Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 29 March 2006 (45th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLV No. 4)
2006-03-29
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 29, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 4
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we are pleased to welcome visitors to the public gallery from
Swift Current Academy school in the District of Bellevue.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Gander; the hon. the Member for the District
of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville;
the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for
the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo
& LaPoile.
The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize Mrs.
Kathleen Elizabeth Hanrahan of Gander who is celebrating her 100 th
birthday on Thursday, March 29. Mrs. Hanrahan was born in Brown's Arm in 1906
and was the first of thirteen children for Elizabeth and Hedley Powell. She
moved with her family to Norris Arm, Badger, and Grand Falls-Windsor, where she
graduated from high school and met and married her husband Gerald. In 1958 they
moved to Gander where Gerald opened Gander's first barber shop and they raised
three sons and two daughters. In 1971, Mrs. Hanrahan retired as an operator from
what was then CNT at that time.
Mr. Speaker, today Mrs. Hanrahan still lives in her own home and is still
strong and sharp as ever. She entertains her visitors by reciting poetry and
sharing stories. Mrs. Hanrahan said she has two regrets in her life: she never
learned to drive, and she never learned to play the piano. She is now preparing
for two open houses this week to celebrate her birthday as many people will be
visiting, including her two sisters from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Mrs. Kathleen Elizabeth Hanrahan on her 100 th birthday celebration
that begins tomorrow in Gander.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lakeside Academy of Buchans, which
took the first place ranking for the Newfoundland and Labrador schools with a B+
rating in absolute overall performance from the fourth AIMS Report Card.
Lakeside Academy in Buchans is a new state-of-the-art school that was built
in 1999. The building houses students from Kindergarten to Grade 12 and boasts a
large gymnasium, a fully equipped computer lab and a public library which offers
Internet access to students and town residents. The school has a reputation of
providing quality education and for receiving consistently good ratings in the
AIMS Report.
Mr. Speaker, AIMS tracks and publicly records the performance of individual
schools offering a comparative analysis of high school data throughout the
Atlantic region. The report hopes to provide incentive for improved performance
in Atlantic regional schools. The AIMS Atlantic Canadian High School Report Card
is a tool to be used to improve the education system for our children so they
are prepared to compete and succeed in the global economy.
Mr. Speaker, what is quite remarkable is the fact that Lakeside Academy has
improved their ratings over last year, which is quite an achievement considering
that this is the second consecutive year that Lakeside Academy has been in the
top five. This is very encouraging and it speaks volumes of the quality of the
teaching staff and the support parents provide in meeting and retaining these
high standards of education to see our rural school continually strive for
growth.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Lakeside Academy of Buchans, the first place finish in the fourth
AIMS Report Card.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge an exceptional
ten-year-old boy from the Inuit community of Sheshatshiu in my district.
Phillip Nuna was born with spina bifida but he doesn't let that stop him
from being an active person, despite having to use a wheelchair.
Earlier this year, young Phillip had the chance to try cross-country skiing
for the first time. Mr. Doug Copp, from the Canadian Association for Disabled
Skiing, paid a visit to Birch Brook Nordic Ski Club and introduced Phillip to
the sport through the use of a "Sit-Ski" rig, which allows the
physically disabled to ski. In a sitting position, Philip was able to push
himself along with his ski poles.
From all accounts, Phillip very much enjoyed his first cross-country skiing
experience and continues to pursue it. He has also been invited to take
part in
the Jackrabbit Ski Program - an instructional program for children - under the
guidance of program organizer Cathy Jong.
Phillip, at just ten years old, is to be commended for his determination and
perseverance in his successful attempts to remain active and healthy, despite
his disability. If all children, and indeed all adults, in this Province were to
learn from Phillip's example, we would be very much better off, and much
healthier for it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating
Phillip Nuna on his accomplishments.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this year the Janeway Children's Hospital
Foundation had as their motto, "For All The Right Reasons". For All
The Right Reasons, forty-six major sponsors came forward. For All The Right
Reasons, hundreds of volunteers came forward to make this a truly successful
event. For All The Right Reasons, 727 ATVs were registered for the event; and,
For All The Right Reasons, 548 ATVs took
part in the run in extreme weather
conditions.
Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this event is to raise money for the Janeway
Children's Hospital Foundation. We had hoped to have the Janeway's name
included in the Guinness Book of World Records. Had the weather co-operated,
allowing all those registered to take part, our hope would have become a
reality.
The weekend event held March 10-11 raised an incredible amount of $97,310.27
for the Janeway Children's Hospital; a figure that smashed the previous record
high of $81,000, and six times the amount raised during the inaugural run in
2002. The five year total, Mr. Speaker, for this worthy cause tops $320,000.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating organizers and participants on the fifth annual Run for The
Janeway.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in
this House to recognize a World War II Veteran and long-time volunteer in the
name of Mr. Frank (Jiggs) Borland.
Jiggs, as he is commonly known, was a Radio and Gunner Operator during the
war and was involved in the Liberation of Dieppe on September 1, 1944. After the
war, Jiggs started a farm near Bishop's Falls and there he raised his family.
He spent a great deal of his time volunteering with many boards and various
organizations. Jiggs served as the veterans representative for the Legion on the
Veterans Pavilion Board. He has been a Lions member for forty-nine years and was
instrumental in organizing and constructing the Lion Max Simms Camp for the
handicapped. This facility is well recognized today and widely used across the
Province by people with disabilities.
On March 31, this Friday, Jiggs will celebrate his eighty-first birthday, and
on April 27 he will travel to Europe to represent Newfoundland and Labrador
during the celebration of the Liberation of Holland.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing
the contributions of Mr. Frank (Jiggs) Borland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate four students from the College of the North
Atlantic, Port aux Basques campus. Krista Elms, Lydia Francis, Holly Farrell and
Erin Hickey were first place winners of the College of the North Atlantic's
Annual Business Case Competition.
The competition was hosted by the College's Grand Falls-Windsor campus on
the weekend of February 7, with representation from Corner Brook, St. John's
and Port aux Basques. During the competition, the students were given a business
case to analyze. They wrote a formal report and presented their case in front of
five judges. They were quizzed on their presentation and had to defend their
positions.
This is the first year that the Port aux Basques campus was represented at
the competition. The trophy will be held at the College of the North Atlantic at
Port aux Basques, which each student also receiving their own individual trophy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating these four
very bright students from the College of the North Atlantic campus at Port aux
Basques in their first place victory.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Fisheries if he had
discussions with FPI about the restructuring of its American division and the
appointing of Mr. George Armoyan - who some call a corporate raider - as its
executive director. His answer was: No.
Last week the minister said that he had just recently learned that FPI was
shipping fish to China for processing without his own department's permission.
Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries admitted that he did not know what FPI's
plans were for the employees on the Burin Peninsula because the sands kept
shifting.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he will now get personally involved with
FPI before they dismantle and strip the remaining assets of that company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will make the hon. gentleman's
day when I tell him and tell the House and tell everybody who wants to hear,
that the Premier, as Leader of the government, is always involved. As a matter
of fact, it is only -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to inform the hon
gentleman and the House that as I left a meeting to come to the House of
Assembly just before 2:00 o'clock today, the meeting was actually in the
Premier's office with the Premier, with other ministers, with officials,
discussing FPI.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago FPI closed the plant in
Harbour Breton, laying off 350 workers; recently announced the closure of
Fortune and the downsizing of the plant in Marystown, throwing another 700
people out of work on the Burin Peninsula. With communities devastated and the
future of hundreds of individuals in complete turmoil, the best that his
minister, the Minister of Fisheries, can do is to facilitate a meeting between
the FFAW and FPI. That is what he offered here in the House yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, if the Premier will not call a public inquiry into the
operations of that company, will he, at least, have the decency to get
personally involved with discussions of FPI so that he can let the people on the
Burin Peninsula know what the future holds for them?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many ways you can say it. I
just finished telling the hon. gentleman, telling the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, that as of only a few minutes ago we had a very high level meeting in
the Premier's office, involving the Premier. The Premier, as leader of the
government, wants to be involved. The speaker of the -
MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, can you -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Is there something in Beauchesne that can be used to
silence the Member for Bay of Islands? There has to be something, Your Honour. I
certainly do not mind back and forth across -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A question has been asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair
is providing time for the minister to place his response, and I ask all members
for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows me, knows that I don't mind
give and take back and forth across the House, but if a serious question is
asked, then as a minister and Deputy Premier, I am trying to give a serious
answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Now, if the Opposition wants that, that is fine. If they do
not want that, we can play by the other rules.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, the Premier and all of you over there, you can hold
all of the meetings you want on FPI but if there is no one in the room
representing FPI, I do not see where the meetings are going and you will not
know any more today, or tomorrow, or next week than you know already about what
is happening to the operations. Get the officials from FPI into the meeting and
do not ask them what they are going to do, tell them what to do, I say to the
minister. Tell them what to do!
Mr. Speaker, on another issue. For the past few weeks the Premier has been
out there making all kinds of announcements about tomorrow's Budget, many of
which he said were promised in the Blue Book in the election of 2003. Well, Mr.
Speaker, he made a lot of promises in the Blue Book, one was that he was going
to eliminate ferry rates and bring the cost of ferry transportation inline with
the cost of road transportation.
I ask the Premier today: Will he live up to the commitment and the promise
that he made to the people of Fogo Island and other islands in this Province
back in the election of 2003 and eliminate ferry rates?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the political rhetoric
coming from the Leader of the Opposition.
Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that nobody, and I
mean nobody, in this government will take any direction from any member of that
caucus when it comes to asking questions of FPI.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: The Leader of the Opposition and most of that hon. crowd
opposite were in a Cabinet serving under a Premier who said: I have no need to
ask questions of FPI. Frankly, I do not want to hear from FPI. There is no need
to ask questions of FPI. I am not going to ask questions of FPI. We will take no
direction on how we deal with FPI from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker; none.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What a rant! What a rant! I asked a question about ferry rates and all I want
to know is: Will the real minister responsible please stand up?
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, during the election the Premier promised the
people who live in island communities in this Province that he would eliminate
ferry rates. In the Budget of 2004 and again in 2005 he raised those rates by 10
per cent. On Saturday of this week, April 1, the ferry rates will go up again by
5 per cent.
I again ask the Premier, or whichever Minister of Transportation wants to
stand up and answer it: Will you now stand and tell the people of those islands
that you will live up to the Premier's commitment and eliminate those rates
rather than increase them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, there was no commitment in the Blue Book to
eliminate ferry rates. There was a commitment in the Blue Book to bring ferry
rates in line with road equivalency. That was the commitment that was made by us
when we were campaigning in the 2003 election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: And that, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment that we plan to keep.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just completed this week has been the
evaluation of the ferry rates around our Province as they relate to road
equivalency, and over the course of the next while we will be dealing with that
evaluation. For the record, Mr. Speaker, even with the increases that were
implemented in the last Budget and the Budget prior to that, even with those
increases, the vast majority of the ferry rates in this Province, for
passengers, vehicles and freight, are less than or equal to road equivalency
travel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: The minister talks about how the cost of ferry transportation
today is in line with the cost of road transportation. I have an individual who
owns a trucking firm on Fogo Island and every time he puts that truck on the
ferry it costs him $162 to travel nine miles.
I ask the minister: Is that what you call the equivalence of road
transportation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for the record, if the Member for Twillingate & Fogo had
been listening he would have heard me say that the vast majority of the rates in
the Province are equivalent to or less than the road equivalency. I didn't say
100 per cent, I didn't say 90 per cent, and I didn't say that the ferry rate
from Fogo Island to Farewell for a tractor trailer was the equivalent of taking
a tractor trailer from Fogo Island to Farewell. I didn't say that. I said the
vast majority are. I said we are going to deal with it. I said we received the
report on the evaluation just this week and, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with it.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, the rates that are in this Province right now,
even though we increased them by 10 per cent and 5 per cent in the last two
years, are the rates that his government put in place when they were in power
for fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the previous government designated
Swift Current Academy as a necessary existent small school. This designation
recognized the difficulty of transporting students to other areas, and the
special circumstances being faced by schools in rural communities. The present
government, as part of its rural resettlement program, eliminated this category
of school. I ask the minister: Will she reinstate the policy of necessary
existent schools today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my information, just for the record, that
the designation of small but necessarily existent schools came into effect in
1999. It came into effect at that time to ensure that schools that were in
isolated areas, or students did not have access to other schools, were
adequately resourced. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, a teacher allocation formula come in
to ensure that all schools, including the small schools, were resourced
appropriately.
If we follow the teacher allocation formula this year, going into the next
school year, there would be approximately a reduction of 151 teaching units
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As announced last week, this government
has certainly taken action on that. We have announced $250,000 to review the
teacher allocation formula because it does not meet the needs right now. In
addition to that, we have also decided that none of the 151 teaching units will
be laid off for next year.
When the Eastern School Board was doing their plan, I was specifically asked
if the designation for small but necessarily existent schools was still in
effect in Newfoundland and Labrador. It remains in effect; it is still in
legislation. Just because the designation is in effect does not necessarily
preclude the fact that a school board can close a school; and, in essence, there
have been a number of schools since 1999 with that designation that have closed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
As I mentioned yesterday, I would ask ministers giving their replies to keep
their comments to approximately sixty seconds or less.
The Chair recognizes, I do believe, the Member for Bellevue who was asking a
supplementary.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question. Will you
designate Swift Current Academy as a necessary existent school? Will you answer
the question, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I was explaining - and this is a very serious
issue for some of the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador - the designation on
the Swift Current Academy school was put in place in 1999, as were other schools
at that time. Some of those schools with that designation have been reconfigured
and some have closed over the years since 1999.
When the school board was doing their long-term facilities plan, they
specifically asked if the designation of small but necessarily existent schools
remains in effect. It does remain in effect. There has been no order to say that
designation does not remain in effect; however, I must be perfectly clear that
the designation does not preclude the fact that the school board can close a
reconfigured school.
In correspondence that I sent to the school board, to Mr. Milton Peach, on
January 31 of this year, I indicated that the designation alone does not prevent
the closure of a school if the elected school board can provide reasonable
access to an alternate learning environment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, students from Swift Current Academy will have
to be bused for one hour and forty-five minutes each way, a total of
three-and-a-half hours on a bus each day over treacherous road conditions. It is
the equivalent of putting a student in St. John's on a school bus today and
shipping them off to Western Bay to go to school, putting them on a bus in
Western Bay and sending them back to St. John's - the same amount of time it
would take to go from St. John's to Western Bay, Newfoundland.
I ask the minister: What is the policy of your government? How long are you
going to leave children on school buses in Newfoundland and Labrador? Are you
going to treat them as human beings? It is ridiculous, what you are doing to the
people of Swift Current Academy.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school board has put a motion to move the
students from Grade 7 to Grade 12 from Swift Current into Tricentia.
Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the parents because they did the bus ride,
along with somebody from the school board. They left Swift Current and picked up
students from other communities as well that would feed into the school. The bus
ride did take one hour and forty-five minutes, which I do believe is excessive
to have children on a school bus; I have to agree with that. I feel the parents
have been very proactive in how they managed this and how they were able to time
the bus ride.
Mr. Speaker, on April 3, the parents will again have an opportunity to
present to the board, and this is the type of information that the board needs.
This is very real evidence, real information that the parents have put together,
that they need to present to the board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BURKE: If the hon. member across is asking me if I think an hour and
forty-five minutes one way on a bus is excessive, yes, I do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has called upon this government numerous times in
the past to provide an energy tax rebate to consumers in our Province. Just this
week, the Government of New Brunswick has indicated they will rebate the
equivalent of an 8 per cent sales tax from all home heating bills, which
includes oil, electricity, natural gas, propane and firewood.
I ask the minister: When is his government going to help the people of this
Province and provide a similar break?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know where the hon. member has been hiding for the past two years.
First of all, the average household in this Province consumes between 2,800
litres and 3,000 litres of home heating fuel. If we rebated the HST on that
amount, to the average consumer it would average out between $165 and $177 a
year. We rebated up to $400 a year -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: - two point four times the amount we rebated than they do
in New Brunswick.
This government has a policy not just to rebate people making $150,000 a
year, not to do that, but to allow it to go to people making $30,000 or less of
net income, to allow these people who are affected most by rising prices to
benefit. They are benefitting more than twice as much as a person in New
Brunswick in a similar situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is not saying is the fact that
he has only announced the refund, the rebate, for those burning oil. How about
people burning electricity and wood and propane? He has just selected a small
number to look after.
The minister has previously stated that he could not remove the HST because
he needed the approval of the other Atlantic Provinces and the federal
government; however, the Government of New Brunswick has clearly found a way to
provide the same benefit through a rebate program.
I ask the minister again: Will he take the same initiative on behalf of the
people of this Province in the upcoming Budget tomorrow?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I think I have to start making corrections to what the member has
indicated. I never said we can't do it without the consent of other provinces.
I said, in order for it to be done you must need the consent. That is not saying
it is an excuse for not doing it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: We did not raise the issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the member stands in the House, a member of
the very government that initiated a home rebate program excluding electricity
when she sat in Cabinet and all her colleagues sat in Cabinet. The reason we
didn't add it to electricity, Mr. Speaker, was very clear. Electricity
increased over the past five years at a rate that was marginally above the rate
of inflation, when home heating fuel went up by astronomical amounts. That is
the reason we excluded it. If, in the future, it is necessary to have a program
that is all inclusive, if the increases reflect that, we as a government will
consider and look at that in the future, but the evidence is not there on the
basis that member used when she sat in Cabinet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, this government is flushed with cash or they are
giving the appearance that they are, and it is only coming from one source, from
increased revenues from our offshore resources. They have been making
announcements left, right and center for the past three weeks, but when it comes
to giving consumers of this Province a break they are totally silent.
My question is to the minister: When will the average consumer in this
Province start to get some benefit from the resources off our Coast? When are
you going to give consumers a break?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If you consider being $1 billion in debt on an annual basis, as that
government left us, when you break even and have a balanced budget you are
spending the equivalent of what you are taking in, if that it flushed with cash
she better go back to the bank again and learn some information on what flushed
with cash means.
Mr. Speaker, here is what we have done: A home heating rebate of $9 million;
$6.9 million in environment and conservation; $12,000 or less of net income and
no income taxes a single person; $19,000 as a family, no income tax; we phase it
out at $21,600. That is what we have done. We have doubled the home heating fuel
rebate for people on income support. We increased the rate last year by 2 per
cent for single individuals living on income support. This year another
announcement. My colleague today is making another announcement on low income
people. We have put forward numerous programs. We have indexed the seniors'
benefit. We have indexed the child benefit. We have put tens of millions of
dollars -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.
MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health.
I want to say to the minister, that this Province would benefit more than any
other Province in this country from a national pharmacare program.
I want to ask the minister if his government is fully committed to working
with the federal government to insist that we have a national pharmacare program
in this country so that residents of our Province could benefit from it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I would like to thank the member for his question. It is
an important question; always good to have constructive important questions.
I would like to say to the member, that we are certainly prepared to work on
that. I am planning a meeting with my federal counterparts. We are certainly
prepared to look at that. There is only one more sleep to the Budget tomorrow
and there is some news in the Budget tomorrow on prescription drug programs as
well. So, I ask the member to stayed tuned for that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. R. COLLINS: I hope there is more than a little good news because we
need a lot of good news on this front, I say to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, 35 per cent or more of people in this
Province do not have any coverage at all for prescription drugs, other people
have limited coverage. Waiting until there is a national pharmacare program,
hopefully some day in this country, will this government immediately provide
coverage to people of this Province by expanding the provincial drug care
coverage so that people who suffer from MS, from Alzheimer's, from diabetes
and other diseases do not have to make a choice between bankrupting their
families or purchasing a drug? Will the minister commit to that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I would say to the Member for Labrador West, we are not
going to wait for the national government to act on this. We are not going to
wait for other provinces to act. This is an important issue. Yes, we are going
to look at and work towards a national program but we are not going to wait for
that, we are going to take action and I ask the member again, to stay tuned for
tomorrow because we are taking action in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, while this government has been on a spending
spree, the plight of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to be
ignored. We only have to look to the health care needs in the Province to see
where government has failed to balance its priorities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: Waiting lists are not glamorous issues, Mr. Speaker, but they
are very real to anyone whose health is compromised while waiting months to see
a specialist.
I ask the Premier: Why, when government is obviously flush with funds, are
waiting lists still an issue in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I would like to address that, Mr. Speaker, by saying that
last year we put over $23 million into trying to reduce wait times in this
Province. This year we have made several announcements, in addition to the
announcements that we have made last year for new cancer clinics, dialysis and
other issues that will help reduce the wait times in this Province. We have put
additional resources into reducing wait times. We are at national benchmarks in
most areas on wait times in this Province and there are additional measures
coming forward tomorrow to address wait times.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last year the First Ministers' health accord saw
a substantial injection of new money going into Newfoundland and Labrador to
enable this Province to reduce wait lists and provide better health care. Yet,
we heard recently of cancer patients having to travel to other provinces to
avail of treatment.
I ask the Premier: With all of this additional funding from the federal
government for health care, why do cancer patients have to travel outside of
this Province for treatment, away from their loved ones who provide much needed
emotional support?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it is truly regrettable that we have to send
patients outside the Province. I have a great deal of sympathy for those
patients and for their families.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in order to help reduce the wait times in
that particular sector for those cancer patients suffering from breast and
prostate cancer, which is the patients that we are sending to Ontario, we have
made the decision to send them to Ontario for those treatments to eliminate the
wait times for those particular patients. This is a very serious issue. The
earlier we treat these patients the better it is for those patients, which is
part of the reason we have taken those measures.
Again, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Budget Day and I anticipate that tomorrow we
will be making very positive announcements regarding this particular issue as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: All I can, Mr. Speaker, is that I think the minister has been
watching the movie Annie too often.
Mr. Speaker, government has said it will pay the full cost for certain
patients to travel outside the Province for treatment because of government's
ineffectiveness in dealing with the problem of wait lists. Yet, we have patients
in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador who have no choice but to travel to
St. John's for certain treatments and are reimbursed only a small fraction of
their costs.
I ask the minister: How can government justify this double standard, and when
will this government, with its obvious cash surplus, right this unfair practice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue as well and it
is an issue that certainly we are prepared to look at. I am prepared to look at
this within the department. If we can find ways to address the issue, we
certainly will.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, another real life issue is the catastrophic cost
of drugs not covered under the Province's Prescription Drug Program. We
previously raised this issue on behalf of those with Alzheimer's and -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: We previously raised this issue on behalf of those with
Alzheimer's and Multiple Sclerosis. We are hopeful that our appeals and those
of the people affected have been heard and will be addressed in the Budget
tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the arthritic drug, Enbrel, is also not covered under the
Prescription Drug Program. I raised this matter today on behalf of a young
women, Brenda Hickey, who may end up in a wheelchair without this drug, and
others like her, who cannot afford to purchase this particular drug. Minister,
has the drug, Enbrel, been included in your deliberations for tomorrow's
announcement.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the member opposite to wait until tomorrow. The Budget will be
coming down tomorrow and the announcements regarding what prescriptions will be
covered will be announced in tomorrow's Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Alert Foundation is a not-for-profit agency run by
the Aliant Pioneers with approximately 1,000 subscribers, mostly seniors and
disabled persons. They provide a wireless pendant, which can be worn on the
wrist or the neck, that can access emergency response at the push of a button.
As of April 1, the monthly service fee of $30 will be increased to $34.50
because of HST, which will be a hardship to many seniors on a fixed income.
I ask the minster: Is he aware of this issue, and has he done anything to
address it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I am not aware of that particular issue, but I am certainly prepared to
look into it. If you have information on that issue, send it across and I will
certainly do the best I can to get you an answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Alert Foundation, as of April 1,
will be required by law to charge the 15 per cent HST because the increase in
users have driven their sales to $250,000, and that is the benchmark for paying
HST. When you come to think of it, many seniors go to bed every night with that
only comfort, that they can access emergency response by pushing a button. In
fact, one of my constituents last week had to push that button 2:00 o'clock in
the morning; 6:00 o'clock in the morning she had emergency surgery for a
pacemaker. She was able to reach her son by that. I am going to suggest
one-short term solution for government, is that they could provide financial
assistance to this not-for-profit agency so that seniors would not have to pay
this tax, their service could be lowered.
Another long-term situation is one that I am writing the Prime Minister about
today, and that would be to tax exempt not-for-profit agencies for a lifeline
response like this. Will you join me in adding to that support, and talking to
your federal counterparts and providing the short-term solution, Mr. Minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member in the previous
answer, I would like to look into this issue. Obviously, as I indicated in the
earlier answer, I do not have the information on this particular issue. I am not
prepared to give answers to information on issues that I am not fully apprized
of. I will look into this and I will certainly get her an answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
This afternoon I notice in the gallery a former Deputy Speaker and Member for
Port de Grave - I do believe I have the district right - Harbour Grace-Port de
Grave, John Crane. We would like to welcome John to the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 26.5(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling
three orders in council relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal years
2006-2007 to fiscal years 2009-2010.
MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the next item, I have just been
informed that another former member of our House, Mr. Ted Blanchard, is also in
attendance today. Welcome back. You are always welcome in the public galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do, I guess by leave and concurrence of members opposite, under Standing
Order 65 move the Committees of the House for the new Session: Striking
Committee members, myself, in my capacity as Government House Leader; Chair, the
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; the Member for
Bonavista South; my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for
Burgeo & LaPoile; and also my colleague opposite, the Member for Bellevue.
The makeup of the Public Accounts Committee: the Member for Bay of Islands as
Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; the Member for St. John's Centre as
Vice-Chair; the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for St. Barbe; the
Member for Humber Valley; the Member for Bellevue; and the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair making up the balance of that membership.
For the Government Services Committee: the Member for St. John's Centre as
Chair; the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, my understanding, as Vice-Chair;
the following Members: for Topsail, Terra Nova, Exploits, Torngat Mountains and
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune make up the balance of the membership on the Government
Services Committee.
For the Resource Committee: the Member for Bonavista North in his capacity as
Chair; the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I believe, is listed here - there
may be some change to that, I am not sure - as Vice-Chair.
MR. REID: I will be there.
MR. E. BYRNE: Glad to hear it. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo says
he will be there. I will be there, too, so we will see you there.
Other members: the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Member for
Windsor-Springdale; the Member for Gander; the Member for Grand Bank; and the
Member for Bay of Islands make up the balance of the membership for the Resource
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, on the Social Services Estimates Committee: the Member for St.
John's North as Chair; the Member for Port de Grave as Vice-Chair; the Member
for Humber Valley; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Placentia
& St. Mary's; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and the Member for
Labrador West make up the balance of that membership.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Commission of Internal Economy remain
unchanged. Yourself, in your role as Speaker, as Chair of the Commission; the
Member for Bonavista South as Vice-Chair, in his role as Deputy Speaker; the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; myself, as Government House
Leader; the Minister of Justice; the Opposition House Leader; and also the
Member for Bellevue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
Answers To Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that this afternoon -
CLERK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Clerk of the House reminds me that, while I do believe we had consent on
the structure of the Committees, I need to ask so that we can make sure we have
followed all the protocols.
Consent has been granted.
Thank you very much.
I do believe this afternoon we have a private member's motion. It being
Private Members' Day, we will be hearing the motion put forward with notice by
the Member for Grand Bank District.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to speak to the private member's motion that I brought in
yesterday. It is a motion on FPI. I guess it is a second attempt by the
Opposition to represent the people who are being affected by the actions of FPI,
to represent it to the best of our ability, to try and deal with a most serious
issue in our Province, one that is impacting a lot of areas but particularly the
Burin Peninsula.
Let me read again the motion, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important
for anyone who is listening to us this afternoon to gather a real appreciation
for what is going on where FPI is concerned and where all of those who are being
impacted are concerned.
The motion says:
WHEREAS FPI was established by this Legislature to
strengthen the fishing industry in this Province and to ensure maximum
employment stability; and
WHEREAS the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture admits that he
is having trouble obtaining information on all FPI operations; and
WHEREAS the provincial minister has said that FPI broke the laws of this
Province in shipping out fish with no authorization; and
WHEREAS the provincial minister says charges will be laid against FPI; and
WHEREAS there are widespread allegations and suspicions involving the overall
operations of FPI; and
WHEREAS the livelihood of thousands of people in this Province are being
thrown, and have been thrown, into turmoil as a result of the actions being
taken by FPI;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the
government to establish an independent public inquiry into the operations of FPI.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and others will recall, that last fall I
introduced a similar motion. At that time we did not have all of the information
that we have today at our fingertips in terms of what FPI has been doing, and
what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has claimed, that they shipped
and shipped and shipped fish out of this Province with no authorization, and
that they will be charged. We did not have that information last fall, Mr.
Speaker. We did not know last fall that the minister would have difficulty
accessing all of the information that he needed to access in order to do a
comprehensive audit of the company. We did not know that last fall, Mr. Speaker,
but today we do know it and that is why that has been added to the motion today.
The fact that, as an Opposition, we are bringing forward this motion again, I
think we are providing the government with an opportunity here to acknowledge
that there are serious issues here, and that while we didn't vote for the
motion in the fall, for whatever reason, today here is an opportunity for the
government to, in fact, vote on and support this motion, a motion brought
forward by the Opposition out of sincere concern for the Province as a whole,
but particularly out of concern for those who work for FPI or who worked for FPI
and who hope to return to employment with that company.
It is actually an opportunity for the government as well here to really stand
up and be counted, to acknowledge and do something about the way that FPI is
responding to the government. Here is a government that I would like to think is
concerned about the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, but
we are not seeing any semblance of that when you consider how they have allowed
FPI to just ride roughshod over the government and the Province. We have a
company, an international company, like FPI, with shareholders from inside and
outside the Province, we have a Board of Directors that is comprised of a
significant number of people who are from Newfoundland - the Chairman of the
Board happens to be Mr. Rex Anthony - and we are not seeing any indication at
all from the Board of Directors or the company as a whole or the government that
there is any resolution to what is happening here.
I know the President of the FFAW has stated publicly that he sees such an
enquiry as something that would just kind of, I guess, cloud or muddy the
waters. My response to Mr. McCurdy is: What is the alternative here? Is the
alternative to go on and on and on for more and more months not really knowing
what the future holds? The company has yet to come out and say exactly what it
is they plan on doing. It was the FFAW that actually came out and told the
people of the Province and, of course, their members how they would be impacted
by the actions of FPI. Today we have still not heard from FPI in terms of
whether or not they are closing Fortune. I am told that they have told the FFAW
that Fortune won't reopen. FPI has not come out and said that they will cut
the workforce in Marystown in half. I am told that is what they told the FFAW.
The reality of it is that we have not heard from this company that employs
thousands of people in our Province what their plans are.
Of course, it is all based on hope. A lot of people are hoping that what FPI
told the FFAW, and may have told the government - I don't know. I asked the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the House of Assembly whether or not he
knew that FPI was going to close the plant in Fortune, and his response to me
was, it wasn't his place to tell me or to tell the people of Fortune; that, in
fact, it would be the government's position to tell us that. I do not know if
the government even knows that FPI's plans are, which is a sad reflection on
the government if that is, in fact, the case, when you again consider the number
of people who are employed in this Province by FPI. Where do we stand? We really
do not know.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture refers to the shifting sands. We
have heard the union refer to the shifting sands. We have heard the Member for
Burin-Placentia West refer to the shifting sands. Well, it is about time
somebody found some firm ground somewhere, and found out and told the people who
are being impacted what is happening. You have to be tired of these so-called
shifting sands. Somebody has to stand up and be counted here.
This is a company that was created by the people of this Province, taxpayers'
dollars. Federal and provincial governments created this company for the people
and by the people. Today, we seem to have no say whatsoever in what transpires
here. Who is involved? Who is making these decisions?
When I think about the Board of Directors of FPI, and realize the number of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who actually sit on that board, I have to
question where their allegiances are, their loyalties are. I know companies want
to make a profit, and there is nothing wrong with making a profit. In my books,
profit is not a dirty word, but you do not do it at the expense of the very
people who helped to create the company, and the very people who made it
possible for the company to do so well since its existence. That is what is
happening here. I sincerely believe that is what is happening here.
FPI, the shareholders of FPI, are not satisfied with the amount of profit
that they are making, and I sincerely believe that is the bottom line.
Somewhere, we have lost sight of the rationale behind the creation of FPI. We
have lost sight of the spirit and the intent of the legislation, the FPI Act
that the government has the authority to do whatever it wants with because it is
an act of the Legislature. The government can take this piece of legislation and
strengthen it so that we do not have FPI riding roughshod over the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, but somehow, for whatever reason, we have not been
able to get this government to do anything to strengthen that, or even to
acknowledge that it needs to be strengthened. So, today we have thousands of
people not knowing where to turn, really do not know what the future holds,
trying to provide for their families, having to move away.
I listened to a gentleman this morning from Rock Harbour, on the Burin
Peninsula, and it is a sad tale that he tells. He talks about the number of
people in Rock Harbour - and I think he said it was seventeen or eighteen - who,
when the plant is in operation, work at the plant in Marystown. It is a small
community of about sixty people. Now, that will tell you how important that fish
plant is to the very survival of that community.
That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the very
survival of communities, the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't
forget that just because the fish plants are located in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, don't think that does not mean that it does not have an impact on
the Avalon Peninsula.
People throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador have to travel to St. John's
in particular for any number of public services. So, the money that they make
while they are working in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is in
Fortune or Marystown or Burin, the money that they make, they spend some of that
on the Avalon Peninsula, particularly if they are looking to buy vehicles, in
some cases, if they are not buying them on the Burin Peninsula.
The fact of the matter is that the wealth that is generated in rural
communities is shared very much with our urban centres, and somehow I think we
tend to lose sight of that. We talk about the survival of communities, and that
is so important to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let's look at the principals who are involved here. Again, I go back to the
board of directors. Let's look at one name that keeps coming up, and that is
Mr. John Risley. Interestingly enough, I have a copy of a Letter to the Editor
that Mr. Risley wrote, and it said: Don't write off rural Canada. This was in
the Globe and Mail. I think it was in the Globe and Mail ; maybe it
was in The Telegram. He went on to say, "Through various business
interests, I employ thousands of people in small communities in Atlantic Canada.
It's my experience that the vast majority desperately want quality, year-round
jobs, which they know are the key to retaining the next generation - key to the
very survival of their communities."
He goes on to talk about the importance of rural Canada, and I read that as
well, I would like to think, as the importance of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. Well, Mr. Risley is in a position to help ensure the very survival of
rural communities, but what is he doing? He now has brought in Mr. George
Armoyan to work with him - and, by the way, this is not a new partnership. You
need to know that Mr. Armoyan has a history with Mr. Risley, and it would be
interesting to do some background research on what these two gentlemen have
accomplished whenever they put their heads together. I think it is important for
anyone who is the least bit curious about what is happening here now with Mr.
Armoyan and the U.S. arm of Fishery Products International, Ocean Cuisine, what
is happening there. Anyone who is the least bit curious should really look into
that and I think you will get your answers pretty readily, and that is what is
so scary for those of us who are concerned about FPI and about what the future
holds for the employees of FPI.
Interestingly enough, when we talk about Mr. Risley - and this is a piece in
Atlantic Canada: From the top down. It is a story about FPI, in fact. I go back
to my point about: Why is it that FPI is doing what it is doing? They talk about
the labour being cheaper in China. They talk about the increase in the Canadian
dollar. I still think, if you were to look at other companies that are doing
similar things and having to face the same challenges but are still surviving,
then it goes back to: How much wealth is enough for the shareholders of FPI?
Here is a quote by Mr. Risley. He said this - I guess it was reflecting on
the takeover of FPI and Mr. Young's role and why it was important to do what
they did. He said, "In my opinion, Mr. Young deliberately ignored the
stated wishes of his shareholders." This is what John Risley thought of
what Vic Young did when Vic Young was heading up FPI; when Vic Young ensured
that there were employment opportunities throughout rural Newfoundland and
Labrador for the very people who made it possible for FPI to exist. So doesn't
this tell you something about Mr. Risley's agenda? Doesn't this tell you
where Mr. Risley has his priorities?
While he talks in glowing terms about the importance of rural Canada, he
turns around and out of the other side of his mouth says, "In my opinion,
Mr Young deliberately ignored the stated wishes of his shareholders." So
much for all of the stakeholders, so much for the people in Fortune and Lamaline
and Point au Gaul and Point May and Grand Bank and Garnish and Frenchman's
Cove and Marystown and Rock Harbour, and you name it. So much for the people of
Harbour Breton who know only too well that they have no future when it comes to
FPI. Believe it or not, the people who depend on the fish plant in Fortune are
still hoping that FPI will have second thoughts; that they will realize that the
all-mighty dollar for their shareholder is not what this should be all about;
that in fact they should look at the wealth they are generating and while they
may be losing money in one part of the company, the reality is, they are making
money on other parts of the company.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's allotted time has expired.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, leave to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to make some concluding comments?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS FOOTE: Thank you.
So, why wouldn't a company like FPI do what many other companies have done
and continue to do? That is, recognize that you can take the wealth that is
being generated by some components of your operation and subsidize those that
are having a difficult time, at this particular time, so that in the end
everyone wins? That is all I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the government to
acknowledge what the Opposition is saying, that there is an opportunity here to
hold FPI accountable. Regardless of what Mr. McCurdy says, as head of the FFAW,
I know that I speak for my constituents when I say it is time to look into the
operations and management of FPI. Whatever Mr. McCurdy's rationale or
reasoning is for the position he has taken, I do not know, but I represent the
people who work at the fish plant, on the floor, in the fish plant of FPI.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to take
part in this debate today.
While I might not agree with the final conclusion of the resolution, I do think
it is important that the resolution is on the Order Paper today and that we have
an opportunity - all members, however many want to speak or are allowed to speak
under the rules - to debate FPI, what is happening with FPI and what has been
happening to FPI and the communities where they operate for the last several
months now, Mr. Speaker.
I want to begin by making a reference to a comment made by the hon. member
who introduced the resolution. She quoted me as saying that I was not prepared
to outline FPI's plans because it is not appropriate for me to do so and it is
not my job. I believe, if the hon. member would go back in time a little bit, I
said that before the union and FPI sat down at the table to be presented with
the plan that FPI had in mind. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me
correctly, Mr. Speaker, it might have been during Question Period when we came
back in February to do the amendments to the Labour Relations Act for fisheries
matters. At that time that was true. The government had not, at that point in
time, been informed of the results of the internal review. The union had not, at
that point in time, been informed of the results of the internal review. But,
Mr. Speaker, since then we have. The union and the company, with the help of
government, have been at the table. They were at the table for several days, Mr.
Speaker. During the course of that time at the table, FPI put on the table what
their proposals were for the Burin Peninsula, in particular.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have made it abundantly clear in scrums outside
this House, when the House was closed - before it opens, but we just happened to
use the area here for that purpose. I have made it abundantly clear in the media
time after time that FPI have put a set of proposals on the table for the Burin
Peninsula that were not acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Since that time, the FFAW - because the FFAW members knew what the
internal review proposals were. They were at the table. We knew. We were at the
table. But since that time, FFAW have said publicly that these proposals do not
meet with our approval. We are not going to negotiate them. We are walking away,
and that is exactly what they have done. They have informed their members, as
part of that walking away process, what the internal review proposals of FPI
were.
So, it is now public knowledge. There is no need for anybody to say: We do
not know today what FPI had proposed for the Burin Peninsula. We do know. It is
fair to say that keeps changing, but the bottom line of what FPI proposes for
the Burin Peninsula is this. Let me repeat it. They have no plan for Fortune.
They have told the FFAW that at the table. They have told us that they have no
plan for Fortune. To be fair to them, they have gone on to say that we will
co-operate, and whatever, in any way we can to attract somebody to Fortune.
Well, that is helpful. We will work at that. We are working at that as we speak,
Mr. Speaker.
They have said to us and said to the union: In terms of Burin, we are
prepared to move another processing line into Burin, and that would facilitate
some job improvement in the Burin operation. To be debated how much that will
be, it could be seventy, eighty or ninety people, depending on how much product
they reroute from other sources to Burin.
In terms of Marystown, the company has made it clear to the union across the
table and to us, that they propose to close the present plant in Marystown. By
doing that, they say they would save significantly in overhead costs, and we do
not dispute that. The plant in Marystown is a large plant - I don't think the
union disputes that - that would be a cost-saving measure if they closed that
larger operation that is much larger than they require to process their present
quotas. The proposal would be to move the Marystown operation into the protein
plant next door, that was built a number of years ago and is not being used.
That is a smaller plant. It would reduce the overheads and therefore make a
contribution toward reducing the losses; in other words, improving the bottom
line. As part of that, they say they would make an investment of $3 million or
$4 million, I believe. It would require an investment of $3 million or $4
million into additional equipment for that plant in Marystown.
The employment situation in Marystown would be as follows, keeping in mind
now, Mr. Speaker, that the total employment situation in Marystown when they
last operated on two shifts was around 600 people in rough figures. It could
escalate one way or the other, but it was approximately 600 people. The
proposal, if it were to go forward, would be a three shift operation with 115
people per shift for fifteen weeks or sixteen weeks, I believe. In other words,
you would go from a fairly substantial operation to less than half and you would
have your seasonality increased. That is the bottom line.
A large part of this, Mr. Speaker, is, FPI expects that the Government of
Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will enter into a worker
adjustment arrangement. That is a large piece of what they are planning here,
because the employment impacts are significant on the Burin Peninsula anyway,
but if you do not have an older worker adjustment program to take out people,
say, between fifty-five and sixty-four then the employment impacts become
significantly more problematic. So we have said to FPI and to the union, yes, we
are prepared, as a government, to put a proposal in front of the Government of
Canada for consideration of a worker adjustment program.
Mr. Speaker, we have done that. We have now put in front of our regional
adjustment program for the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. REID: It is time for you.
MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says it
is time for us. Mr. Speaker, it does take time. We want to consult with people
who are involved in this. We want to put together a package that perhaps has
some opportunity to fly. It is not just a power point presentation. We already
met with our regional minister twice on this matter, but now we have developed
the details and the mechanics, and doing it properly, hopefully, for something
that has an opportunity to fly. That is what we are interested in, not a
short-term fix but something that has some opportunity to fly. We have done that
and we will pursue that vigorously. We will pursue it without delay with our
able to convince them to buy into this; because, if we can, then it will go a
long way, not to solving the problem but to lessening the size of the problem
that people on the Burin Peninsula face.
Mr. Speaker, there are other things that FPI should be aware of. Oh, there is
one other thing on terms of their proposal. I have said this publicly. This is
no secret, Mr. Speaker. This has not been kept under wraps. FPI proposes that
they be either allowed to ship out of this Province unprocessed or sell to some
other buyer in the Province, if one can be found, two-thirds of their quota in
yellowtail flounder. In other words, they are proposing only to process in
Marystown the larger size fish. When the fish are caught, of course, they are
graded at sea, as people know, and by the time they get to the plant and they
are landed you have the small, the medium and the large. They are proposing, as
part of this review, that they would ship out or sell to somebody else, if
somebody else wanted it, two-thirds of their quota.
Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear. I do not know how much clearer
I can be. I do not know if I need to go out and take out full-page ads or if I
need to buy ads on television to get somebody in FPI to listen to us, because we
have told them to their face at the table, we have told them to their face: Go
pound rocks. This is not an option. It is not on.
MR. REID: Is the federal minister going to back you up on that?
MR. RIDEOUT: The federal minister, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition knows, has already commented very strongly on this in public when he
said that, if a company that has a right to catch fish in Canadian waters are
not landing it at least in Canada - it should be landed in the province where it
is adjacent to, but at least in Canada - then they should not expect the right
to continue to harvest that fish.
That has been said by the federal minister, Mr. Speaker, and we are very
appreciative of and supportive of that kind of an approach, and we encourage our
federal colleague. It may be a very good thing for Newfoundland and Labrador - I
am sure it is - that he is in the position that he is in at this point in time.
We encourage him to stick to that, not only for FPI but any company that has
quotas, has public property resource or access to public property resource. It
is good public policy, Sir, and we support you on it.
Now FPI should be aware, Mr. Speaker - I am sure Mr. Risley was, I am sure
Mr. Armoyan was, and I am sure other shareholders in FPI were aware - that when
they invested their money in FPI they were not just investing in any private
sector company in Canada. They were investing in a company that was
significantly different than any private sector company in Canada. They were
investing in a company that had legislative restrictions built around it, so
they can't cry wolf and say we didn't know what we were getting into; you
changed the water on the beans on us after we invested our money. They cannot do
that, Mr. Speaker. This act, in some form or another, has been around since the
1980s. It has been amended a couple of times since, to tighten it in certain
areas, but the 15 per cent share restriction was there from the very first act
that this Legislature passed. The privative clause was added last time, I
believe.
MR. REID: You took it out, or tried to, in June.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I took it out, or tried to, in June.
Mr. Speaker, this House voted on a package that had been negotiated with FPI.
Members on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker - at least one I know of - voted for
it. I tried to take it out. The House decided to take it out, if we were going
to do it, Mr. Speaker - this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: This House decided, not I! As a matter of fact, I was not
even Minister of Fisheries at the time, Mr. Speaker.
Let the word go forth to FPI today, if they are listening - or maybe I have
to take out ads, as I said - that we are prepared to amend the act again. If
that means tightening up this all, or substantially all, we will do it, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, although FPI, with their last CEO and the
present board of directors, decided that selling 40 per cent put them in the
all, or substantially all, category because they came to this House and asked us
to amend it - but we can tighten that further, Mr. Speaker. We can make it none.
We can make it 10 per cent. We can make it 20 per cent, but let the word go
forth that we are prepared to tighten all, or substantially all, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: This House is open, and let the word go forth that we can do
it quickly, Mr. Speaker, and that we shall do it quickly if we see any evidence
of stripping this company, any assets of this company. So, be aware!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: We could also, Mr. Speaker, enact legislation to direct the
company to cross-subsidize. Do you want us to do that, FPI? Do you want us to
bring in legislation to force cross-subsidization? This House has the authority
to do it, and this government, Mr. Speaker, has the determination to do it if
necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: I want to, on behalf of the Premier and this government,
simply say this: FPI, you are welcome in our Province to do business but you
have a public responsibility, a legislative responsibility. We will ensure that
you do it according to that legislation and we will amend the legislation to
make sure you do, if necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: So, Mr. Speaker, we see no need for a public inquiry. The
union sees no need for a public inquiry. A public inquiry will only delay
things. We are not interested in delaying. We are interested in action, and I am
going to ask my colleagues on this side of the House to once again stand and
vote down this resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister said earlier, it is a good opportunity for people to debate a
resolution, even though he has already indicated they are not going to support
it. But it is a good opportunity to talk about FPI.
Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I would like to look at the company that was
before the present board of directors and where it is now and the reason why it
happened. And, as a result of that, I do not know what type of an inquiry it
would be, probably a public, or would it be a standing committee of the House or
whatever, but there needs to be some investigation into the company for the way
that they have managed.
Let's look before the present board of directors, Mr. Speaker. You had a
plant in Harbour Breton that was operating with 350 people, twenty-odd weeks of
the year. You had a plant that was operating in Fortune for so many weeks of the
year, twenty-plus weeks of the year. You had a plant that was, probably, working
close to full time in Marystown for 650 people and 350 in Fortune. That is the
scenario that you have. Sure, things have changed. The Canadian dollar has
increased and there is probably competition from China and so on, but there is
more than that. There is more than that.
I remember when the Minister of Transportation and Works was in Harbour
Breton when they did their circuit, when John Crosbie was there and many of the
others, when the new board of directors came. I remember, I was there. I saw the
situation that the people in Harbour Breton feared, and do you know what, have
become a reality. That is a situation that they inherited. They inherited a
company where its debt was manageable, $72 million. They inherited a company
where the shares were approximately $12 per share and over two short years, what
has happened? We have seen that board of directors and the CEO who was there,
Mr. Rowe, gut the company. They gut the company. They went from a debt that was
manageable for $72 million to more than $300 million. The cast adrift the people
of Harbour Breton.
I said in the House, and I could go back and find Hansard where I said I knew
they did it on purpose, because two years before that, when we were government,
they decided to lay off a number of people in Marystown, Fortune and in Harbour
Breton. The people came together and said you are not going to do it, and we
told them no. I said to our people: they will be back, but they will have a
different tack. They had a different tack all right. They brought in a new
communications person from Ottawa and worked with the company, and lo and
behold, what did they do? They divided and conquered us. That is what their aim
was.
So, in that sense, here is the situation - and what happened? Where did the
$300 million come from, the debt? What did they do? They did not spend it on the
plant in Harbour Breton. They did not spend it on the plant in Fortune and they
did not spend it on the plant in Marystown. I tell you what they did. They went
and bought the factory-freezer trawlers. That is what they did with it. They
took the jobs out of Harbour Breton. They took them out of Fortune and out of
Marystown and they put them on the factory-freezer trawlers and took the fish
that should be ours to be processed and sent it abroad to do. That is what they
did. They had no social conscience for the people in this particular Province,
none whatsoever. They led up adrift and they did not care.
So, here is the state of the situation. In a matter of a couple of years they
took a company that was profitable, a company that was employing thousands of
people to the desperation they are in today. Why are they doing what they are
doing in Fortune? Why did they close Fortune? Why are they only hiring 115 jobs,
so to speak, into Marystown that is cost shared? One hundred and fifteen, eight
hour shift, that would employ 350 people. Do you know why they are doing it? Why
are they coming to the government looking for all the ins and outs and looking
to find ways out of the debt that they are in?
It was not the people in this Province who did it. It was the shareholders
who did it. People like John Risley, and now more recently Armoyan, and the
Sanford group in New Zealand. The question is out there in the minds of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Regardless of what side of the House you sit
on, there are questions. People in the community question it. They ask: What has
happened to the company? How much control does Risley have, as he pitted the FPI
against the Clearwater? Where is Armoyan in all of this? The fact that Armoyan
and Risley can get about 30 per cent of all the shares in FPI, is there
collusion? I don't know. I don't think anybody in the House would know, but
there needs to be some particular way of finding out, because I am telling you
what it has done. It has caused the people in the town that I represent, Harbour
Breton, agony, and the people today do not know where they stand. There are
people leaving to work on the crab plant in New Brunswick, they are gone to Fort
McMurray, they are proposing to work on plants in P.E. I. They do not know, they
are in limbo. That is the problem that you have in the community. I said some
time before, if you go to the community of Harbour Breton and you look at the
houses, nothing has changed. If you open the door and go in, you will see that
it has changed. I am telling you, there is a lot of difference when you work at
the plant than it is making make-work projects do; a big difference. It is not
the same level. People who worked in the plant were getting $17 a hour versus
$8.50 on a make-work project, $34 versus $17. The same? No different? I guess it
is a bit different. There is also a difference in the security of people not
knowing where they are.
It also said, I think it was, that the President of the FFAW does not see a
need for an inquiry. What does that mean to the people of Harbour Breton? Earle
McCurdy still has a pay cheque. I remember when he went down to Harbour Breton,
and I said it to the people who were there and I will say it until the day that
I die, we never got the support from the FFAW, from Earle McCurdy and his
people, that we should have gotten for Harbour Breton. We were cut adrift. He
did not support us, I can tell you that right now. You ask the people of Harbour
Breton and they will concur with you. It really makes me angry.
Last year, when we were here voting on the Income Trust, we had people from
the FFAW Executive meeting members of the House of Assembly in the elevator and
saying: Harbour Breton is gone, vote for the Income Trust. Two is better than
three. That is what happened. Now he is telling us we do not need an inquiry to
see what is wrong with FPI. There are a lot of unanswered questions. If there is
not an inquiry there will still be lingering doubts in people's minds, and
regardless of where we sit across the House, whether we are government,
Opposition or whatever the case might be, we have a mind and we think, and there
is not one person in this House who has not, at some time or another, thought
about FPI and that particular situation. Have they done what is right? What is
wrong here? Could it have been done differently? What is the situation?
Remember, it is a company that we are all proud off. FPI was a flagship. When
they did the restructuring years back, how many dollars from the taxpayers of
Canada and of Newfoundland went into that? Hundreds of millions of dollars. As
the minister said earlier when he was speaking, FPI is not like the ordinary
company, like Barry's or Quinlans or whatever, it is a different company. They
are somewhat controlled by the Legislature, by the legislation that is here. I
think that we should make it stronger and I would support the government if they
did that. There is no way that we can allow that company to do what they have
done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, it is not political,
it is people's lives that you are dealing with.
I am convinced in what I am saying here, the fact that probably FPI will
never have a fifty-two week operation in Harbour Breton, in Marystown or in
Fortune. Do you know what? There are seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada.
There are seasonal industries in New Brunswick, there are seasonal industries in
Prince Edward Island, and there are seasonal industries in Nova Scotia. Do not
tell me that the people of Harbour Breton would not be satisfied with twenty or
twenty-five weeks of work in their plant in Harbour Breton. I know they would
and FPI could find a way to do it. What has happened is they have taken the
company, the management of the company, and they have caused a problem for all
of us who represent the rural parts of the Province. It is not just the people
of Harbour Breton, it is the people who work in the communities from all around.
It is the whole region. It is the same thing with the people on the Burin
Peninsula. I am sure the Member for Bonavista South has his doubts about their
commitment for Bonavista. I am sure that the people sitting on both sides of the
House are worried about what they would do in Triton, or what they would do in
Port aux Choix. Where is the company?
Remember last year with the Income Trust, they were going to sell off the
marketing arm, they were going to sell it for $100 million. Sure, the company
was not worth $100 million altogether. They were going to sell 25 per cent of
it, they said, for $100 million. People have the ability to think and people
know what they were saying was wrong. I will bet you, what they are up to now is
to find a way to deviate and to really do more damage to the company by what
they are doing in the United States, by taking the four divisions, two American
and two Canadian. Who is to say what they will do with the Canadian divisions of
it? I do not know. I am not privy to it. What it does is leaves doubt in your
mind, because they are still doing some things that people, the ordinary people,
the people of this Province who depend on FPI and depend on the fishing industry
- it is bad enough as it is out there, the rural part of this Province. I said
yesterday, I think it was, when I had a chance to speak, but only for a couple
of minutes, there is a big difference today in rural Newfoundland than ten or
fifteen years ago, and we recognize that. There is a difference right across
every province of Canada.
I was listening to the news the other morning, and one of the things that is
happening in China is, people are leaving the rural parts of the countryside and
going to the large cities. Everybody recognizes that. What is happening in our
communities is the fact that, when the people - and I grew up in a community
where there were primarily loggers. They left in the spring and they came back
in the summer to mow the grass. Then went away in the fall and came back late
fall, and went away sometimes in the wintertime as well, but there were a lot of
younger people there and the people could do fishing and do other things
connected to the forestry and logging. That is not there any more. Those choices
are not there. What we have in many of the rural communities today is, there is
no way that these people can earn their living, and what do we find them doing,
like 13,000 of our souls have done last year? They found their way to Alberta
and to other parts of the country.
We have a company here that was a flagship of this Province, one that we were
proud of when we saw the flag flying on O'Leary Avenue, but I can tell you
that this particular present board of directors have destroyed, pretty much,
this company. It is still profitable, I understand that, but what they have done
to the groundfish
section of it, they have completely destroyed it and have
ruined the lives of hundreds of people in this particular Province. That, Mr.
Speaker, to me, deserves some answers that we are not getting. I think the only
way that we could get them is through some type of an inquiry, whether it is a
standing committee of this House or some other group or whatever, but there are
a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of things that have happened that people in
the Province are questioning, and we are questioning, and I think there should
be a way that we could get answers to it. Because, I am telling you, FPI, if
they are given the opportunity to do what they want to do, we will see many more
things happening to the company that we will not like, but we should be in a
position - if it means strengthening the legislation to prevent them from doing
it, then we should, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot say that it is a pleasure for me to stand here this evening and
speak to this private member's motion but, as has already been said, I think
it is very important and an opportune time that we speak to this entire FPI
issue.
I do not think there is anyone in this House, as a member, who is more
impacted by FPI than I am in my district. I may be corrected on that, but when I
look at how the Burin Peninsula has gone for so many years, and as I thought
about speaking here today, I thought I would try just for a few minutes to put
kind of a human face to this; because, as people have said so many times over
the past number of months, here we have an $800 million company that right now
seems to be striking out at one particular area of that operation, at the
present time that being the Burin Peninsula. If you look at a company of that
size, you almost have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, and say to yourself, there
must be something different that can be done here.
The Member for Grand Bank mentioned the individual who spoke this morning
from Rock Harbour. I can go around and I can speak to you about friends and
relatives who fit into that same situation. Here they have been for the last
three to four months just waiting for answers, and I would ask anybody in this
House if they would put themselves into that situation just for a minute or a
few minutes. Maybe some time before this House closes today, or maybe some time
tonight, just put yourself in that situation.
I will use Marystown as an example. For the past number of years, through an
arrangement worked by the unions and the company, there has been a job sharing.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows anyone who has been involved in
the Marystown operation, they will tell you that there has been uncertainty
there for the last five or six years.
Now, in addition to the last four months or so while they have been waiting
for answers, add to that the last five or six years where there has been
uncertainty. When I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a cloud hanging over
the people on the Burin Peninsula, I cannot say it strong enough as to how this
is impacting the people who live there.
I have heard the president of the local union, Allan Moulton, who has said,
and I have said, and I will repeat it here again now - let's take that
Marystown operation. I will start with one of the communities in the northern
part of my district, that being Brookside. If I move from Brookside I can go on
through to the rest of the communities of Boat Harbour, Bane Harbour, and on
down the Peninsula to Spanish Room, Jean de Baie, into Marystown, and then I can
go to the other side and I can look at Garnish. I can go to Grand Bank, Fortune,
Lawn, St. Lawrence, Burin and right back down to the plant again. Mr. Speaker,
what you have is an operation that not only serves Marystown, but it supports
the entire economy of the Burin Peninsula.
Anyone who is involved in business on the Burin Peninsula will tell you - you
know, if some major projects through ship construction or oil were to come to
the Peninsula tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't complain, I can tell you that,
but the business people on the Peninsula will tell you that, how goes the
fishery and how goes the fish plants so goes the economy. While the plants are
up and running and doing well, the economy will do relatively well.
Mr. Speaker, when I look back at it, the Burin Peninsula has been built on
the fishery. Burin, Grand Bank, these are some of the oldest towns in our
Province. You don't have to go very far, speak to the people in Burin who will
tell you that some number of years ago they put up one hell of a fight to keep
the plant there. What year was that?
AN HON. MEMBER: 1984.
MR. JACKMAN: 1984. They put up one hell of a fight to keep the plant
there. They hung onto it, and I am very pleased to say that through the arm, the
Ocean Cuisine, this has been one of the strengths of the company. Mr. Speaker, I
think if you look at it, that plant has operated for forty-forty-five weeks a
year. The incomes that the people are receiving there are pretty good incomes.
Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I was thinking in preparation for this that,
that plant has operated so quietly, and I think what it is; sometimes you are
almost afraid to speak out and raise the praises of a facility like that because
there is so much turmoil, like I say, in Marystown with the uncertainly that
hangs over the people there.
Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House on one or two occasions, and I will
repeat it now, we moved, my family, my ten brothers and sisters and my mother
and father, to Marystown in October of 1968. The reason we moved there was
because of the fish plant. My father went to work there and so did so many of
the other people from my community who resettled there. It was a time when you
saw, I guess you could say that it was progress, because, as a young fella, you
know, sixteen years of age, I could go to that plant in Marystown on a Saturday.
You would stand by the door, you would get your call to go to work and you
worked there on your weekends. You worked there through your summers.
Mr. Speaker, on the protest line that was out on O'Leary Avenue the other
day, I saw people there who started their career that they had in the fish
plant. They started there back in the 1970s and they stuck it out through there.
Mr. Speaker, this company itself has spoken about the workforce that they
have. They have spoken about the workforce in Burin. They have spoken about the
workforce that they have in Marystown. The groundfish sector of it, the company
has said that the production levels and the yield that it has gotten from these
workers is second to none. So, we are looking at an $800 million company who
said that their workers have given of their utmost time, their utmost efforts,
their energy and I do not think it is unreasonable to say to a company: amongst
your $800 million, it is time that you give back. I do not think there is
anybody on the Burin Peninsula who would not say, up to a few years ago, that
FPI was not a good corporate citizen. I think most people would say to you that
they were. They supported activities in towns. They supported workers in all
types of initiatives, from safety and so on and so forth, and I do not think
that anyone would have too many bad words to say to them.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize here right now, amidst all
of this turmoil, that the people who are employed in these places and the union
leadership and the workers are willing to co-operate with this company at this
point. But, I guess what it comes to, is that we are at a point in the road now
where we have to make some decisions. I guess, as a government - I don't
guess, I know, that we, as a government, are willing to take some strong stands
here.
The minister talked about cross-subsidization here and we have, under the FPI
Act - and we have the power to come within this Legislature to strengthen the
FPI Act, and FPI needs to understand that we will do that if we have to.
Mr. Speaker, I guess if you look at the resource here, I met with the union
leadership in Marystown on Sunday, and one of the things we talked about was the
resource. That FPI has access to about 28,000,000 pounds of raw material. Here
we are saying that if we are going to be processing groundfish - and let's
just take a look at the Marystown operation - that the best that can be done
here at this point is 115 employees, over three shifts. Now, I would ask anybody
else in this room to just consider that. Just consider what kind of a quality of
life you are going to have when you are working for fifteen weeks and then for
the rest of it you are on EI. One gentleman pointed out to me, it is not even
enough time to qualify for sick benefits.
So, here we are again, we have to question what FPI's commitment is to the
people in this particular community of Marystown and the plant that is there.
Going from 600 workers that were employed there, down to something like this. It
is totally unacceptable. I guess from a perspective of what FPI has to do, here
is what people are asking. We have talked about shifting sand, but really we
have not heard an alternative. FPI has not come back with anything different
from what they said out here. So now is the time for them to step up, to come
back and do some of this.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, we need to reiterate a few points here. As I have
already said, if we need to strengthen the act here, then, as a government, that
is what we are going to have to do.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you do it?
MR. JACKMAN: It is asked across the floor: Why don't we do it? Well, I
tell you why. Probably right at this point, is that we are hoping that FPI is
going to come back with something that will prove to be a bit better than they
have already done.
There is no one out there. There is one thing that came across very clear,
Mr. Speaker, in my meeting with the union leadership on Sunday, is that they
want FPI to be a part of this solution and there is no one in this government
certainly who would want anything different. As I have already said, the fish
plant productions, FPI has been an integral part of the life and the bloodline
of the Burin Peninsula, as long as I have been there, and -
AN HON. MEMBER: 1942.
MR. JACKMAN: Since 1942 the fishery has been there and we want to
continue that. We want to make sure that stays front and center with anything
that is going to happen on the Burin Peninsula. We are just waiting, and we are
encouraging, and we are saying to FPI, come forward with something better than
you have put on the table. No one out there, from anybody in the union
leadership or the workers, are saying anything different. Come forward with
something different and we are willing to work with you on this. But that cloud
hangs there, Mr. Speaker, and we need some answers here.
In terms of the inquiry; again, as already has been stated, the union people
are saying: We don't feel that an inquiry is something that we need at this
point. I, as a representative for the District of Burin-Placentia West, feels
the same way. I can only reiterate what it is that we do want. We want something
different than has been already proposed. They have got to come back with
something different. They can do something different and we hope that they will.
In terms of us, as a government, as I have already said on a couple of
occasions, I will say again, we have the power to strengthen the act and we
certainly do not want to move in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, like the Minister of Fisheries, encourage all members
this evening to vote against this at this particular time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak to this private member's motion made by colleague, the
Member for Grand Bank. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I could probably speak for
three days and I get fifteen minutes.
We did ask for an emergency debate here last week but the government did not
think that it was important enough to do so. We did not get that debate, and
that is the reason we are calling for an independent inquiry into the operations
of FPI. The reason we are doing that, Mr. Speaker, is we have been now, for days
and weeks, asking questions, both publicly and in the House of Assembly,
pertaining to the operation of FPI. We cannot get answers from FPI and the Board
of Directors of FPI. We have not been able to get satisfactory answers from the
government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would go so far as to say that the
government does not have the answers. If you listened to the Minister of
Fisheries over the last few days, you will know why, because he has asked
questions, he has not heard the answers. I will get into that later, but, Mr.
Speaker, before I do, I just want to give a brief history of FPI and what has
happened to it in the last four or five years, especially the current board of
directors that exist and the operation that is over on O'Leary Avenue.
Back in 2000, John Risley, who owns Clearwater fisheries in Nova Scotia, came
forward and asked the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, would he change the
legislation in the House of Assembly to allow him to buy FPI outright. At the
time, we had some debate in caucus and there was a great debate in the Province.
We said no. As a government we said: No, we will not change the legislation to
allow you to purchase FPI. In the legislation there is a clause that says: No
one individual or any group of individuals combined can buy any more than 15 per
cent of the shares in FPI. John Risley owned 15 per cent at the time. He could
not buy any more than 15 per cent of that company. We said, we are not changing
the legislation, so he took his money and he went back to Nova Scotia. Bill
Barry, the great friend of the Premier's, the passionate Newfoundlander, was
involved with John Risley at the time. They wanted to buy FPI. We said no. He
went back to Nova Scotia, but he was not finished with FPI.
In 2001, a year later, he came back and what he did is, he convinced the
shareholders of FPI, those who hold shares in that company from all around the
world, to support him in throwing Vic Young out as the Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board of FPI. Then he established himself and his own Board
of Directors to head up that company. Now, they made all kinds of promises and
commitments to the people of the Province about growing the company, employing
more people not fewer people, and going to give the investors in the company
more return for the shares that they have and the dollars that they have
invested in the company. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what has happened to those
commitments.
I have to say one thing, while we were in government we held FPI to their
commitments about employing people in this Province and keeping their plants
open, because not one plant closed under FPI flag when we were in government. We
told them: We are holding you to your commitments. You make promises, you keep
them, you do not lie. They did not lay off people. In fact, I would say to the
Speaker up there or the Chair who is sitting in the Chair up there today, he was
on the committee that we struck, an All-Party Committee of the House of
Assembly, that went around the Province and, at the end of the day, FPI laid
nobody off.
Now what do we see happening with FPI? Just last year they came in and made
the announcement that they were laying off 350 people in the Town of Harbour
Breton and they were closing that plant, going to devastate the community. All
we heard from the previous Minister of Fisheries, the man who is now the
Minister of Transportation and Works, was: Well, boy, you know the Canadian
dollar is high. That is not doing much for us in the United States, boy. That is
going to make it difficult to sell groundfish down there this year. We have
stiff competition from China. We cannot compete with the cost of labour in
China. He had all the reasons in the world why FPI had to close the plant in
Harbour Breton; all the reasons in the world. In fact, from time to time I used
to look at him when he was out in front of a camera and I wondered if he was a
Minister of the Crown or an employee of FPI. That was what I used to wonder,
because he was giving all the excuses that FPI Board of Directors were giving
for closing Harbour Breton.
What happened? The union went down and they kicked up the big racket. They
went down to Harbour Breton and they kicked up the big racket. They said, this
is not going to happen, then they all went home. Well today, some sixteen months
later, what is happening in Harbour Breton? Nothing, the plant is still idle.
There are talks that someone might come in if they can get this, that or
something else, but nothing has happened expect that a lot of them have left and
gone to Alberta to work and the rest of them are on make-work programs getting
$6, $7 and $8 an hour and on unemployment. That is their future. That is what
the last sixteen months entail for these people. Where is their future?
Now this year, just before Christmas, FPI comes in and tells the government:
Well, we might have to do some further restructuring. We might have to go down
now and have a look at our groundfish operations on the Burin Peninsula. What
did they do? We went out before Christmas and said, the rumors that we are
hearing on the street and the people we are talking to in the industry, the
contacts that we have in the industry - and, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved
in the Department of Fisheries one way or the other for the last sixteen years,
so I do know some people involved in it. They were telling me long before
Christmas that FPI was closing its groundfish operations on the Burin Peninsula
and that their boats were not going to be sailing any more to the fishing
grounds; just before Christmas.
When I went on the open line show one morning, at the request of the host,
and said this, I heard comments from the current minister of Fisheries that day:
All Gerry Reid is doing is fearmongering. FPI has not made their decision. It is
only routine procedure that the factory freezer trawlers and their trawlers come
in at Christmas and that the crew go home, but they are going back to work in
January. Well, where are they today? We are going to be into the 1 st
of April Saturday and these people still have not gone back on the water, these
people still have not gone to work in the plants on the Burin Peninsula. We have
a whole host of questions that we have not had answered by the government, by
FPI or anyone else, and that is the reason we are calling for a public inquiry.
Let me just give you some of the concerns that I have with FPI. We have John
Risley who is one of the chief competitors of FPI with his operation in Nova
Scotia. This individual himself owns 15 per cent of the shares of FPI, he sits
on the Board of Directors, the chief competitor, Nova Scotia. Just recently they
bring in this individual called Mr. George Armoyan. Now, who is he? I did not
know who he was. I got a little bio of him there a little while ago. His first
job was manager of a boxer. That is who he was, manager of a boxer, but he quit
that. Do you know why? He did not like people fighting and he could not stand
the sight of blood. This is who this individual is. He does own Clark trucking,
a big outfit that is based in Ontario. It is traded on the Toronto stock
exchange as far as I know. He is a multi-millionaire just like Mr. Risley
himself.
Now what interest, I say to the Member for Topsail, would an individual like
George Armoyan have in FPI, Fishery Products International, a company whose
shares were worth $12 three years ago and are now trading for $5 or $5.50? Why
would an individual like George Armoyan, an ex-boxer, an owner of a trucking
company, and on the Board of Directors of a whole host of companies with John
Risley - the two of them sit on a whole host of companies that are publicly
traded in this country - what interest would he have in FPI? What interest? When
you have a share price dropping from $12 to $5 or $6, you have all kinds of
problems in the fishing industry, stocks are depleting, competition from China,
a rising Canadian dollar which is going to kick the you-know-what out of us in
the market in the United States this year, why is he there? That is the question
I want answered. Why is he there, a multimillionaire buying shares in FPI.
Now all of a sudden, yesterday we find out that this individual, not only is
he on the Board of Directors of FPI but he is going to be the Director, the
Chief Operator, for the American division of FPI in the United States. The first
thing he says he is going to do is he is going to divide the American division,
the most profitable division of FPI, he is going to divide it into four parts:
the Canadian marketing division; the Canadian processing division; the American
marketing division and the American processing division. Well, I say to the
minister and I say to all those opposite, the Canadian manufacturing division of
Ocean Cuisine is the Burin secondary plant. There is another secondary plant in
Danvers, Massachusetts. He is splitting all of these up, just like the current
Board of Directors did with the company two years ago when they said: We are
going to have three divisions of FPI. Rather than operate it as one company like
Vic Young did, we are going to have three divisions and they have to sink or
swim on their own.
We are going to have the American division, which is very profitable, very
lucrative. They are selling and buying fish from all over the world. That is
going to be down there separate; nothing to do with this crowd up there in
Newfoundland, nothing to do with them. We make money down here, we keep it down
here.
You have the groundfish division. That is what we are talking about today,
the groundfish division. That takes in all of the plants on the Burin Peninsula
and the trawlers that are offshore, and Harbour Breton which they pretend they
do not have anything to do with anymore.
Then we have the shellfish division. We have a crab plant in Bonavista, a
shrimp plant in Port Union, a crab plant in Triton, and another shrimp plant up
in Port aux Choix. On top of that, the federal government has given them 8,000
tons of shrimp, that even if they left in the water and passed the licence over
to someone else they can make $8 million on this year. Very lucrative! I say, if
you are going to make money in the fishery in this Province today you are going
to make it on crab and shrimp. That is very lucrative. So, you are going to have
that separated from groundfish on the Burin Peninsula. What they are saying is,
these divisions have to sink or swim on their own.
Now they are going to appoint Mr. Armoyan to head up the American division,
divide that into four parts and say all four parts have to sink or swim on their
own. Why is he in there? What is he doing there? That is a question I would like
answered. Why is an individual who owns millions of dollars be concerned about
FPI when the share price is dropping? If you listen to the people in the
industry, the fishery is a disaster; you are not going to make any money in it.
Why is he involved?
Then you have to go back to his connection with Mr. Risley. Both of them are
friends and business associates. There is a clause in the FPI legislation that
is here on this floor that says no individual or group of individuals can own
any more than 15 per cent. Well, today, John Risley owns 15 per cent and George
Armoyan owns close to 15 per cent. Right? It is against the legislation in this
House for one of them to own it, but it is also against the legislation of this
House where it says no one individual or group of individuals who are colluding
can own it. What is happening here? We do not know.
That is the kind of question I would like answered. That is the kind of
question that the minister can answer. In fact, they appointed George Armoyan to
the board and guess what? He didn't even know about it. They told him about it
yesterday. The minister, by his own admission, came out last week and said FPI
was shipping fish to China for processing, which breaks every rule and
regulation in this Province. Guess what? He didn't know it! He did not know
it! His department was supposed to give FPI the permission. He says they did not
give their permission. He did not know it.
We have Mr. Armoyan taking over the most valued division of the U.S. and he
did not know it. We have FPI shipping fish to China, and he did not know it.
They are breaking the law; he just discovered that last week. Then he says
yesterday, in answer to a question, he did not really know what FPI was doing
because the sands keep shifting daily. You wonder why we want a public inquiry
as to what this company is doing.
The minister stood today and said: We don't need a public inquiry; we can
tighten the legislation in the House of Assembly. He said, number one, we can
tighten the legislation so that no individual, or group of individuals, can own
any more than 15 per cent of the company. Bring it back here! Bring it back here
and let the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador decide who owns the 15 per
cent, and if they are acting in collusion.
Number two, he says, we can change the FPI Act so that the American division,
or any division in FPI, can cross-subsidize the other division. Well, right now,
the American division that rests in Danvers, Massachusetts, is not doing
anything to help the people on the Burin Peninsula.
I say to the minister, if he wants to bring the legislation before the House
of Assembly right now, or 12:00 o'clock tonight, before the floor of this
House of Assembly, and wants me to vote on that, I will vote for it right here
and now. I beg him to bring it forward so that FPI can't run it as three
separate divisions, close one down and sweep them under the table.
Mr. Speaker, he says we can do all of that with legislation, but I have to
ask him: Why is he waiting? Why is he waiting? Why did he wait for Harbour
Breton to close and 350 people lose their jobs? Why is he waiting while Fortune
- by his own admission today, there is nothing in the cards for Fortune,
according to FPI's plan. Nothing in the cards for them, they are closed, they
are gone! They no longer exist in FPI's frame of mind. I ask the minister: Why
is he waiting to change this legislation?
Now we hear that FPI is going to lay off 300 or 350 people in Marystown, in
that operation, and employ the other 300 for fifteen weeks. Why are we waiting,
I say to the minister? He talks about: We will use the legislation; we will
change the legislation.
I say to the minister, bring it forward today while FPI is still debating, as
you said by your own admission, what they are going to do with the people on the
Burin Peninsula, what they are going to do with the people in Fortune and every
other community on the Burin Peninsula. Why are you waiting? Put the legislation
before the floor. Why are you denying the public, and especially those who work
for FPI in the Province, the right to know the answers to the question that we
have been posing on their behalf? Because every single day I get phone calls
from the Burin Peninsula, from towns like Marystown, saying: Mr. Reid, why are
they doing this? Why are they doing that? Why isn't the government acting? My
answer to them is: I cannot get the answers.
Now, I never heard any sufficient answer today from either the Minister of
Fisheries or the member who represents the Town of Marystown in the House of
Assembly as to why they are so opposed to a public inquiry into the workings of
FPI. All I hear from the Minister of Fisheries is: We can change the
legislation.
Sure, we all know you can change the legislation. We wrote the legislation,
and any piece of legislation in this House can be changed any day in the week,
any time of the day. All you have to do is open the House and say we are going
to do it, and if there is enough of us who vote for it then we will change it.
So, why are you waiting to hold a public inquiry?
My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, mentioned the Chair of the FFAW
saying it is a waste of time, basically; it will only muddy the water. Muddy the
water, when you have 1,000 people on the Burin Peninsula today who are not
working at plants belonging to FPI, and another 350 over in the Town of Fortune
who have already been cast off like they were dirt by FPI in Harbour Breton. We
have four other plants in this Province who are run by FPI, who know nothing of
their future - know nothing of their future - and yet you deny a public inquiry.
I think, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to FPI is what I said here
today: By the time this government acts, that company will be dismantled and
stripped. The barn door is thrown wide open right now and one of these days we
will close it, but guess what? We will close that door but there will be no one
left, or nothing left in the barn to keep from getting out. That is my fear of
what is happening with this Board of Directors of FPI and what they are doing to
the people of this Province.
When the minister today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: A minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I say to the hon. member that, according to our Standing Order 63, each
member taking
part in debate on Private Members' Day is allotted fifteen
minutes. I say to the member that his time has lapsed.
MR. REID: No leave?
MR. SPEAKER: It is up to members of the House, I say to the member.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the people of this
Province, and especially those who work for FPI, have a right to know why and
what that company is doing, because we govern that company. Unlike any other
company in this Province, we govern that with a piece of legislation that is on
that desk right there. We can change it.
When the current Minister of Fisheries was Minister of Fisheries back in the
1980s, I don't know if you brought in the original, Minister? Did you bring in
the original FPI Act? You certainly did amend it in 1987, I believe, when you
were the minister. You know what is in the act. I know what is in the act. Don't
talk about: We could amend the act; we may amend the act. If you are not going
to call a public inquiry into the company, let's amend the act right here and
now. Let's not wait until FPI guts the rest of that company that was
established for the benefit of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador as a
flagship for the fishing industry and, I might add, established by the taxpayers'
money, not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but that of the Canadian people as
well, Mr. Speaker.
I beg the minister to reconsider. Call the public inquiry. Let's get to the
bottom of that. Let's save the future for those who work and live on the Burin
Peninsula, because it is already too late for the people of Harbour Breton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this resolution here today
regarding the suggestion that, by resolution of this House, there be established
an independent inquiry into the operations of FPI.
We are here once again today debating the very important company, Fishery
Products International Limited, which, as members will know, was established in
1983, going back a very long ways in this Province, over twenty-two,
twenty-three years ago, established out of a mess that existed then in the
Newfoundland fishery that required the restructuring of the Newfoundland and
of Newfoundland and Labrador, which put in some $177 million. The Bank of Nova
Scotia, as well, was a participant, Mr. Speaker, as they had substantial debt
that was owed to them by various companies who participated in the
restructuring.
Mr. Speaker, that was the establishment of FPI. If one looks at the committee
- and I believe Your Honour, you were on this committee in 2002, the All-Party
Committee of the House of Assembly which conducted public consultations on the
FPI Act. It clearly sets out the purpose of the act, and the restructuring act
and agreements of 1983 included oversighted provisions with respect to the board
of directors and the operation of the company, as well as restrictions on
significant changes without government approval.
In 1987, there was the privatization act. Now, I should say, Mr. Speaker,
that our party has been on record as opposing that because we were concerned, at
that time, that the kind of thing that we are facing here today was also a
possibility looking back even then.
When the 1987 act was created, there was still the continued intention of
government and an objective in finding a just and lasting solution for the
rebuilding of the fishery, which recognized the fundamental role the industry
played in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here, again, I am quoting from the
All-Party Committee in 2002.
The FPI Act was created to ensure long-term stability in the fishery sector
by consolidating the assets of a number of offshore and inshore linked companies
into one large profitable company that would be modern, competitive and able to
withstand the cyclical nature of the fishery. At that time the 15 per cent
shareholding was put in place and the intention was to give a level of