|
Oral
Questions
April 2, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Abitibi’s
potential topple into bankruptcy will provide no
protection, or very little, under the Wage Earner
Protection Program, I think the minister said yesterday,
and we understand that is something like $3,000 a
person. This is for hundreds of mill works who are due
to receive their severance packages in two weeks, as a
result of the shutdown of the Grand Falls-Windsor
operation. Government has really been taking a hands-off
approach, in my opinion, when it comes to these
severance packages.
I ask you today: Will
you look at using profits from Abitibi’s seized assets
that are now in the hands of government to honour these
severance packages if they happen to fall through the
company’s safeguards?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said here in the
House earlier in the week, we continue to monitor the
activity around Abitibi very closely. We understand the
options that the company has available to it, and we
will see where they go in the next several weeks.
We also clearly
understand the responsibilities that the company has,
and while the company is solvent we expect them to live
up to those responsibilities.
In our talks with
Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, we have clearly put severance for
the loggers on the table as part of those talks. We are
mindful of their obligations to the people of Grand
Falls, and we will continue to keep that in mind as
events unfold.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, these workers have given years and years of
their lives to this company and they are due extreme
amounts of money. I guess what we are asking is: If
there is no other security for these workers in being
able to collect this severance, is government prepared
to use the profits that you now earn from the assets
that you have seized in Grand Falls-Windsor to pay out
those benefits, not just to the mill workers but also to
the loggers?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only reiterate what
I just said. The company still remains solvent, even
though it is in grave difficulty, but in its current
state it has obligations to the former workers of the
mill at Grand Falls-Windsor and we expect them to live
up to those responsibilities.
We are very mindful of
the needs of the people in the Central Region of the
Province. That is why we have severance on the table in
our discussions with Abitibi. It is also why we have, in
our recent Budget, committed to an addictions centre in
that area of the Province, as well as putting our home
heating rebate services there.
Unlike members of the
Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we have great confidence in the
people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister phrases her
answers by talking about the current state of this
company, but we know that this company is on
life-support and may not survive, Minister. We also know
that there is an unfunded pension liability in the
pension fund for Abitibi workers.
I ask the minister today:
Can you tell us what the amount
is of that unfunded liability?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: I
am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely clear on the
question. I could not hear her, in the noise of the
House. If she is asking about the unfunded liability of
the pension plan of AbitibiBowater, we believe that the
fund is 75 per cent funded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If the
company was to go bankrupt, what does this mean for the
pension plan if it is already carrying an unfunded
liability, and will that fund be secured against
creditors?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I want to state is that in this
House I do not like to deal with hypothetical
situations, and certainly I will not deal with
hypothetical situations because the company has not even
applied for bankruptcy protection at this point in time.
Under our own
legislation, which we brought in March 2008, the deficit
in regard to the unfunded liability in regard to
pensions has to be funded over a period of time of five
years. That applies to bankruptcy as well in regard to
that. As you know, if a company goes bankrupt well then
you are lined up with all the other creditors.
Certainly, the deficit then is a non-secured liability,
it is a non-secured credit. We are aware of it, we are
monitoring the situation, but we can’t deal with a
hypothetical situation because they haven’t even filed
for bankruptcy protection at this particular time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the minister might want to refer to this as
hypothetical, but this is the reality: today there is a
company in this Province that has displaced hundreds of
workers who are depending upon receiving a pension from
that company that has an unfunded liability.
Now, if that company is
to go bankrupt - I just want a straight answer - is
the pension fund protected against creditors or is it
not? Could these people foreseeably lose their pension
fund?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr.
Speaker, all pensions around the world at this
particular time are affected by the global downturn.
Certainly, you will find that even our own pensions in
certain areas are suffering in regards to global
markets, and this pension is no different. There pension
is there, it is protected. The pension is separate from
the company itself. It is affected by the markets no
differently than any other pension, and that is what we
have today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, personal
care homes in the Province with greater than fifty beds
are able to avail of Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation insurance on their loans. However, smaller
homes don’t have that same security and, as a result,
they are unable to secure funding from banks right now
for expansions or upgrades.
I ask
the minister and the government, if they are prepared to
lobby the federal government and to ask that there be
exemptions made under the Canadian Housing and Mortgage
program, so that smaller homes across the country also
have that financial security in their operations.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The
issue around CMHC’s lending policies and practices, as
you have clearly indicated, are subject to the rules and
regulations laid down by that corporation. Any
assistance that we, as a Province, can provide any
industry in securing funding from a federal agency we
would be only too glad to assist them with that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that major
changes like this need to start somewhere. I
am asking you, as the minister, if you are prepared to
have it placed on the agenda for the next First
Ministers’ Meeting across the country, and to
highlight this as an issue of policy that needs to be
changed in the country.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, I do not have control of the First Ministers’
agenda, obviously, but I can undertake to pursue it with
the appropriate minister responsible for the
corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you.
Minister, of course that
is not the only thing we know you do not have control
of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, has the government
given any consideration to using our own housing
corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to
secure financing for the small personal care home
operators in the Province, many of whom we know could be
forced out of business if they cannot secure this
assistance?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the primary
mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is to look
after people who are in low-income situations, to assist
them either in securing assistance to upgrade their own
personal homes or to assist them in accessing affordable
housing that might be administered through Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing. We have no mandate in Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing to engage at all in personal care
homes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
With all due respect
minister, we know what the mandate is of Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing today.
We are asking: Have
you ever looked at expanding that mandate to be able to
ensure loans in the Province for small personal care
home operators, like Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation does for larger homes across the country?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr.
Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member, I am not
aware that housing has looked at that, and I have to
say, I doubt that we would go down that road.
Mr. Speaker, we have a
huge amount of infrastructure under the responsibility
of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing right now that is
in the range of thirty to fifty years old; that has, by
and large, been neglected for most of that thirty to
fifty-year period, Mr. Speaker.
Only under the past
couple of budgets, since we have been in power and since
we have been able to get our financial house in order,
have we increased funding in multi-millions of dollars
annually, Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to begin
retrofitting the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
units.
As for abilities of
personal care homes to access financing, Mr. Speaker,
there is a suite of programs in Innovation, Trade and
Rural Development in the form of loans. I know some
personal care homes in the Province have access. It is a
loan and it is there, able to be accessed if the
business case exists, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2006, government did
increase the subsidy they were paying out to personal
care homes but at the same time, they also removed the
night security grant. They then later changed the
staffing requirements that these homes had to meet and
they also had a mandatory increase in the salaries or
the minimum wage in the Province. All of these policies
have caused financial hardship to personal care home
operators, especially small operators in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the minister today, if he is prepared to revisit some of
those policy decisions allocated to personal care home
operators and if he would reinstate the grant for night
security?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Anytime, as government,
anytime we have a role and responsibility to ensure
there is appropriate standards of care being provided
and regulations are in place to protect the residents of
those homes, that is our responsibility I say, Mr.
Speaker. So any standards we have introduced, any new
policy changes that have come in place, have come in
place focused on ensuring that we provide safe quality
care.
Now the member opposite
would have people believe that the personal care home
sector is in dire straits. Let me point out something.
If we look at the personal care home sector in this
Province since we formed government, there has been an
expansion of capacity in that sector by about 1,000
beds. If you look at the number of new homes that have
opened in recent years, I say, Mr. Speaker - in fact, I
am aware today there are two under construction as we
speak.
So, anytime you look at
an industry that expands its capacity by 1,000 beds or
more in about a four-year period and we see new homes
being built all the time, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, these
people make decisions to invest because on a sound
business case -
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude his response.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, we have
created a regulatory regime that is appropriate for that
industry. We have created a regulatory regime that
provides an adequate protection for the residents of
those homes and they are able to survive, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
But, the minister knows
that the expansion of beds is in larger personal care
homes in the Province. He also knows that the policies
are not causing financial hardship for those homes. It
is the smaller homes, the homes that we have seen go out
of business in the last few years.
Mr. Speaker, in this
current Budget the minister also approved a personal
care home subsidy rate of $37 per month per subsidized
client, but if you do the mathematics on what your
government requires in staffing in one of those small
homes, plus the fifty cent increase in minimum wage that
they have to start paying this year, you will find out
that your subsidy does not even cover the minimum
required costs that they will increase by this year.
I ask you minister: If
you were going to give them a subsidy, why not give them
enough to cover off the mandatory policies that you are
putting in place this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, if we had made an adjustment in the personal
care home rates this year, and was the first time we
have ever done it, then yes, that is a reasonable
question, but I think the member needs to put in
perspective the kind of investment we have made in that
sector in recent years.
This is not the first;
this is one of a number of increases we have made. We
made the changes that she referenced earlier around
consolidation of the rate with the former night security
rate, we blended those together and provided an
enhancement in that area, I say, Mr. Speaker.
I think, Mr. Speaker,
since we have been in government, I think there has been
about – I stand to be corrected on this, but since we
have been in government this is probably the third, if
not the fourth increase we have provided in rates for
personal care homes in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I go back to my earlier
comment, Mr. Speaker, obviously, this sector is
flourishing. All we need to do is look at the number of
new homes built and the expansion of capacity in that
sector. So obviously, those owners see it as a viable
business to be in and are comfortable with the
regulatory regime in which they operate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Minister,
you are giving it out in one hand and you are taking it
back in the other, and that is the point. Every time
that you have made an increase you have also changed
policies and requirements that have caused financial
hardship for the small personal care home operators in
rural areas of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, currently
today, under this government, whenever seniors living in
personal care homes receive an increase, either in their
old age security or in their CPP, your government is
clawing back this money. You are the first government to
do that. That practice came in in 2003 when you took
office.
So I ask you today: Will
you stop clawing back the additional benefits that are
being paid to seniors in personal care homes?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite keeps
referencing her question about rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. I just want to point out a couple of things.
If you look at the homes
that have built – all you need to do is look at the
homes that have been built in recent years. There is one
in Port Saunders that has been recently built. There is
a new one open in Botwood, I say, Mr. Speaker. There is
a new one open out in the Springdale area, I say, Mr.
Speaker. There are two homes in my own district that
have exchanged hands in recent years -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: Again,
small homes. So individuals are entering that market,
buying homes that are varying sizes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite speaks like she is representing the
voice of every single personal care home in the
Province, but many of them are doing quite well, many of
them have expanded their business, many of them have
recently opened businesses; and, like any business, some
operate more profitable than others and some are managed
better than others.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. WISEMAN: Our
role as a government is to ensure that there is fair
compensation for those clients we subsidize, and we have
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I don’t believe what I
am hearing the minister say, because he knows the
difference. These people have met with you, Minister,
several times in the last two years. These people
represent an association of sixty members. They operate
small homes across the Province.
My question was: Why
is it, when you put a subsidy out there in your Budget,
like you did the other day, at $37 per person, that then
you go and claw back the very money that they receive as
additional benefits on their Old Age Security and CPP?
You are the first government to do that, and I ask that
you stop the practice. Will you give that consideration?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have said
many times in this House, we are always considering how
we might improve our health system. Every year in our
annual budgetary process we look at opportunities to
invest new money in various parts of the health system,
and we will do that again in years to come. In fact,
this year we have invested so much money in our health
system we have become the Province that invests more on
a per capita basis than anyone else in the entire
country. That is the kind of consideration we give our
health system.
My commitment to the
member opposite, and to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, is that we will always be looking for
opportunities to improve our system, and where we have a
capacity, and where it is appropriate, we will make the
necessary investments to ensure we build on the
successes that we have had and build on the good work
that we have already done in the last four years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Recently in the Budget,
Memorial University requested $27 million in funding and
the government opposite voted $21 million.
I ask: Why
did you not give them the full amount of money that they
requested? What did you expect them to do to make up for
the shortfall? Are they supposed to cut programs or
services?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member should know, when we go into
the budget process, we often have many budget requests
for all kinds of different expansions, or new programs,
or ways to grow institutions. When we look at that
through the budgetary process we have to make decisions,
we have to set priorities and we have to fund those
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, one thing
that was in the media today was the fact that the acting
president of the university indicated that they would
have preferred to have $3 million more regarding their
fixed costs and their salary increases.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping
with the salary increases, and the way that we have
budgeted money - not just this year but certainly in the
past, probably going back to at least 2001 - is that we
increased the base budget to cover the salary increase
cost, but when we get to the incremental cost of the
step increases, and some of the benefits that go along
with that, we fund that at 75 per cent as opposed to 100
per cent. In previous years government departments, as
well as the university and other agencies, have been
able to certainly cover their salary costs based on that
amount of money.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude her answer.
MS BURKE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
What we have done this
year has certainly been no different than how we fund
the step increases at 75 per cent. Sometimes the full
100 per cent is not necessary because there may be times
when the staffing is not always at 100 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister says that
when they look at the budget they make decisions. Well,
let me ask you, Minister: What
was your decision in terms of how the university was
going to make up for this $6 million shortfall? What
were they supposed to cut to do it?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, let me just make a comment first about what the
acting president said on Budget day. He said this is
very good news for us on the whole.
Mr. Speaker, what the
issue is, they came in and asked for $27 million. What
we were able to provide for the university was almost $5
million to maintain a tuition freeze. We also had
incremental adjustments so that they could expand their
programs in health care in their professional schools.
We added $1 million so graduate students could have
fellowships. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have
also funded their ocean strategy with money for the
School of Ocean Technology. We have put money into the
Holyrood Marine Base. We have put money into research
and development. There is incremental funding for Sir
Wilfred Grenfell College so they can become a more
autonomist institution. There is also incremental
funding for the Centre of Environmental Excellence. We
brought in the post degree for social work, the fast
track program, and there is also incremental funding for
mass communications.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS BURKE: We
looked at all of their priorities and -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, it sounds like the minister was robbing Peter
to pay Paul, I say to her.
The university is saying
they may have to make cuts in their staff and in their
faculty. Minister, can you tell
me how you can allow the university to be laying off
people, reducing its faculty, at a time when they need
stability and not shortcuts?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Government
House Leader and Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, this government has said many times that
Memorial University needs strong leadership, and under
strong leadership they will be able to deliver their
full suite of programs with the budget they have been
allotted this year.
With regard to salary
increases and step adjustments, they indicate that they
would like to have $3 million more. They have 75 per
cent of what has been requested, and when you look at
leaves of absence and maternity leave, and other leaves
and vacancies, and filling vacancies, and people leaving
at a higher step and coming in on a lower, they should
be able to operate. In this Budget alone for their
salary increases and step increases this government has
given them $8.7 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This minister likes to
poke her fingers in, and intervene in, the university
when it comes to who is going to run it and who is going
to operate it, but she is not going to intervene to make
sure they get the money to maintain the complement of
services and staff that they require.
Mr. Speaker, Memorial has
been requesting a capital grant for the past number of
years, actually, to upgrade the forty- or fifty-year-old
science lab that is critical, as we know, to research at
the university.
I ask the government: When
they put out their infrastructure priorities for the
Province, was this not considered? If it was, why
wasn’t it funded?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS BURKE: Mr.
Speaker, as I said, when we do a budget, particularly
for the university, there are many demands and many
requests, especially in the area of infrastructure. This
government has committed funding that we are going to
upgrade and build new residences here in St. John’s as
well as Corner Brook, and we have also indicated that we
are going to be building an academic building at Sir
Wilfred Grenfell at the tune of $34 million, Mr.
Speaker. So we have looked at all the infrastructure
requests from the university but we have to set
priorities.
The residences right now,
and the academic building, are what we have announced
and are the priorities of government. By saying that,
Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that we feel that the
science building and other buildings do not need to be
upgraded or new buildings, but we can only do so much in
any given fiscal year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The summer season will
soon be upon us and the summer maintenance crew for the
Department of Transportation and Works will be assigned
their duties.
I ask the minister: Can
he tell this hon. House what the budget for the summer
maintenance is this year? Is it more or less or the same
as it was last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in all
honesty, I cannot give the exact number but it is the
same as it was last year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the budget for
materials needed for the summer maintenance program this
year has been determined, but that the budget for
workers is under budget because of salary overruns for
last year.
I ask the minister: Can
he confirm to this House that there will be less workers
for the summer maintenance program or are they going to
be the same as last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
believe there is any change in the number of workers
that we are going to have on our summer maintenance
program. I am not aware of it from any discussions that
I have had with the department. I do not anticipate any
changes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked the Minister of
Natural Resources some questions earlier in the week
concerning the caribou hunt, the illegal hunt that was
taking place in Labrador. We understand now that the
hunt is winding down, if not concluded.
Just some clarification,
when we asked the minister during the week, the
indication was that they could not send in our
enforcement officers because of security risk. I assume
that it was our security conservation enforcement
officers that might have made that assessment, but later
it was reported in the CBC National by Mr. Mansbridge
that actually it was the RCMP who made the call on the
security issue.
I am wondering if you can
clarify for us: Was it an RCMP
decision as to the security or our enforcement and
conservation branch, or was it a combination of both?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, our
conservation officers on the ground who are well versed
in this activity and well trained to do this kind of
work, made an assessment that the situation was too
volatile, and for reasons of safety and security it was
very wise to be prudent in their activity.
They were in constant
communication with the RCMP in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
describing the situation to them and the RCMP confirmed
their decision not to take any more provocative action
to exacerbate the situation, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated in
this area again throughout the week when I asked the
questions, we now know that the hunt is concluded or is
concluding, apparently. We do not know if they have
hunted them to extinction or not, because I guess we
were just monitoring. We have not had any reports.
Could
you give us a status now as to how many they did
ultimately kill, to our knowledge based upon that
monitoring? Also, will there be charges laid against
these illegal Quebec Innu hunters, and what do you
intend to do on a go-forward basis to make sure that it
does not happen again?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we estimated
that in the Joir River herd there were approximately 100
to 108 animals. Our best estimation from our
observations during the last week, is that forty of
those animals have been taken.
We understand that the
group of Innu hunters from La Romaine have gone home.
There are still some hunters from Saint-Augustine still
in the area; at least twenty-six snowmobiles still in
the area. There has not been any hunting activity in the
last three days and we are very hopeful that the rest of
the group will return back to Quebec. We will continue
to do, in terms of education and discussion with the
Quebec Innu, in conjunction with the Labrador Innu, to
rise awareness on the vulnerability of this herd and to
do everything we can to prevent hunting.
Evidence is being
assessed, and where evidence will support it, Mr.
Speaker, charges will be laid, and the Department of
Justice is engaged in that activity at the moment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers has expired. |
