal Minister of Fisheries
to agree to turn the quotas over to the Province, why would you not take it a
step further and say: Great, we have the quota. Now, let's own the company.
Instead of seeing this company being torn apart, a company that has been the
mainstay in Newfoundland and Labrador for years, particularly in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, why not agree then to continue to see this company
thrive under the ownership of the government?
There are any number of things that can happen here, but when I hear the
minister say, no, we cannot go down the path in terms of exploring purchasing
FPI, the government purchasing FPI, because the federal government will not turn
over the quota, but on the other hand understanding that if the federal
government does turn over the quota that it is perfectly all right to dismantle
the company, then there is something wrong here. It just does not jive, the fact
that you say we want the quota but we do not want FPI.
The sense that we have, as the Opposition, having listened to people
throughout this Province, is that something needs to happen here. When I hear
the minister say, well, you know, we do not want to go down this path because
something is going to happen between now and the end of the week, do you know
how many times we have heard that? Do you know how many times the people in
places like Fortune and Marystown have heard that? Do you know how many times
the people in Harbour Breton and Bonavista have heard that, that something is
going to happen in a couple of weeks?
I spoke to the minster a month or so ago, if not longer, and he assured me
that we would hear something within a couple of weeks, and today we are still
waiting. So, to use that as an argument to say that something is going to happen
by the end of the week, well, I think we will believe it when we see it on this
side. I know that is how the people in the Province are feeling.
Here we are, in a Province built on the fishery, people who work so hard in
an industry that is probably the hardest industry in the world in which to work
- your hands in cold water all day long, standing on concrete floors, or out in
the fishing boat in all types of weather - trying to make a living, but somehow
the kind of attention that should be paid to this industry is not being paid to
it by this government, and that is what is so sad about this.
We have people who are leaving this Province by the planeload, going off to
Alberta. Many of them have moved with their children, or will do so at the end
of the school year. They cannot wait any longer. The cannot wait, especially in
rural Newfoundland where the economy has been devastated by what has happened in
the fishery.
Things look good on the Avalon Peninsula - yes, they do, and we would all
agree and admit to that - but in rural Newfoundland, where the mainstay of the
economy has always been the fishery, things are not looking good. That is why we
are saying to the government, here is an opportunity. Just because John Risley
and the boys have decided that they want to see FPI dismantled, a few more
dollars for the shareholders, more money in the back pocket, just because that
is the way they think we should go, it is not the way that we believe is right
for Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Here is an opportunity to do what is right for not only those who have earned
a living over the years in the fishery, but for others who depend on the good
economy that comes with a strong fishery. In rural Newfoundland, yes, those who
worked in the plants and those who fished, those who process, those who harvest,
are finding it difficult. So are others: those who have businesses, who have
been relying on those individuals to help ensure that their businesses survive.
Here is an opportunity. Again, I say it to the government, if you want the
quotas and that is what you are fighting for, and you are hoping that will
happen, or some massaging will take place so that the Province will be able to
own the quota, then why not own FPI? Why see Burin, the secondary processing
plant in Burin, sold off to High Liner, a Nova Scotia company?
As the Leader of the Opposition said when he spoke, you and I know, we know
that there are no guarantees that plant in Burin will continue to operate once
it becomes a part of that High Liner operation. We know that there are no
guarantees here, so that is a serious issue on the Burin Peninsula.
What about the plant in Fortune? We are hoping, still hoping, and we have
been hoping for months, that there will be an opportunity there in terms of
aquaculture. Aquaculture because there does not seem to be any other opportunity
on the horizon. We do not know, at this point, what is going to happen in
Fortune.
Marystown, where we have hundreds of people employed in the fish plant and we
really do not know what is going to happen in Marystown. These are serious times
for those who are engaged in the fishery, and there is no sense coming out of
this government that it has an appreciation or an understanding of how difficult
these times are.
To say that you are not going to support this private member's motion which
is calling for an all-party committee to explore the possibility of purchasing
FPI, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with going down that path? We
certainly have nothing to lose by doing it, and maybe everything to gain; but,
no, we are not even going to explore it, or at least the provincial Minister of
Fisheries has said he is not going to support this motion.
This is a motion that is meant to provide hope, to provide an opportunity for
those engaged in the fishery to have something that they can look to, hang their
hats on - hope - because I can tell you there is not much hope in rural
Newfoundland when it comes to FPI today. There is not much hope in terms of the
future in the fishery because of what is happening with FPI.
Mr. Risley might think it is okay to sell off the plant in Burin to High
Liner. Others might think it is okay to sell off other aspects of FPI to Ocean
Cuisine. What about the operation in Danvers, Massachusetts. Where is that
going? Well, it is not okay if there isn't a future here for the people who
have traditionally worked in the fishery and for others who have made a living
as a result of the fishery. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against
Ocean Cuisine, nothing whatsoever; a reputable company owned by reputable
individuals who have the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at
heart. I know because they have an operation in St. Lawrence in my district.
The problem we are facing here is that Ocean Cuisine is not going to take
over the entire operation, so we are going to be left with one aspect of the
fishery probably being taken care of. We have not seen any details, by the way.
We have no idea in the Opposition what is happening there. We have seen none of
the details. We do not know what is being considered, we do not know what is
being ruled out as unacceptable, so here we are saying: Okay, because Ocean
Cuisine is a reputable company run by reputable individuals, then alright, that
is okay.
What we are saying here today is there are other aspects of FPI, there are
other assets that have to be considered. Instead of breaking up a company, which
is what Mr. Risley wants to do and it's shareholders, George Armoyan and the
boys - that is what they want to do. Why is it the government is so anxious to
be part of that plan. Why is it the government is not second guessing what is
happening here? Why is it the government is not using the authority it has under
the FPI Act to take FPI to task, to take John Risley to task, to let him know
that while he maybe be king in Nova Scotia, he is not king in Newfoundland and
Labrador? We are determined here in this Province to show him that we stand up
for ourselves, that we know where we should be going with the fishery and that
we are not prepared to agree with what Risley is doing.
The Board of Directors of FPI have not at all considered what is in the best
interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and unfortunately there are
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that board. What has happened here is that
those involved in the fishery, those of us who support the fishery, those of us
who profit from the fishery, have been hung out to dry. We have been hung out to
dry.
Here is an opportunity now - and this is what we are saying to the
government: Let's get this back on track. Instead of saying, well, you know,
we will know something by the end of this week, let's get it back on track so
that we are the drivers, we are going to decide in this Province what happens
with our fishery. We are the ones who are going to say to the powers that be in
FPI, that this is enough. We have waited long enough and we are not going to let
it continue the way it is going on. It is not fair to those who have been
engaged in the fishery for all of these years and we are not going to let it
happen any longer.
Hence, the private member's motion, to put in place an all-party committee
to explore the possibility of purchasing FPI. That is all we are asking to do.
Again, nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I wonder why the government is finding that so hard to accept, the idea of
purchasing FPI. It has been mentioned a couple of times earlier today. They are
quite willing to take equity positions in other industries in this Province,
whether it is IT industry, whether it is the Lower Churchill, whether it is
offshore industry, the fibre, Persona, $15 million -
MADAM SPEAKER(Osborne): Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.
MS FOOTE: What we are saying here is that this industry, the fishing
industry, is what Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. It is certainly what
rural Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. That is why we are calling on the
government to seriously consider this motion and to show that you understand and
appreciate what people are going through, especially people who have been
engaged in the fishery, people who work so hard and who want to see the fishery
survive in our Province.
One day the oil is going to run out, one day the minerals are not going to be
there, but the fishery is a renewable resource and we need to protect it just as
we need to ensure that other renewable resource, our people, stay in
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all we are asking, to do everything in our
power, your power as a government, to take care of them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is certainly not with pleasure that I stand here today and debate this
private member's motion. I suppose all of us can put a claim to being in a
district that is somehow deeply associated with the fisheries. I guess,
following the Member for Grand Bank, she and I would certainly have a common
attachment to the sea.
When I think about the communities around the Province that were involved in
the dragger fishery, I can only think of the day when FPI had fifty-two draggers
operating out of their plants around the Province. You went to the Marystown
plant and ships, draggers, were just coming and going, coming and going. I guess
if we look at the evolution of the fishery and the situation we find ourselves
in today in terms of the fish stocks, it is easy to see where we started and
where we have come. If we look back to the bank fishery, the technology was not
there. I guess if we look to the inshore fishery of the early days it was very
much that an individual left the shoreline in the morning, went out, brought
their fish in, they processed it basically on their stages, primarily salted,
and then they shipped it to places such as Jamaica. Then, suddenly, as human
beings, by their nature, moved further into technology, we caught more fish, we
processed more fish. Unfortunately, it has come to a point where we have nearly
decimated the fish stocks that, for so long, sustained us a Province.
If I listen to the Member for Grand Bank, she talks about understanding and
appr