Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 12 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 45)
2002-12-12
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 12, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 45
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to offer congratulations to the
City of Mount Pearl on being awarded first place at the recent Economic
Developers Association of Canada's National Conference in the 2002 Marketing
Canada Awards category.
When we note that Mount Pearl's community profile is among 256 submissions
in this national competition, it is indeed a significant recognition of the
depth and the well-structured and comprehensive details included in the
document.
The Economic Developers Association's mandate and mission is to enhance the
professional competency of development professionals and thereby to advance
economic development in communities across Canada.
The Marketing Canada Awards program is open to those organizations which
undertake to promote and market Canada's provinces, its territories, regions,
cities and towns with a view to improving the economic well-being of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Mrs. Bronda Alyward, the Economic
Development Officer for the City of Mount Pearl and her staff. Their
professional dedication and expertise are commendable.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House will want to join
me in offering congratulations to the City of Mount Pearl and its Economic
Development Office on receiving this prestigious national award.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, recently a number of people from the District of Port de Grave
and the Conception Bay North area received the prestigious Queen's Jubilee
Medal.
The medal was presented by Bonavista-Trinity-Conception MP John Efford to six
people from the Port de Grave District. They were: Mrs. Effie Boone, Mr. Walter
Baggs, Mr. Augustus Mercer, Elizabeth and Eric Jerrett, and a former Member of
this hon. House of Assembly, Mr. John Crane.
Although they are not from the district I represent, I would also like to
mention the names of the other people in the Conception Bay North area who were
also presented with this medal. They were: Mr. Max Hussey, Mr. Byron Rodway, Mr.
Eugene Hurley, Mr. Robert Moore and Mr. Elihu Antle.
Mr. Speaker, the recipients of the award were selected from across the
country in celebration of Queen Elizabeth's 50 th Anniversary. The
medal is given to people recognized for making outstanding contributions to the
community and Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join me in congratulating the
recipients of this prestigious award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this house today to congratulate the Clarenville
Cougars 4A high school volleyball team. The Clarenville Cougars had the biggest
win of their career when recently they claimed the provincial 4A high school
volleyball title.
This team has won the Grade 9 provincial volleyball titles, midget B titles
and the midget A titles, together with a volleyball title, the provincial midget
plus banners. A very accomplished team of volleyball players, Mr. Speaker.
These thirteen players, along with their coach, Randy Manning, and assistant
coaches, Nancy Newman and Joe Wells, have been very active in their playing
careers, playing in over thirty tournaments in this Province as well as
throughout mainland Canada.
Mr. Speaker, many of these players have been together for three to four years
now. They demonstrate a keen enthusiasm for the game and exhibit tremendous
sportsmanship. They are a shining example of what hard work, dedication and
teamwork can produce.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that these attributes will stay with these young
men for the rest of their lives and I ask all members of this House to join with
me today in congratulating the Clarenville Cougars 4A high school volleyball
team for winning the provincial 4A championship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring attention to
Labrador's 27 th annual Creative Arts Festival, which was held in
Goose Bay during the week of November 13-19. This festival gives students and
individuals all across Labrador a chance, not only to express, but to appreciate
the arts displayed by the people of Labrador.
This event was founded in 1974, by Tim Borlase, and each year a festival is
held to celebrate art. Today, the festival consists of a combination of plays,
storytelling, writing, and networking. Each evening of the festival, students,
along with some of the artists, are highlighted in a showcase. Whether it be in
the form of a play or a portrait, each individual has the opportunity to display
their work.
Mr. Speaker, the Arts Festival is a wonderful event. It gives students the
opportunity to show and sell their work, as well, it encourages and supports
their interest to continue study in that field. On top of all this, art is an
indicator of mental health in a community, and by having this annual festival,
community ties can be strengthened.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to show appreciation to the organizers of this
annual arts festival, and give recognition to Mr. Tim Borlase, the founder of
this event, for creating such a wonderful tradition that is enjoyed by all
Labradorians today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I want to extend congratulations to Mr. Todd Russell who has been
re-elected President of the Labrador Metis Nation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: The competency that Mr. Russell exhibits was reflected in the
percentage of votes he attained at the annual general meeting held in Mary's
Harbour last month.
The Labrador Metis Nation is working to promote and establish a climate where
the interests of the Metis people are taken into account and where business
opportunities are open to them. Mr. Russell and the Labrador Metis Nation are
active promoters of the Metis community, taking a creative role in managing its
resources for future generations and maintaining as well and cultivating the
spectacular Metis culture.
One example of how the Labrador Metis have recently collaborated with the
provincial government is in an agreed memorandum to participate in forest
management in the areas that are impacted such as Port Hope Simpson, Lake
Melville and Cartwright. In this process, Mr. Russell and the Labrador Metis
Nation have tried to incorporate guarantees that these forest initiatives
transpire in a sustainable and respectful way pertaining to the Metis people and
their land.
I would also like to congratulate other members elected to the Metis council,
which include: Bernard Heard, Jim Learning, Don Dyson, Percy Davis, Kirk
Lethbridge, John Martin, Edwin Heard, Nina Pye, Guy Poole, Beatrice Hancock,
Edward Turnbull, Lorenda Campbell and Bonnie Burt.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in wishing Mr. Russell and the
other members of the Labrador Metis Nation well in the imperative work they do
for their people.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for the past three weeks or more, oil from a leaking and,
ultimately foundered tanker, the Prestige , has fouled the coastal waters
and the northwest coast of Spain. As a result, there has been and continues to
be environmental and economic hardship - wildlife, fish and shellfish harvesters
and markets, the tourism industry and the residents of the coastal communities
have been dramatically affected by the pollution.
We, in this Province, must learn from this unfortunate incident.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that we have arranged for a
delegation from this Province to tour the spill sites and to meet with the key
people and agencies involved in the response to the spill. The delegation will
consist of government officials, spill clean up contractors, the fishing
industry, wildlife recovery teams, townspeople, and the insurance industry.
The site visits are being planned with the input and advice of our colleagues
in the Government of Spain and the Canadian Embassy and will take place as soon
as practical, anticipated to be within thirty days.
Mr. Speaker, there are lessons to be learned from all aspects of this
situation. In recognition of this, the delegation from the Province will include
representatives from government, industry and a non-governmental environmental
organization. The delegation will include representation from the Departments of
Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Mines and Energy. It is significant
that senior personnel from various parts of the petroleum industry in this
Province have indicated that they will participate in this fact finding mission.
Mr. Speaker, representatives from offshore production, tanker operations,
transhipment and refinery operations have indicated that they intend to be part
of the delegation.
I continue to demand, and this government continues to demand, that the
federal agencies increase resources to prevent such incidents as have occurred
off the Coast of Spain. We have pushed for increased surveillance, increased
fines, the accelerated introduction of the Automatic Identification System in
Canadian waters, and mandatory sea lanes further offshore from our coasts. We
have also strongly endorsed a risk analysis to fully examine the risk posed by
all vessels travelling in Placentia Bay and along our entire South Coast.
Recently, the federal government has agreed to initiate this risk analysis. I
have indicated to the federal minister our strong interest in this risk analysis
and requested a direct role for the Province on a Steering Committee for this
significant study.
Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to reduce the risk of an oil spill off our
coasts to zero, but we must learn the lessons and seek the means that will
reduce this risk to the maximum extent that we can.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: The Newfoundland Armada, I say to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the minister's sudden concern to this issue is astounding. Let
me remind him of some of the responses that I have received to my repeated
demands over the past five years regarding this issue. The former Premier, Brian
Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have an industry, we have an emergency plan. It is
already in place. It is administered through the C-NOPB, the federal/provincial
government, the private sector, the offshore oil and gas industry, the Come By
Chance Oil Refinery. The equipment is here in Newfoundland. The costs are
already covered. We should be happy the work is already done.
The former Minister of Environment: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for St.
John's South stood before the House of Assembly and implied in his questions
to government that there were inadequate measures in place to address the
potential for an environmental emergency such as an oil spoil, that might occur
as a result of the offshore oil production activity. The people of this Province
need to know there is, in fact, a great deal of planning and equipment in place
in this Province.
The Minister of Environment: There are plans in place in the event of a
spill; we will be well taken care of.
The Minister of Environment, again -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister did not say whether he was going to Spain or not. I hope when
the delegation goes to Spain, his actually goes to Ottawa and tries to solve
some of the problems that we are continuing to have even today, as recently as
two weeks ago, with bilge water and oil from bilge water being pumped on our
shores. We have very low fines, paltry compared to the United States. We have a
RADARSAT technology that is going to expire in February. We have the Coast Guard
unable to patrol. These problems have yet to be solved, Mr. Speaker, and I hope
the minister, instead of going to Spain, goes to Ottawa to try to get them
solved.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, in a news release dated December 5 of this year, Inco said, and
I quote, "this news release contains forward-looking statements regarding
the Company and its Goro nickel-cobalt project and the Voisey's Bay project.
Actual results and developments may differ materially from those contemplated by
these statements depending on, among others, such key factors as business and
economic conditions in the principal markets for the Company's products, the
supply and demand for nickel and other metals, the completion and results of a
comprehensive review of the capital costs, scope, schedule, and other key
aspects of the Goro project," - and, finally - "the completion and
results of a feasibility study for the Voisey's Bay project."
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that as recently as last week Inco
is acknowledging that actual results and developments may differ materially
based on comprehensive reviews and results of a feasibility study on the Voisey's
Bay project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer, of course, is no. The fact of the matter is - and the Leader of
the Opposition knows this, but again it doesn't stop him from trying to
describe it as something different - just about every single word that he used
and read out is a standard disclaimer that is used by every major company and
corporation that are traded on the stock market. When they try to speak to the
public, because they are publicly traded companies, they are advised by their
legal counsel, and they all do it. It is a standard disclaimer given to suggest
that what they are saying today is their best information today, but they cannot
be held liable for it in fifteen years, twenty years or thirty years, because
some things might change.
So, there is nothing to be alarmed about, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing
extraordinary. It is an ordinary standard disclaimer used in every public
pronunciation by publicly traded companies, and the Leader of the Opposition
knows that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know what a disclaimer means. I wonder if the Premier knows what a
disclaimer means. A disclaimer means no guarantee, no safeguards, we claim no
responsibility whatsoever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: That is what a disclaimer means, standard or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate last June we pointed out the importance of
the fact that feasibility studies were an integral component of the Statement of
Principles and a way out for Inco. Yesterday I asked the Premier if Inco could
walk away from their commitment on a hydromet plant on the basis of economic
feasibility, and he said, absolutely, positively not.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree, upon reflecting overnight, under
Article 4.6, that if a hydromet plant is not economically feasible then it will
not be constructed in Argentia or anywhere else for that matter?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I guess the Leader of the Opposition wants to have the same debate
that we had in June month when we had a special session of the Legislature and
dealt with these things at length and in-depth for the full period of time. That
is why there are provisions that suggest that the hydromet plant is subject to
technical feasability, that is in the legally binding agreements, and there is a
whole mechanism by which they look at whether or not the technology works. Inco
and Voisey's Bay Nickel don't get to make that determination, Mr. Speaker.
Others decide whether the technology works. Then, if the technology does not
work, it is not anything to do with financing, Mr. Speaker. If the technology
doesn't work they go ahead and build the other plant. That is what is in the
legally binding agreements. That is what the people of Argentia know, that is
what the people of the Province know. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants
to try to make somebody believe that something else happens to be possible but
it is not possible, Mr. Speaker. These are the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could point out to the Premier that in the decision process the term
decision materials is used. Decision materials are the feasibility study and all
other information and data in the proponents possession, Inco's possession,
including information on data generated by its advisers and its consultants.
Inco will determine whether it is economically feasible or not.
Mr. Speaker, we have gone from a smelter to a hydromet to a nickel matte or
some other facility. Yesterday I asked the Premier why the words committed to
process Voisey's Bay concentrate in the Province had been deleted from the
signed deal. He replied that it is guaranteed -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- that it absolutely must be processed in Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier now confirm that if there is a nickel matte
facility or some other similar facility then all or 100 per cent of Voisey's
Bay concentrate, and not just the ovoid, could leave the Province for processing
elsewhere?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just to correct the misinformation. I do not understand, for the
life of me, why the Leader of the Opposition wants to try to suggest to the
people of the Province something different than is in the legally binding
agreements. In the agreements, in
section 4.7.3, it states clearly that there
will be the appointment of experts - external experts, not Inco's experts -
and that the information has to be provided to the government and the experts to
decide whether or not it goes ahead, Mr. Speaker. Completely and exactly
opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition just tried to make the people of
the Province believe was the case.
Mr. Speaker, it is a despicable continuation of what we saw yesterday. Trying
to go out and frighten and scare the people of the Province, in this case in
particular, in Argentia. They have been calling in today, as I understand it, to
let the people know that they are hopeful and optimistic in Argentia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: They are not the pessimists that the Leader of the
Opposition would like them to be.
Mr. Speaker, they would probably be interested to know whether or not the
member for the area shares the line of questioning, and the deep and grave
concerns, and the dark and ominous clouds that are over this whole project as
described by the Leader of the Opposition, because they sure did not share their
view in the vote. One voted for it and one voted against it. Then they hugged
and kissed and made up because they parted company for a few minutes.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: So, there is nothing new here, Mr. Speaker, with respect
to this. The project is on schedule. It has been tremendously successful to date
and we hope it continues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier accused me of trying to impress people,
the people of our Province, with details and with numbers. But, unlike the
Premier, I feel that numbers and details are very, very important and so do the
people of our Province.
Mr. Speaker, concern was raised by the Opposition during the Voisey's Bay
debate that there was no requirement for a blended mining operation of the ovoid
and the underground, the guarantee that both would proceed. Would the Premier
confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that under
article 4.4 and
article 4.5 of the signed deal, that this underground mine may not happen if
Inco determines otherwise, and that is why paragraph 4.5 starts with the word,
if?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I am at a great loss as to why the Leader of the Opposition would
persist with these misrepresentations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: The Leader of the Opposition knows that those very
sections subject the underground mining to the further exploration but it is
matched up to - and the real consideration is whether or not the proving up of
the reserve meets, not Inco's standards, but national standards that are in
place for mining operations all over the country that suggest they can have an
underground operation based on proving the reserves to normal national
standards. Again, Mr. Speaker, it has been taken out of the hands of Inco to
make the decision. The decision to proceed is based on other standards, other
factors, that protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I read the definition of sufficient
reserves. It means the estimated quantities determined by the proponent in
accordance with its methodologies. Inco determines it. Read your agreement,
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in
article 8 of the Statement of Principles on
employment opportunities, it states: the project will create various jobs at
various phases. It specifically mentions 800 people in the underground mine
operation but yet -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
article 3.3.2 of the signed agreement, the similar paragraph on employment
deletes any reference to 800 jobs in the underground mine.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Premier not agree that although this commitment to create 800 jobs
was in the binding Statement of Principles that was presented to this House of
Assembly, it has now been omitted because there is no safeguard or guarantee of
these jobs at all?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I can say, again, is that the Leader of the Opposition out of desperation
in trying to find a problem is dead wrong again. Absolutely, positively dead
wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, I said it
yesterday, and I guess I will have to say it for a few more days if he wants to
persist with these kinds of questions. The legally binding commitments
strengthen and reinforce all of those that were made in the Statement of
Principles. They make them stronger. They make them real. They make them
enforceable, and that is the fact of the matter. Now, it is not going to stop
the Leader of the Opposition from going out as he did yesterday to get a
headline in the paper to suggest that the plant in Argentia might be at risk.
All he is interested in is a scare tactic and a headline for a day. We are
interested in doing something for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not going to stop me from sticking up for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. You wanted details, you are going to get details.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the last four weeks on
the Lower Churchill, disclosure of information is very, very important, and
hidden documentation is harmful to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, there is another new clause added to the deal signed on
September 30, which was not in the Statement of Principles in June.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that
Article 9.1 renders information
confidential which is supplied by Inco with respect to the demonstration plant,
the processing plant, the decision on which plant, the force majeure
clause, and the dispute resolution process; and, further, that the government
has agreed that if it disclosed such information, it is now liable for damages
under
Article 9.5.2 for simply telling the people of our Province the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the people of the Province are delighted to be discovering all these
great loopholes that we have been waiting so long to find, that we are supposed
to be able to drive Mack trucks through and so on, because they do not exist,
Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition has been exposed for what he was
at that point in time - someone who made up a story and could not substantiate
it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Again, the Leader of the Opposition knows - and this is
why it is difficult to deal with these questions and answers, because he asks
questions in which he knows the exact opposite of what he is saying is the fact.
There is another way to say that but we are not allowed to say it in this
Legislature, but let me say it again: He asks a question and implies a certain
scenario in which he already knows himself that the exact opposite is the case.
That is hard to deal with because he refuses to acknowledge that, Mr.
Speaker. He refuses to acknowledges that he knows the exact difference of what
he just said, but it does not stop him from saying it.
Mr. Speaker, again, all it outlines is this: that the information is shared
with the government. The government has external experts who also judge it, and
if Inco does not meet its commitments, the project does not proceed. Those
safeguards are built in and it does not have to be disclosed to every single
person in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: It is disclosed to the government. It is monitored by an
external agent who is also an expert, and then we hold them to meet their
commitments, Mr. Speaker. That is what is in the agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, for a man whose motto was: straight answers,
straight solutions - no answers, bad solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, under
Article 5 of the signed deal with Inco,
an event of force majeure can suspend Inco's obligations for as
long as that particular event exists.
Mr. Speaker, in my thirty years of looking at legal documents, I have never
seen a force majeure clause as open-ended as this one.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that any of the following could
suspend Inco's obligations under the agreement: a) - this is in Newfoundland
and Labrador now - adverse weather conditions;
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: This is the question, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat the
question: Would the Premier confirm that any of the following could suspend Inco's
obligations under the agreement:
a) adverse weather conditions;
b) informal
hostilities;
c) delay by suppliers of labour, materials, parts or services;
d) contractors or sub-contractors shortage or inability to supply labour, equipment
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- parts or supplies;
e) breakdown of equipment;
f) accidents.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to conclude his question quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, are these not responsibilities which any other developer, other
than Inco, would assume as a natural part of the risk of any project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the Leader of the Opposition is interested in slogans. I would
appreciate, if he is going to quote my slogan, that he get it straight. It is:
Straight Answers. Real Solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing for
some eighteen months. We give the straight answers and we find some real
solutions. We do not go around with bogeymen and scare tactics. We deal with
issues and we find a way to make things work for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: We do not spend out lives living in the past, afraid of
our own shadows, afraid that some prosperity might come to Northern Labrador, a
bit of prosperity might come to Argentia and Placentia, some people in the
Province might actually go to work for a change. They would rather have, like
the Leader of the Opposition, higher unemployment, more social assistance. That
is what they stand for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Do nothing. Sit on your hands. Sit back. Cry foul.
Chicken Little, the sky is falling. That is not our motive, Mr. Speaker. That is
not the way we operate, but I can tell you this: the force majeure
clause, to get to the question - that was just answering the
preamble -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The force majeure clause, Mr. Speaker, has been
vetted by very, very reputable lawyers from several law firms in Newfoundland
and Labrador, from the Mainland of Canada, from Toronto and elsewhere, whose
reputations are every bit as good as any lawyer in the country, who have said,
for a deal of this magnitude and this size, billions of dollars - not a few
million, not a few hundred thousands - billions of dollars, thousands of people
spread over thirty, forty, fifty years -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - that this is a very normal, acceptable and proper
clause to have in this contract.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be here the next time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has,
once again, brought another Ontario consulting firm into the Province to cut
tens of thousands of dollars from health care boards' budgets?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to elaborate on what he is talking
about - again, the hon. member stands up and makes a blanket statement. If he
wants to ask for specifics, certainly go ahead. In terms of what -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. Member for Ferryland needs to get
to his feet and ask a question, because obviously he seems to want to engage in
a debate. Obviously, the hon. member, in terms of the question that he has asked
- this is part of an ongoing process within the department. It is rather
interesting. Any time that we, as a government, or any of our corporations, are
asked to be accountable and to try to ensure that the health care dollars that
we are being provided, that benefits are being maximized for the people of this
Province, the hon. members opposite take great exception to it. Yet, the day
before, they are on their feet criticizing the fact that we are wasting money.
So, which way do they want it, Mr. Speaker? They cannot have it both ways.
I would suggest to them, that the people of the Province are well aware of
the game that they are trying to play.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: No, they have not done that, which was his answer.
Can the minister confirm for this House today that senior officials from his
department, together with health board CEOs and the unknown and the
non-appointed consultant groups met yesterday at Holiday Inn reviewing budgets
to look at how they can cut millions of dollars out of the system for next year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can confirm that the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, in fact, the officials from
my department met with the CEOs from throughout the Province, and we have
engaged an outside consultant. Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting. The hon.
member begins his question, prefaced his remarks, saying: We are looking to save
millions of dollars. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is to
be responsible in the way we allocate and spend the taxpayers' money in this
Province.
I would like to know what the hon. members opposite - every other day in this
House we are hearing them, and through the medium of television, everyone in
this Province is seeing the hon. member opposite, the hon. Member for Ferryland,
who is the critic for finance, get up and preach about the fact that we are not
being accountable in the way that we are spending the taxpayers' dollar. Quite
frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are trying to do. I think what
is in doubt right here, right now, is what the hon. member opposite and the
party that he is part of would do if the roles were reversed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: Quite frankly, I do not think anyone in this House knows and I
do not think anyone in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity
North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder what is wrong with the talent and skills in this Province that you
have to be bringing people in from Ontario and paying them. I ask the minister:
Will he table in this House the terms of reference for the appointment of the
Ontario consultants and how much money he is paying them for this attack, just
like the HAY Group did? Will he table those two things in the House at the next
sitting?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way the hon. member
opposite tries to spin this out, that this is really a major undertaking and
that this is going to be a tremendous cost to this government and to this
department. Quite frankly, what we are undergoing is a very modest review. We
have hired someone who can sit with the CEO's and with the officials of the
department to try to determine how, in fact, we can best spend the money that is
available to us.
Mr. Speaker, repeatedly in this House, and I would say throughout the days,
that in meetings with various groups from right throughout this Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - when people are lobbying for additional funds, I am trying
to explain to them how we are restricted and what we are able to respond to.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this government is
expending, at the present time, nearly one-half of all monies going into the
area of health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: Everyone in this Province knows it is a priority and we will
continue to make it a priority on behalf of the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
It is concerning the Labrador Benefits Agreement for workers in Labrador -
represented by CUPE, NAPE, the Nurses' Union and teachers - that have expired.
Negotiations have been unsuccessful mainly because government is unwilling to
recognize the high cost of living in Labrador and the high cost of travel.
Currently, employees receive $350 per year travel allowance. I say to the
minister, that is not enough to fly from Wabush to Churchill Falls return, much
less to St. John's.
Recruitment and retraining has always been an issue in attracting and keeping
workers in Labrador with the provincial government. I want to ask the minister:
Why is it that this government cannot offer employees a reasonable rate for
their Labrador allowance and travel allowance similar like the private sector
does and some of the municipalities?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the member who asked the question about the negotiation of Labrador
benefits, this is a negotiation process like all others with one exception, all
the various unions come together, they sit at the table and work towards
negotiating an agreement for the Labrador benefits. Like any process, there are
various components. At this point in time, there has not been an agreement
between those parties and the next stage of the process, as the member opposite
probably knows, is conciliation.
To the best of my knowledge, the unions, if they have not already applied,
are in the process of applying for conciliation to bring the discussion and the
negotiations to a further level. Certainly, it would not be appropriate for me,
at this point in time, to discuss ongoing negotiations. What the issues are,
that is done between our officials who are quite competent in the area, and the
unions also have their issues to address. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, if it
has not already been applied for, very soon we will get application to the
Labour Relations Board for an appointment of a conciliator.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say to the minister, it is my understanding that conciliation has
already taken place and that there is no agreement reached. The minister knows
full well that all issues are solved in the negotiations.
The issue of Labrador benefits is not one that the unions can strike on. It
is a separate agreement from the regular contract. Let me say to the minister,
given the fact that the Labrador Benefits Agreement provides money to workers in
Labrador that - you can call it what you like - is part of their salary. I ask
the minister if she thinks it is fair that the rest of government workers in
this Province received a 15 per cent increase while - if you look at no raise in
the Labrador benefits - the workers for this government in Labrador actually are
only receiving a 10 per cent benefit? I ask the minister if she thinks that is
appropriate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will say for clarification to the Member for Labrador West, that the
application will be for conciliation board to the Minister of Labour. That is my
understanding. They have worked through some conciliation and now, as you
probably already know, they will be applying for conciliation board with the
Minister of Labour.
As in any negotiation, whether it is for Labrador benefits or with any of the
other individual unions, each of the cases have to be brought forward for the
rationale for that. I understand that is part of the process. There is not an
automatic increase given for Labrador benefits. It is always based on cost of
living, basket of food, all of the things that are part of the process they do
to determine the costs associated with living in Labrador. I know this is part
of the process that they are going through. The data I am sure is there for the
cost of living and the cost of travel. That will be put before the appropriate
party and hopefully, very soon, a conclusion will be reached to the outstanding
Labrador Benefits Agreement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
PREMIER GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Speaker, point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order
arising from Question Period and the approach and the tactics taken by the
Leader of the Opposition because it is a continuation from yesterday. To use
yesterday's example, Mr. Speaker - this is serious, I know the Leader of the
Opposition is laughing at it, but this is very serious. He laughed, Mr. Speaker,
that is how serious he takes it.
Yesterday he tried to make the people believe that there was a problem with
respect to Argentia for something other than an environmental assessment. When
he had read the documents - he claims and I believe him, that he has read all
the documents, the Statement of Principles and the legally binding agreements in
complete and total detail, several times. Knowing that the only thing that could
stand in the way now, in Argentia, would be not passing an environmental
assessment - which is the law of the land, that everybody has to go through. He
raised that as an issue yesterday.
Today it was relating to several items. The first one was the disclaimer put
forward by Inco when they talked about, the results may vary differently in the
future. My answer, of course, was that he would know that that is a standard
practice. That does not mean there is any problem. That does not mean there is
any reason for concern. It is just that a publicly traded company has to say
that when they are giving information that is for other than today, and looking
into the future, they have to give that disclaimer. He would know it because I
hold a communiqu from Rogers Wireless Communications that he probably knows
something about, Mr. Speaker. In it - because they are giving forward looking
information, there is the cautionary statement regarding forward-looking
information. The company cautions that future events and result may vary
substantially from what the company currently foresees, Mr. Speaker. The company
understands it has an obligation to update and to alter its forward-looking
statements when any information is to change.
That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what Inco said at the beginning of their press
conference this week, and the Leader of the Opposition stands in the House and
suggests that is a major reason for concern, that the sky is falling, that the
whole project may fail. So, I would just like for some ruling from the Speaker.
I know you could not read his mind in terms of what he was trying to get to, but
when a member in this House raises a question knowing the exact opposite of what
they are implying with the question is a fact, there must be something wrong
with that, Mr. Speaker, under our orders and under our rules, where we are bound
to come in here on our honour and tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points in response to the
Premier.
First of all, what the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday was for the
Premier to confirm that, if certain conditions were not applied - it was
question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, and that is correct under the terms.
What is very interesting is that, on his point of order -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I do not need Hansard, Premier, to put you in your place on
a parliamentary point of view, let me tell you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his point.
MR. E. BYRNE: The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier, unto
himself - the Premier, in rising to a point of order, just rose and made the
allegation, and made the assertion, that there has to be something wrong with
the Standing Orders of the House, where he accused the Leader of the Opposition,
saying that he asked a question which he knew was the exact opposite, and thus
imputing motives upon the Leader of the Opposition, which he knows he cannot not
do, but he did it anyway.
Mr. Speaker, the point to this is, there is no point of order. We understand
that the Premier is having a bad hair day and a bad hair session, but this is a
point of frustration more than anything, than a point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Premier under
advisement.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In keeping with your ruling in terms of asking not to rise on points of order
during Question Period, during Question Period when the Leader of the Opposition
was up asking questions to the Premier related to the details of the Voisey's
Bay agreement - which the Premier had speculated on publicly last week, where
were the questions, and we have provided them with some of those in the last two
days - on three separate occasions, the Member for Humber East - and I quite
clearly heard him - said, in response to the questions: Good liar. That is a big
lie. What a big lie.
On another occasion, the Premier again stood in his place and imputed motives
to the Leader of the Opposition, saying this: How is it that the Leader of the
Opposition - I can almost quote it - is asking questions to which he knows the
exact opposite is true? Insinuating, of course, that the Leader of the
Opposition is trying to leave impressions other than what are facts.
The fact of the matter is, the Leader of the Opposition is bound and, let me
tell you, very determine to get the facts out on the Voisey's Bay deal.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on that point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Again, Mr. Speaker, a clear example of the Opposition House
Leader trying to bring discredit to the House. I don't know if the hon.
Opposition House Leader has bionic ears or what.
Mr. Speaker, in the debate going back and forth, in the heat of debate,
members on both sides say certain things. When somebody is obviously straining
their ears to hear if somebody said something unparliamentary, some member, it
goes beyond the call of duty.
I will say this. I, for one, want parliamentary procedure to be followed, but
for members to be straining their ears to listen for remarks is absolutely
frivolous. I am certain if the hon. member said what the hon. Opposition House
Leader stated he said, he will make the appropriate withdrawal.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the Chair did not hear what the hon. member had said.
Certainly, if a member in this House does make comments that are
unparliamentary, it is traditionally accepted that if the member did that, then
he will acknowledge that and withdraw the remarks, so I leave that with the
member.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do recall during the debate when the Leader of the Opposition was
expounding on the legal merits of the Voisey's Bay deal, I did use the phrase:
big lawyer - l a w y e r.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ,oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, through you, there was no one straining to
listen, or trying to strain their ears, as the Government House Leader said. On
three separate occasions: big lie, what a big lie, and liar.
Now, the member should stand and apologize. He knows he said it. He should
stand and apologize.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today
a former MHA, Mr. Chris Decker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to present a petition on behalf
of approximately 900 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. The petition, Mr.
Speaker, deals with the issue of the high cost of drugs for MS and other
debilitating diseases. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:
WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis
drug therapies, Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif, under the Newfoundland
and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy
Program and people on income support; and
WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 to $3,600 a month; and
WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with
high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to
social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people
with multiple sclerosis;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron, Avonex,
Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the
existing programs can get financial assistance with these high costs drugs, as
is the case in other Canadian provinces.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I think what is interesting about this petition and the others
that I have presented recently, and I hope members across pay attention because
there are constituents of the majority of members in the House on this petition,
and I would like to read out, just for the impact, if I may, some of the
communities that the signatories on this petition represent. There are
signatures on this petition from Fogo, Musgrave Harbour, Gander, Lewisporte,
Grand Falls-Windsor, Baie Verte, Norris Arm, Badger, Milltown, Pleasantville,
Gaultois, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Pollards Cove, Triton, Buchans, Hermitage,
Embree, Bay d'Espoir, Point Leamington, Boyd's Cove, King's Point, St.
Alban's, and others, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't had the opportunity to
identify by going through the petition. I think this indicates the magnitude of
the problem that is in our Province, of people not -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: - having access to high cost drugs to treat MS to improve
their quality of life.
As we said, Mr. Speaker, what gets me the most about this is that it is not
that this government will not provide assistance to people, not that they cannot
afford to. It is what they require people to do to themselves and their families
before they will step in to help.
Mr. Speaker, the government could look at it another way. They could
introduce these drugs to be covered and look at the long-term savings -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: They could look at the long-term result, Mr. Speaker, and
see that this can have significant savings for the heath care system because
these people will not require to be admitted to the hospital and they will have
a better quality of life in the long run.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to impress upon members opposite that
it is ridiculous and unacceptable where people living in this Province,
hard-working people, can be working for $30 an hour and leave this Province and
go to any other province in this country and make $10 a hour and be financially
better off at the end of the day. That is not acceptable and it is time that
this government took the action to cover these drugs so that the hard-working
people of this Province do not have to reduce themselves to income support
levels or leave this Province in order to get the coverage that they require.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some retired teachers in the
Province, and some from my own district. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:
We, the undersigned, all Members of the Retired Teachers' Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador present at BGM 2002, wish to register our support for
and agreement with the recommendations made within the brief on the urgent need
for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We
respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the
retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real
financial crisis.
Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity once again for me to stand on behalf of
several teachers from around the Province and indeed, my own district, who have
sent to me the concerns and issues that they have in relation to the Retired
Teachers' Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, in November of this year the retired teachers presented a brief
to the Premier and put forward for the Retired Teachers' Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador many concerns with the Retired Teachers' Pension
Plan, especially the fact that they have not had an increase to their plan since
Mr. Speaker, as we all know the ever escalating costs of living in the past
twelve to fifteen years is something that concerns everybody, and the fact that
we have, in this Province, several thousand teachers now who are retired and are
not in a position to meet the financial needs that they have. I think that
through this petition, and through registering this petition here in the House
and bringing forward the concerns that they have, these people hope that
government will look at their concerns and certainly address them in whatever
way they can.
We understand the fiscal restraint that government finds themselves under
from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but I think to say that we have not found the
opportunity to have an increase to the pension plan since 1989 speaks for itself
in the fact that somebody is not taking this seriously at the top. It is time
that government started taking it very seriously. These people have spent, in
most cases, thirty years plus in the educational system in this Province,
providing an invaluable service to our children and certainly to our communities
as a whole.
I believe teachers play a very important role in our society, and have for
the past number of years and continue to do so. We have to try to find a way,
Mr. Speaker, to allow these people to enjoy retirement and to certainly give
them an opportunity to benefit from the many, many years they have provided
service to our people and our Province.
I put forward this petition today. This is one of several that I have put
forward and will continue to do so if they are brought to my office, Mr.
Speaker, because I believe the retired teachers of the Province need a fair
shake. Through this petition they are putting forward their concerns and making
the case for regular increases in pension benefits. I think that right
throughout the Province different sectors of society that had the opportunity to
avail of a pension plan, have increases built into their plan on a year to year
basis.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, other pension plans have increases built into
their pension plans on an ad hoc basis each year. I think it is only fair that
we do the same thing with the Teachers' Pension Plan and give them a fair
shake, Mr. Speaker, for their years and years of service to our children and to
our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits& White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take the opportunity today to present a petition to the House
of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREAS the road linking Conche to Roddickton is in deplorable condition and
is in desperate need of upgrading and paving; and
WHEREAS the deplorable condition of the roads make it a hazard for the large
volume of traffic using the road including the residents and transport trucks
that truck fish products out of Conche; and
WHEREAS the road conditions hinder tourism development in the area and with
the historical connection to the French Shore, roads need to be maintained so
they do no deter people from visiting the site; and
WHEREAS the twenty-six kilometres of dirt road have to be travelled daily by
its residents in order to access needed services including the hospital,
pharmacy, groceries, gas, et cetera;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to make
this road a top priority and begin upgrading immediately, as in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, once again I present a petition on behalf of the people of
Conche and signed by many residents, I would imagine by all the residents of
Conche and some people from outside Conche, in Roddickton. I noticed when I
skimmed through this, people from Roddickton have signed it, people from
Raleigh, people from St. Anthony and people from as far away, actually, as
McCallum have signed this petition. I do not know what they were doing in Conche
from McCallum in the meantime, but nevertheless, they were down in that area;
probably moose hunting I expect, Mr. Speaker. That is something else that was
not mentioned here, that quite a number of moose hunters travel on this road
over the course of the year. There are logging contractors that haul wood out
over this road in the course of a year. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile
to mention, I think, that this road going into Conche, by and large, was
constructed as a woods road, not as a road to the community. It was probably
only the last few miles of it that was done as a provincial highway, done by the
provincial Department of Highways years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the road is in deplorable condition and there were many promises
made over the years to the people of Conche on this road. I remember when, as I
have said before in this House, the by-election was on, not quite two years ago
now, there were commitments made to the people of Conche that this road would be
done within two years. Here we have the French Shore celebrations coming up in
2004 and certainly Conche will be an integral part of the French Shore
celebrations; I would hope and would expect.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot expect the people, tourists and traffic to beat over
twenty-six kilometres of dirt road in the type of condition that this road is
in; to access these communities and take in the sites that they have to offer
and the history it has to offer.
The people of Conche, they have a fishplant there that provides work to the
community. There is fish hauled in. There is fish hauled out. As I said, there
are logging contractors that use the road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: By leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: As we know, the Northern Peninsula Highway was once a dirt
road. We never seen tourist traffic and economic activity on the Northern
Peninsula until we had a decent road for people to travel over. Just like the
cross-country road from Plum Point over to Roddickton and Englee. We did not see
the traffic there. We did not see the people travel around Hare Bay, obviously,
until there was a road there. The former members here today know what I am
talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Transportation, when he is developing his
priorities for the next year, to take into consideration the commitments that
have been made to the people of Conche and take into consideration this petition
today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since
it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school
children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy
Cove to Bonavista.
Mr. Speaker, here again I stand today bringing forward a petition which I
will continue to raise the issue in this House of Assembly until the minister's
department and this government commits to upgrade and pave this
section of road,
one of the main roadways leading into the Town of Bonavista.
It is a situation - and I say to the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board, I will keep whining until this particular petition and those
people's wishes are adhered to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: That is why I was sent here, I say to the minister, and
this member will not be quiet while there is a need in his district, and will
not be stifled by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, people opposite might get sick and tired of me standing here and
presenting petitions, but I will continue to do that because there is certainly
a need to have this
section of road upgraded and repaved. The people in that
particular area have been responsible, they have gone out and they have
demonstrated on the roadway there, they have passed out pamphlets, making a plea
to the government to listen to their wishes. You drive down over that particular
road today and the shoulder goes out almost to the center line. The pavement has
deteriorated so badly that they are driving on gravel road for the most part,
more than pavement, in certain areas there.
It is the situation, Mr. Speaker, where snow clearing cannot be done
efficiently. You drive over the road there now and there are always a couple of
inches of slush left on that particular road when the snowplow goes over it,
because of the condition of the road.
This particular road is not a woods road, I say to the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: It is one of the main arteries leading to the Town of
Bonavista. It is Route 235, one of the most travelled highways on the Bonavista
Peninsula.
What the school children are saying is that they would like to have that
section of road upgraded and repaved so that they can at least get aboard the
bus and be able to go to school in a safe manner.
People use this
section of road to access government offices. They use it,
Mr. Speaker, to get to the hospital. They use it to travel back and forth, to
buy groceries, to do shopping and to get to their place of business in the Town
of Bonavista. The people in that particular town, the biggest town on the
Bonavista Peninsula, Bonavista itself - the council has written the minister, I
know. I know that they have attended meetings. I have had two ministers who have
gone over this
section of road asking that it be upgraded and repaved. Every
year, Mr. Speaker, while there is an attempt made to do something, we see 200
meters, 700 meters, of roadwork done there without attending to the real need.
We are only asking for three kilometres. It is not 300 kilometres, it is not
thirty kilometres, we are asking for three kilometres of road to be upgraded and
repaved so that the people on the Bonavista Peninsula might be allowed a decent
road to drive over.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, we will call Order 24, which is second reading of
An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 31.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to introduce today amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act, Bill 31.
Before I start, I just want to tell you the reason why we are here in this
House today and why I am introducing this bill.
In early October, I received a letter from FANL, the Fisheries Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador, exercising their rights under
section 35.12, which
regulates the opting out window for the model. There is a two month window every
two years, beginning September 1 and ending October 31, where one of the parties
can do that. I had a letter, a request from FANL, requesting that they opt out
of the fish pricing model. Of course, I respected that letter and I respected
that request, but I did not let it stop there. The Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture and myself held repeated meetings with FANL, and also with the FFAW,
and also the Inshore Fisheries Resource Council, but unfortunately none of those
meetings resolved the issue and FANL continued to go along with their request;
they wanted to opt out of the fish pricing model.
So, Mr. Speaker, the object of this legislation here today is to preserve the
model, and that is our only objective as a government. I wanted to say that
these changes are designed to provide stability in the fishing industry
throughout the 2003 fishing season while government undertakes a review of the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
I am just going to give you a bit of brief background into this act. In 1998,
government introduced an interest-based approach to collective bargaining in the
fishing industry as a pilot project. This approach has become known as the Final
Offer Selection Model. Prior to the1998 pilot, prices for the main species were
negotiated under the traditional collective bargaining regime provided in the
legislation. Based on the success of that model and the collaboration of the
Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers union and the Fisheries Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2000 my colleague, the hon. Oliver Langdon,
introduced amendments to enshrine this mechanism in legislation. Mr. Speaker,
the Final Offer Selection Model introduced a very significant innovation for the
fishing industry, a mechanism to ensure that there would be no strikes and no
lockouts.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will remember that in the few years before this
mechanism was introduced, relations between harvesters and processors in this
Province had deteriorated sharply. Price disputes were commonplace and strikes
became increasingly prevalent, resulting in delayed openings of fisheries and
unreliability in the marketplace. There were labour relations problems in every
major fishery, with major disruptions in the crab and shrimp fisheries. In 1997,
for example, there was a strike in the crab sector that lasted three months. I
think most members in this House of Assembly will recall that very well. As a
result, almost half of the crab landings took place in late summer at that time
when the fish was at its worst biological condition and after the markets peak
demand.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report to this House that since the
implementation of this approach to collective bargaining, stability has returned
to a vital sector of our economy and our society. All of us know how important
the fishery is to this Province. Last year, we recorded almost $1 billion in
sales, so it is the backbone of the economy of our Province.
Over the past five years, forty-eight price agreements have been settled
under this model. Twenty-six agreements were achieved by processors and
harvesters. The remaining twenty-two were resolved through arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, without this model it is likely that some of these price
disagreements would have been disputes and resulted in a strike or lockout,
which could have impacted on employment levels in processing facilities.
Mr. Speaker, in its review of the pre-1998 negotiation process, the task
force on price settlement mechanisms found a number of problems in the fishing
industry that contributed to disruptions and poor labour relations. One of the
main factors was mistrust. The Final Offer Selection Model has improved trust in
the industry by providing all parties to negotiations with independent and
unbiased assessment of market conditions. The effectiveness of this model is
further illustrated by the party of collaboration on changes to the Memorandum
of Understanding each year. As conditions merit, the parties can change some
aspects of the model as long as they agree to do so. The fact that they
routinely agree is evidence of the model's success.
Mr. Speaker and hon. members, from government's perspective, this model has
been very, very successful. In fact, we have had five years of stability in our
fishing industry that, prior to 1997, had not occurred. Government, processors
and harvesters see this price settlement mechanism as a strategic advantage over
the traditional collective bargaining process used in the industry prior to
Under the current model, collective bargaining has been dramatically
expedited as the negotiating
schedule is predictable and it is manageable. Yet,
there may be room for improvement in this legislation.
If anything, Mr. Speaker, there was no provision under the current
legislation for review, and all of us will probably agree in this House that all
legislation from time to time needs to be reviewed. Consequently, government
will undertake a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act in
2003. This review will provide an opportunity for harvesters and processors to
shape the future of the legislation that regulates their industry and ensure
that the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act remains relevant to their
needs.
It is important to engage in a review at this time and it is important to be
true to our partnership agenda and involve the stakeholders. We will invite
representation from industry and the union, and government will take a
leadership role.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that together we will identify
areas for improvement. Together we will design amendments that will strengthen
the legislation that regulates such an important sector of this economy and this
society.
I want to say to hon. members in this House that since this event has
started, early October, that myself and the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture have both received all kinds of correspondence, both from processors
and harvesters, asking government to step in and preserve this model so we can
have stability in the 2003 fishery - not chaos, as would be predicted if we did
not have this model in place.
I want to say thank you to the stakeholders who have made this model so
successful, and I urge all hon. members of this House to support these
amendments in the spirit of the proposed legislative review.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say that I am happy to stand here today to speak to Bill 31,
but I must say that I rise today a little bit disappointed that we have had to
come to this, and I suspect the minister is also.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, Bill 31,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, I guess, we are unfortunately in a position where
there is very little else that can be done at this point.
The minister gave a brief overview of what brought us to Final Offer
Selection. As she said, in the three or four years prior to 1998, especially in
1997, the collective bargaining negotiations in the fishing industry for crab
especially, and to some extent for shrimp in 1997, because prior to that the
only shrimp fishery that we had was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the limited
size of the fleet there, roughly fifty, fifty-five, fifty-six boats - I am not
sure of the exact number right now - made it something that was much easier to
handle. Two companies: Fishery Products International operating in Port au
Choix; Daley Brothers operating in Anchor Point, those being the only two shrimp
processing companies in the Province, and with a small number of boats engaged
in the fishery, it was much more manageable. Even though the same type of
negotiation process that we see in all other industries, in collective
bargaining in general, took place there, for the most part the disputes were
limited and it did not provide a great deal of disruption to the fishery. It
allowed it to get underway, for the most part, when the ice cleared up and the
fishermen were prepared to go and the season was open and what have you.
Of course, the crab fishery was much different. We had a large number of
fleets with staggered opening dates, and ice conditions providing challenges all
of its own, I guess. Of course, the season could almost always get underway on a
timely basis in 3L, allowing fishermen to get out and begin the harvesting
without much in the way of disruption from ice conditions and environmental
conditions. Really, when the weather was fine and DFO said you could go, the
fishermen were really able to go. Of course, 3K is a little bit different. Ice
conditions, in a lot of cases, drive the fishery off, especially in the inshore
area, for the small boat sector. It drives it a little bit later into the year.
That is sort of the environment that we found ourselves in, in 1997, and also
we found ourselves in an environment, I guess, where we knew that our shrimp
fishery was going to expand. It was in the process, I guess, of expanding quite
significantly from what it was in the early days. Prior to 1997, I guess, is
probably a better way of putting it, from the early 1970s up until - or late
1960s, up until 1997, being restricted exclusively to the West Coast of the
Province in the Esquiman Channel off Port au Choix. As I said, we saw ourselves
facing a fishery that I don't think anybody knew exactly where it was going to
go, but we had some fair idea of the magnitude of the increase in landings, the
increase in the number of boats, and we found ourselves, I guess, within a
couple of years, having moved from fifty-five or fifty-six boats engaged in the
shrimp fishery, to a situation where we had 350, I think it is, roughly, now,
and landings gone from less than 20 million pounds, around 14 million pounds, I
believe it was, in the Gulf, up to right now a situation where we have annual
landings of 110-plus million pounds in our shrimp fishery, what is considered
our inshore shrimp fishery. Our less than sixty-five foot shrimp fishery is
probably a better way of putting it, because we all know that it is not inshore;
it is very much offshore, near shore, mid-shore to offshore.
We all recognize, I think, the challenges that was going to present. It was
going to present challenges much like what we saw in the crab industry with a
very diverse fleet, fishing over a very extensive piece of seascape, I suppose,
not landscape, a piece of real estate, with all kinds of differences in
seasonality of the fishery and a lot of challenges as a result of that.
We found ourselves in the mid-1990s with a great deal of difficulty trying to
arrive at a timely resolution of fish prices, especially in the crab industry,
to the point where we had, as the minister said and we all know, we all
recognize, anybody who has any kind of a memory at all can remember the problems
that we had in 1995-1996, and especially in 1997, where we had a three month
strike where the season was driven off into the middle of summer at a time when
market conditions were such that we were beyond the peak of June. The June
market was obviously always the best market, and early July. We found ourselves
into a July, August and September fishery, into the fall of the year, when we
had the market problems, as I just said, but also resource problems.
When we get into a summer fishery there is much more in the way of
soft-shell. Then, when we move into the early fall and mid-fall we have a
problem, of course - as everybody in the industry would know - with what is
considered, what is called new hard-shell, where there are problems with yield,
I guess, is probably the best way of putting it. There is a lot of water
content, less weight, less meat, and stuff that the market does not like to see.
That, I guess, is just to paint a picture of what we were presented with in
1997. Of course, everybody will remember 1997, what we in the industry commonly
refer to as the pepper spray summit, up at St. Teresa's Hall, or over at St.
Teresa's Parish Hall in Mundy Pond, when the former Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture for the Province went for a meeting with a group of fishermen who,
by that time, had had their fill of just about everything that was going on in
the industry and things got a little bit out of hand, I suppose. I will not
overstate it by saying that, I am sure, that it got a little bit out of hand.
Fortunately, I suppose, arising from that was a process whereby a review of
the industry took place, where Mr. David Vardy and a task force reviewed the
industry, looked at collective bargaining approaches throughout the world and
came back with a set of recommendations on how we could improve our situation,
and how we might make some changes to our situation. The result, I suppose, of
all that was Final Offer Selection. There were other recommendations, there were
other things that could have been done, I suppose. There are those who suggest
that maybe a combination of a negotiated approach and some kind of a pay back at
the end of the season, similar to what was done in New Brunswick, was a way of
doing it.
There are those who suggested that maybe we should look at something that is
done in parts of Iceland and Norway - or all of Iceland, probably, for some
species, some parts of their fishery - the Eastern States, Alaska. There are
various places, various constituencies, I suppose, where this takes place, and
that is an auction, a fish auction. Certainly that was one thing that was
explored to a limited extent anyway, but we ended up with Final Offer Selection
where collective bargaining still takes place, where the fish processors and the
fishermen and their representatives sit down at a table, over an extended period
of time, with market information that is gathered by an independent analyst,
brought to the table, and, as the minister said quite rightly, that helped to
deal with that sense of mistrust that was consuming everybody in the industry -
brought that together and the negotiations took place, just as they always did,
other than there was probably more independent information available to all
those involved.
We found ourselves with Final Offer Selection where if they did not arrive at
a negotiated settlement, each party at the end of the time, a predetermined time
period, made their final offer to the arbitrator - to an appointed arbitrator,
independent arbitrator, as we would hope all of them are. They made their final
offer on fish prices for that season or that part of the season and the
arbitrator, which is significantly different from other types of arbitration,
the arbitrator would take one or the other. It would either accept the fishermen's
final offer or it would accept the plant's final offer.
That worked reasonably well. We got ourselves going in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
and 2002. It worked reasonably well. It allowed us to get our fishery underway
at the appropriate time of the year. It allowed startup in April for shrimp and
crab, subject to DFO's seasonal openings and subject to ice conditions and
whatever, but those were the only real constraints that we faced then. It was
not a situation where disputes, labour disputes and disputes over pricing,
caused the season to be delayed. It allowed us to get it underway when we needed
to capture the best market. It allowed us to get it underway so that we could
avoid that soft- shell period in the summer and the new hard-shell period in
early fall, and things got a reasonable degree of harmony in the industry, I
suppose.
All was not well, and we all recognized that all was not well in the industry
and all was not well with Final Offer Selection. There were a number of
disruptions after the Final Offer Selection came in. There were fleet tie-ups,
situations where the fishery stopped. There were situations where the plants
stopped buying. There were situations where the fishermen stopped fishing,
sometimes by mutual consent and other times by mutual disagreement, I suppose,
is probably a fair way of putting it. I think that we all recognize that this
needed - as the minister said, there are times when this type of legislation
needs to be reviewed. The first couple of years this operated under a pilot
project, to see how this would go. That was by mutual agreement of the fishing
industry, the industry participants, FANL and the fishermen through the FFAW.
Now what we found afterwards, it seemed to be working reasonably well so we
brought in amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act and made
Final Offer Selection legally binding, I suppose, for lack of a better way of
putting it, and subject to an opting out period; an opting out period that came
by every two years starting this year, in 2002. For a two month period either
party could decide to opt out.
As the minister pointed out,
section 35.12, which is one of the sections that
will be amended if we pass this before the House closes, and I expect we will -
commencing September 1, 2002, and every two years after that date, a party may,
between September 1 and October 31, inclusive, signal its intention to opt out
of the requirements of
section 35.1 to 35.11 by writing a letter to the minister
stating that intention, and that letter shall, unless revoked, effect the opting
out of that party on December 31 of that year.
That, I guess, as the minister said, is what brought us to this debate today.
Mr. Speaker, as I said when I started, I rise here today and I wish we did not
have to do this. I wish we did not have to bring in an amendment that says that
nobody is able to opt out of this until September 1, 2003, because that is what
we are going to do once we pass this. We are going to change now a right, we are
going to change a piece of legislation that was mutually agreed upon by all
parties, so to speak, or the representatives of both parties in the fishing
industry - the fish harvesters and the fish processors. They agreed back a few
years ago, in 1998 and again in 2000-2001 after a couple of years of a pilot
project, they agreed to do this. They agreed to what was in this legislation.
They agreed to what was in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
Unfortunately, today, we find ourselves in a situation where some in one part
- if that makes sense - of the industry do not agree with what we are about to
do. That is understandable. That is perfectly understandable because they have
been raising concerns about the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. They
have been raising concerns about the Final Offer Selection process, that it has
not been working. I guess, in the face of no resolution to their concerns, no
dealing with their concerns, they decided to opt out. Who knows what issues are
at play there? We can only speculate to some extent on what is causing the
industry to decide to do this, what caused FANL to indicate its intention to opt
out, of Final Offer Selection. I can only speculate. Maybe the Minister of
Labour knows, maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows, but I have
not been privy to the discussions that they have had with FANL, so I can only
speculate and I will leave it at that.
The problem here, as we all know, as we look at the situation prior to 1998
and the turmoil that we saw in the industry, and we look back to 1997, and we
look at what we had before Final Offer Selection, and we look ahead from where
we are now and think about what we might have if we don't have final offer
selection, in the absence of some other type of mechanism, dispute resolution
mechanism.
It is scary to look ahead, because we know what we have been through. It is
scary to look ahead to what might be an industry crisis in the spring of 2003,
similar to what we saw in the spring of 1997. I, for one, don't want to be
faced with it and I am sure nobody in this House wants to be faced with it, or
they shouldn't be. They shouldn't want to be faced with a situation in 2003
like we had in 1997, where the industry was three months late getting started,
where we have a $500 million industry, effectively, today, $500 million roughly,
I would suggest, Minister of Fisheries, in crab and shrimp, where the industry
is brought to its knees, where it is not starting up, where we lose a
significant portion of the value of that industry because of a late start-up. We
cannot take the chance on that happening, and we have, unfortunately, to do this
here today.
As I said, you know, I am sure that while FANL may indicate its intention to
opt out, I don't, for a minute, believe that all in the fish processing side
of the industry are in agreement with FANL's position on that. I am sure that
all in the fish harvesting side of the industry are not in agreement with the
Fishermen's Union when they say that they want to stay in the final offer
selection process. It is a judgement call, I guess, that we have to make. There
have been representations made from all sides to do this, and it has to be done.
Why did we end up here? I am glad that the Minister of Labour today, and in
the last couple of days since she has tabled this legislation, indicated her
intention to have a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I
believe that is a worthwhile endeavour, something that probably should be done,
as she indicated, with much of our legislation after a period of time. I agree,
and I applaud her for making that statement and I hope she follows through on
it, and I believe she will. I hope it comes to something, I say to the Minister
of Labour. I hope it comes to more than the review of the fishing industry
processing licence policy, the review that was committed by the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture back in the Throne Speech on March 13, 2001, where it
says, "My government is committed to a vigorous examination of the
adjacency principle to ensure our approach protects the viability of rural
communities. We must ensure a regional balance is achieved within our Province,
while maintaining the viability of the industry and continuing to address issues
of over-capacity in the processing sector."
This is the sentence I am getting at, I guess. The Throne Speech says,
"My government will review its present fish processing licensing policy to
ensure that these objectives are being achieved." Now, that is what was
said on March 13, 2001 by this government. Now, I am waiting today, still, for
that fish processing licensing policy review.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is not done, is it?
MR. TAYLOR: No, that is not done, I say to the finance critic. No, it is
not done. Like so much other that is not done.
I will mention something else that is not done. I will go back to December
10, a little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, December 10, 2001, the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture news release where the minister announces panel
members for a Structural Study of the Inshore Shrimp Fishery. The minister
announced on that day that the panel will be chaired by David Vardy - who, by
the way, as I said earlier, chaired the review that was done that brought us to
Final Offer Selection, and did a good job, I believe, and has to be commended
for it - and be assisted by Ross Peters and Brian Delaney.
Mr. Speaker, that committee, as I said and I will say it again, was announced
on December 10, 2001. Now, I neglected - I should have checked it, I suppose, I
forget now exactly when that panel brought in their report but it was some time
around April, I believe.
MR. REID: Go back to the issue (inaudible).
MR. TAYLOR: I believe, it was some time around April, Mr. Speaker, that
the panel brought in its report. The minister tells me to go back to the issue.
This is the issue and this is what the minster has failed to recognize in the
past two years, or just about two years, since he was appointed the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture. He has failed to recognize that the issue we are
confronted with today is because the minister has had his department on
autopilot for just about two years now, Mr. Speaker. That is where the problem
lies. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has not been doing the job that
he was appointed to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The minister, as I said, appointed a panel last year to
review the shrimp industry, the shrimp peeling industry, the inshore shrimp
fishery in this Province. At that time, you know, there were problems. We knew
there were problems in the shrimp fishery last year. A little over a year ago,
one of the reasons the panel gave for opting out of Final Offer Selection was
because of the strike - they called it a strike - the tie up of the fishery in
September, 2001. That is why; one of the reasons that they gave. Because they
say they had a legally binding agreement. They say that they had negotiated in
good faith. They say that the fishing industry tied up; the fish harvesters tied
up. They wanted to see a resolution to it.
The minister, as a result of that dispute last fall, appointed this panel,
Mr. Speaker, and there was a report brought in last spring. Well, it was
probably about nine months ago now, I guess. Sometime in April, I believe. Early
April, if I am not mistaken, the report was tabled or given to the minister.
There was a bunch of recommendations in there. A substantial number of
recommendations. To this day, we have not been told by the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture or his government what they intend to do with those
recommendations, whether they accept them all, whether they reject them all,
whether they take x, y and z and condemn a, b and c. We have not been told that,
Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have this problem today. We know that there are
problems with Final Offer Selection that need to be resolved. We know that there
are problems in the processing sector in the industry and in the harvesting
sector of the industry but the minister is not dealing with it. That is why we
are confronted with this today.
MR. REID: Trevor, you know that is not true.
MR. TAYLOR: I say to the minister, I know that it is true. I know that it
is true, and if he can tell me why, I will gladly listen to him. If he can tell
me why we are at this point today and it is not because of those things. It is
because there was, in1997 when we started the shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and
Labrador - on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, I should say
because there was one in the Gulf before that - when we had a move towards an
expansion in the shrimp industry to 110 million, 120 million pounds of shrimp,
there was no plan put in place by this government. There is still no plan by
this government for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether
you are talking about the shrimp side of it, the crab side of it, the groundfish
side of it or whatever. You can look where you like, Mr. Speaker. You can search
high and low in this building from the east wing to the west wing, from the
basement to the tenth floor and you will not find a plan for the fishing
industry in this Province from that government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Until they get one, there is going to be the same problem.
This government is stumbling from crisis management situation to crisis
management. That is what they are in all the time, crisis management. We see it
with the forestry industry. We see it with the Abitibi Consolidated deal - the
amendments to the Forestry Act there the other day that was brought in.
When we are down to where we can go no further - we saw it with FPI. Just
about a year ago, we saw it with FPI. When things started to hit the wall, the
government reacted. There is no such thing as pro-activity from that side of the
House, Mr. Speaker, and this is where the problem lies.
I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that when we finish
with this act that we have, this amendment that we have to do, with Bill 31 -
that we have to do, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. When we finish with this, then I
suggest that when the Minister of Labour starts her review of the Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act, I would suggest that the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture live up to the commitment that he made on March 13,
Throne Speech, 2001, and get on with the review of the fish processing licencing
policy of this Province, Mr. Speaker, because he has not done it. The minister
has not done it. Get on with dealing with the inshore shrimp industry panel
report and let the Province know, let the industry know, where this minister and
this government wants to see the industry go. Let them know, because then, Mr.
Speaker, once people know what the game rules are, then they can get on with it.
They can get on and they can change there. They can make their plans and make
their industry, their corporation, their company and their fish harvesting
enterprise, they can make it fit whatever the rules are. But don't, Mr.
Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: It is time for this government to give up what they are
doing. It is time to stop leaving everything until we hit the wall. It is time
to start doing something. As I said, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
has had his department on cruise control for two years now. For two years there
has not been one major policy initiative come out of that department, Mr.
Speaker. There has not been a piece of paper, not the size of a matchbox, with
an idea of where they want the industry to go in the future.
They say to the federal government, they say to the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, we want a change. We want a change to the Fishing Vessel Replacement
Policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you can tell me what they want done with the
Fishing Vessel Replacement Policy, I would love to know, because I do not know
what they want done, and nobody in the industry knows what they want done. They
have not said it, they have not got it on paper, Mr. Speaker, and they have not
had a debate with the industry on where they want to go. We know what kind of an
industry we have now. We know what we need for five to ten years time. We have a
pretty good idea of where the industry is going from a resource perspective,
from a market perspective. Why can't they put a plan in place?
Back in 1993, I guess it was, in 1992 or 1993, sometime shortly after the
moratorium on Northern cod, the government of the day, Mr. Wells, brought in - I
believe the late Mr. Carter was the minister at the time, if I am not mistaken.
I cannot remember if it was a white paper or a green paper, but anyway whichever
it was, it was a discussion document on the fishery of the future. What the
government of the day's plan was going to be for the fishing industry for
Newfoundland and Labrador in the wake of the groundfish moratorium. In the early
stages of a development and expansion in the crab industry and the shellfish
industry, they decided to - which they should have done. It was a White Paper or
a Green Paper that they tabled. It was quite controversial. No doubt, Mr.
Speaker, it was controversial. It generated a great deal of debate at the time,
and quite frankly I had, at the time, a fair bit of opposition to some of it, I
suspect, but that is beside the point. It does not matter if I was opposed to it
or for it, or if anybody was opposed to it or for it, they did start.
I think the bit of opposition that was there scared them off. They did not
come with the second paper, whichever it was, to really get on with putting
together a plan for the industry. They did not get on with that, just like they
did not in 1997 or 1996 when we knew we wanted a shrimp industry. When the then
government, the then minister, was running off to Ottawa saying we want access
to Northern shrimp, did they sit down, when they were doing all their crying
about wanting access to Northern shrimp? Did they sit down with the industry,
the processing sector, the harvesting sector? Get market information? See what
kind of fish we wanted, where the market was going, where we wanted to be in ten
years time, five years time? If they had done that, if they had said where we
want to be in five years time, we would have been past that now. We would have
been there. This is now five years. This is the fifth year, the sixth year, the
sixth season - five full years since we started fishing Northern shrimp. It has
been six seasons that we have been at it, but they did not do it, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of that, we are here today doing this type of stuff. We are here
today taking something, and we are amending
an act in order to deal with a
crisis - what potentially could be a very critical situation next spring. As I
said to the Minister of Labour, and I will say it again, I support what you are
doing here today, I do, and we will support it.
MR. MATTHEWS: Are you for it or against it?
MR. TAYLOR: We are for it, we are not against it, I say to the Minister
of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: You are for it?
MR. TAYLOR: We are for it, yes, Sir, we are for it. We are for it because
we know what we went through in 1997 when we did not have Final Offer Selection.
We are not for it because it is the thing that should be done, because what
should have been done - there should have been a review of fish processing
licence policy, like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he was going
to do. There should have been some reaction to the shrimp panel report that he
commissioned, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker - commissioned a year and two days ago. A year and two days ago, Mr.
Speaker, the minister commissioned this panel to look into the shrimp fishery.
If that was done, if some of these things were dealt with, if the industry - the
processing side and the harvesting side - had a clear indication of where the
government was going, then maybe this stuff could have been dealt with. Maybe in
the months leading up to today, maybe this could have been dealt with. Maybe we
would not have found ourselves in October with a letter from FANL saying they
are opting out of this. Maybe it could have been dealt with in other ways.
Mr. Speaker, I will say this, what should be done now. I guess I will deal
with forward now. I have looked back on what should have been done, what the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should have done, so that the Minister of
Labour would not have to step in and save his skin on this one. If the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture had done some of this, the Minister of Labour would
not have to be doing what she is doing today.
What we should do now in the future, as the minister prepares her review of
the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, maybe we should now look back at
what Mr. Vardy presented to the government, to the industry, to the harvesters
and to the people of the Province, in 1998 after he and his panel did their
report and looked at different options for the settling of fish prices in this
Province. Maybe it is time now to go back and start with that again. Maybe it is
time to start looking at new and innovative ideas for the future in settling
fish prices for this Province. Maybe it is time to look at auctions, as they are
done in other parts of the world, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will find out, after we
review that, that it is not going to work. I am willing to concede that, that it
might not work here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Although right now I cannot
see why it would not work, I am willing to concede that it might. The problem
that we have is that nobody has looked. There has been no review. We know that
there are problems but nobody is trying to figure out how to fix them, other
than this here again - crisis management, as I said.
Why don't we go and look? In looking to the future - as the Minister of
Labour does her review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act - that
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, whether he has to appoint another
panel or appoint people from his department, send them off and tell them what to
do, to look at what we are doing with collective bargaining in the fishing
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and say: Are we doing it right? Why do we
have these problems here? Why have we had these problems over the past couple of
years? Why have we found ourselves at the point today where FANL has decided to
opt out? And, where do we go in the future? That is what really needs to be done
now, Mr. Speaker. That is what needs to be done. We need to look at fish
auctions in Portland, fish auctions in Alaska, fish auctions in Iceland and
Norway. We need to look at that, Mr. Speaker, and we need to look at, again,
because we looked at it five or six years ago, we looked at what was done in
northeast New Brunswick and the Gaspe Bay with their fishing industry price
setting mechanisms. We looked at that, but maybe it is time to have another
look. It is defiantly time to have another look when we find ourselves here on
December 12, 2002, less than two years since we actually amended this act the
last time. I say to the Minister of Labour, I was in the House of Assembly, and
I have not been here very long, when this act was amended the last time in order
to make the Final Offer Selection process binding. We finally legislated it,
because before that, as I said, it worked by mutual agreement. It worked because
both parties agreed on a pilot project basis. Now, here we are, less than two
years after it was instituted in legislation, after it was enshrined in
legislation, we find ourselves here today having to make an amendment to it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up now. I say we will support this amendment.
We support it reluctantly, we support it because we know that it is the only
option that we have right now. We support it because of the chaos that might
result in the spring if this was not the case. We do not support it, we do not
like to do it because these types of amendments to
an act should be done by the
mutual agreement of the fishing industry: the fishing industry, the processing
side and the harvesting side. When the act was amended the last time, it was
done because both parties agreed. That is what needs to be said here.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should be the lead minister on it.
It is the industry side of it that we are talking about here. He should be doing
more, and be more proactive on these files, bringing the industry together, the
harvesters and the processors, to resolve these things so they do not end up
here today with one side probably threatening legal action against the
government if they institute this type of thing. This is no good. We did it with
FPI after the fact, when it should have been done before. We are doing it here.
We are always waiting until we hit the wall on these things, or the government
are always waiting until they hit the wall, until there is a crisis that we have
to deal with.
We are here now and the bottom line is, if we do not amend this act within
the next week, this will lead to a crisis in the industry this spring, in all
likelihood. We have potentially three legislative days to make sure that this
happens in order to avert what could be a critical situation in the industry
next spring similar to what we saw in 1997.
That is why we support it, because we want to head off what could be a
critical situation in the spring where we could see a $500 million industry in
crisis. This Province, with the desperate economic situation that we have in
rural communities, where the vast majority of them are depending on the fishing
industry, where the vast majority, actually, of the service centres in the
Province in Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Deer Lake and St. Anthony, those
types of places, they depend entirely - not entirely; I hesitate to say that -
they depend, to a large part, on the success of the communities that surround
them. Gander will not make it if Fogo is struggling. That is the bottom line. We
all recognize that, and that is why we will support this legislation. That is
why we will support these amendments to the act.
In conclusion, I will say it once again, it is time for the Minister of
Labour and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to get on with the review
that they have committed to, the review that the minister just committed to. I
will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will do it. The Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture made a commitment almost two years ago to a review. He
had a review of the shrimp industry done last year. He has done nothing with the
report from that. It is time for him to get on and deal with those reviews, deal
with those reports, put a plan in place for the fishing industry of Newfoundland
and Labrador, a plan that is developed with the processing side, a plan that is
developed with the harvesting side, and bears in mind where we want this
industry to be in ten years time, that bears in mind what the market is today
and where the market is going to be in ten years time, where the resource is
today and where we think the resource is going to be in five to ten years time.
That, Mr. Speaker, is something that has been lacking from this industry for
probably its entire history. It is something that, if it is done, will ensure a
viable industry in the future. If it is not done, it will ensure that we go from
situations like this where we are constantly in a mode of crisis management.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say a few words on Bill 31,
An Act To Amend The Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act at second reading, which is approval in
principle of the legislation. Let me say, first of all, that this legislation is
very significant and important, and we support it wholeheartedly. This is an
amendment to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, which was first
passed in 1971 in this Province - the first province in the country to have such
a right of collective bargaining for fishermen, and I think perhaps still the
only province with a Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, a very, very
important piece of legislation, and important for all kinds of historical
reasons.
The very thing that this particular piece of legislation here today is about
is something that has been a source of contention for fishing peoples in this
Province, fishermen, their families for centuries, Mr. Speaker. Because of the
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act passed in 1971, fishermen in this
Province ultimately got the right to negotiate the price of fish. The price of
fish before that was something that was set. Set by the fish merchants and had
to be abided by the fishermen, regardless of what that price was, and very
often, as we know, the very same fishermen were dependent upon the merchant to
whom they sold their fish to buy all of their goods, to get credit for their
goods and the price of those goods was also set by the merchant.
That is the system that has, in fact, historically defined the problems of
rural Newfoundland over the centuries and, in fact, had kept the fishermen down,
had made them at the lowest rung of the social ladder in this Province that was
supposedly built on fishing. That has changed in the last thirty years, and the
last forty years, but the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act is a very
important part of the reason why that has changed, because once this came about
fishermen could legally, through a process, help to set the price of fish by
being put in the same situation as plant workers, as factory workers and be able
to withdraw their labour, withdraw their fish in a collective bargaining regime
and set up a process to do that. That has led to an awful lot of progress in
this Province with respect to the incomes of fishermen and fisherwomen, to
incomes of fishing families and to the incomes and success and stability of
rural Newfoundland when it comes to the fishing industry in terms of price.
Obviously, the issues of supply are a big problem. The issues that we have had
with the cod fishery are a big problem but with respect to the relationship
between fish merchants and fishermen, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act has played a major role.
Let me get to the situation that we are dealing with here. The previous
speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said we do not really
know what is going on in the industry and we do not really know why it is that
FANL does not want to agree to this, at this point, but I think that is wrong,
Mr. Speaker. We are not left to speculate about what is happening. It seems to
me that, at the very least, we can use our instincts and when we see the
fishermen and the fishermen's union, on the one hand, saying we have to have
this legislation. We have to preserve this Final Offer Selection process, and,
on the other hand, we are seeing the industry saying we do not want it, my
instincts are with the fishermen. That if the fishermen want it and the
merchants do not, then my first instinct is that there is something in this that
is in favour of the fishermen and fisherwomen of Newfoundland and Labrador.
What is going on is that some, not all, of fishing companies do not like the
system and see some advantage in having instability. They do not want the stable
relationship they have had for the last four or five years. They do not want to
ensure that there is a mechanism for ensuring stability, that we do not have a
disruption that might advantage some, or one or other, or a couple of the
fishing industry players, but not advantage the fishermen. We have seen what
happens when you have an unregulated system. The actual regular collective
bargaining process did not work for the fishermen and their families; did not
work for the industry; did not work for the markets; did not work for the price
of crab in this Province. In the long term, in the real, real long term, the
problem was that the markets themselves were being destroyed and deteriorated
our creditability as a supplier of crab in the market was being lost rapidly.
That market is very, very important and has become of pre-eminence importance to
the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador with a value of in excess of
$500 million, a very significant source of income for this Province, for the
communities involved, for the fishermen and women, and is something that we must
preserve. It is very, very important.
What happened in 1997, where the boats were tied up, the only choice the
fishermen had was to tie up their boats, and they did so because they were not
going to be dictated to by the companies. The boats were tied up for four
months. Not only did the quality of the crab go down as time went on into the
spring months and summer months, the crab quality went down considerably. The
price therefore, that was ultimately achieved, was terrible. But, people who
were being supplied with this crab, the people in markets into which we were
trying to build in the United States and elsewhere, principally the United
States, all of a sudden had no reliable supply from Newfoundland and Labrador.
They had to look elsewhere for this product, to change the product in their
supermarkets, or in their fast-food outlets, restaurants, and all of a sudden
their interest in this market went down, down, down.
So what we had as a result of this study - and, yes, it was done with the
agreement of both parties, ultimately. The Final Offer Selection Process was
considered to be a way to try - it was started as a pilot project. It worked,
and we came in a year or so later and we said: Okay, we are going to put this in
as a permanent feature. Now, that one party, one side of the equation, has
decided that they do not want to play this game anymore because it is to the
advantage of a couple of their members. They have gone and said that, and they
are prepared to disrupt the whole system. Now I think it is time that the
government said: We have to act in the interest of the industry, in the interest
of the price, in the interest of the market and in the interest, finally, of the
fishermen and women of this Province, because that is the responsibility of
government.
If we asked the fishing industry what they wanted in the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, it should gutted. If we ask the employers, as a
whole, what they wanted in the Labour Relations Act, that would be gutted, too.
Because these acts are not designed for the benefit of the employers. The Labour
Relations Act is designed for labour stability yes, but it is designed to
protect the workers and give them the right to collective bargaining, to give
them the right to fight for better wages, better working conditions, decent
health and safety, and to fight for these things, for which rights they would
not have without that legislation. It is the very same with the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act. If you took that act off the table we would be back
to the last century where the merchants dictated the price of fish and they
dictated the price of the goods that they sold to them.
So the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act is there, not for the fish
merchants, it is there to protect the working men and women of this Province.
That is why it is there, and if it is not working for them, it has to be fixed.
It has to be fixed, because if it is not fixed the industry is going to lose as
a whole, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the people who rely and depend on
that industry in the bays and coves and ports of this Province are going to
suffer if this is not done.
This is a very important legislation. I know the Minister of Labour is the
one introducing it, and, of course, it relates to the relationship between fish
merchants and fishermen and women, but it is obviously part of the management of
the fishery and the important role tha