|
Oral
Questions
April 27, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it has been
another three weeks of bad news from AbitibiBowater and
unfortunately for its former employees in the Grand
Falls-Windsor region. Mr. Speaker, we have seen three
more weeks of inaction on this issue by the government
opposite.
On April 17
AbitibiBowater entered bankruptcy protection, thereby
cancelling severance benefits for workers, these
severance payments that were to provide security to
these workers at a time when they were without
employment.
I ask the Premier today: Now
that AbitibiBowater has cancelled these payments is
government willing to step up for these workers, make
the payments and deduct the amount from what will be
paid for the expropriated assets?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just one
point of clarification. Abitibi is in creditor
protection, not bankruptcy protection, and there are
some nuances to that that are important that we
understand.
With respect to the
question that the Leader of Opposition asked about, as
has been indicated by this government many times, we are
certainly going to be standing up for the workers and
with the workers of AbitibiBowater, but in terms of
doing that we are not going to let the corporate entity
of AbitibiBowater off the hook for the obligations that
they have incurred and that they have on a go-forward
basis.
We will ensure, as a
government, that AbitibiBowater lives up to its
obligations and we will also ensure that at the end of
the day the workers receive what it is that they are
entitled to receive from that company.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, it is fine for the government to say that we
will work to ensure that this company lives up to its
obligations, but the fact is that this company was not
capable of meeting these obligations. That is why they
have already filed for creditor protection, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, we learned
that 119 former AbitibiBowater loggers in Central
Newfoundland were losing their early retirement funding.
This funding provided $1,200 to $1,400 a month in bridge
payments until they were officially able to retire.
These payments were agreed upon with workers who retired
before the mill closed.
I ask the Premier today: Is
government going to do anything to provide financial
assistance to these workers now that they have been told
the payments will not be coming?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Leader of the Opposition is correct, AbitibiBowater
employees, 119 in total, were engaged in a workforce
reduction program whereby they and their union, in
negotiation with the company AbitibiBowater, did receive
some-$1,200 to $1,400 per month to bridge them to a
retirement age.
Once again, Mr. Speaker,
the company, in its callus way, has decided to break
that arrangement with the employees and have indicated
to them that they will not be paying it. Their union has
already countered with a challenge on that. There are
legal ramifications that must be explored before
anything else is to happen. It is those kinds of
decisions, in terms of moving forward in the appropriate
way with the processes that are in place, that are being
followed by the union and will also be explored by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
AbitibiBowater has
launched a challenge to the Province’s expropriation
of company assets and the Premier appears to have great
confidence in the government’s ability to defend these
actions. However, this process will take years to wind
its way through the courts and the workers need
assistance now.
I ask the Premier: Is
it right that these workers are now caught between a
company who is broke and a government who has retrieved
the assets but are unwilling to pay out the money that
is duly owed the employees?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, on this side it is not a government that is
unwilling to pay out any monies for obligations for
which we are responsible. We are currently in
negotiation with AbitibiBowater on an expropriation of
assets. They have, as is their right, instituted a NAFTA
challenge and that has its processes that, potentially,
will go through the court system. There may be an
agreement that would happen before that. Any obligations
that our government has, we will pay monies on for those
obligations. Some of those can be negotiated; some of
those may be mandated through some type of a court
process, but any obligations this government has, this
government will live to, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I
ask the minister if he could give us an update as to
what the status of the negotiations are that he just
alluded to and if they are only in the context of the
NAFTA challenge or if they are also dealing with other
issues around the pension fund and around the wage
bridging program that the workers have just been told
they are losing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have
stated quite publicly a number of times the parameters
of the talks that we are having with AbitibiBowater.
They concern compensation of value for the bricks and
mortar assets of their generating facilities,
environmental remediation, and severance for the
silviculture workers and the harvesters, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you.
Maybe
the minister can tell me if there is some timeline
around when they are hoping to conclude those
negotiations because there are a lot of workers out
there waiting to see if they are actually going to get
paid those severance benefits or not.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this
government would have liked to have concluded those
talks several weeks ago. We can only move as quickly as
AbitibiBowater will allow us to do in this circumstance.
We are more than prepared
to pay a fair market value for the assets, but we also
have to make sure that the environmental remediation is
taken care of, and that the severance package is fully
what is owed, we feel, morally, if not legally, to the
former workers of AbitibiBowater.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
On April 7 I asked the
Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development
about a case of former AbitibiBowater workers who had
fallen between the cracks of Abitibi and Nalcor Energy.
These workers were
expropriated by Nalcor, along with the power assets,
without any severance or holiday payments, and some have
even been laid off. They have been told by both parties,
you do not deal with me; you deal with the company. They
have been told by the company, you deal with Nalcor
Energy.
Mr. Speaker, this is a
critical matter. At the time, the minister indicated
that they were looking at some resolution. I would like
to ask today, has the issue
been resolved, and give us an update on where it is now.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, again, the workers were not expropriated by
Nalcor. I just want to make that point, first of all.
There were assets that were expropriated, and there were
decisions made by AbitibiBowater that the workers were
employees of Nalcor. That is the decision that
AbitibiBowater made.
That, Mr. Speaker, in our
opinion, and in the opinion of the union representing
the workers, is fundamentally incorrect. They were
employees of AbitibiBowater. AbitibiBowater laid those
workers off, and AbitibiBowater has not, as we know,
lived to its obligations with regard to severance.
There were some workers
who, after being laid off by AbitibiBowater, were
re-employed by Nalcor but there are some who were not,
and we believe that AbitibiBowater has an obligation to
those workers, as does their union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister should know
that these workers do feel like they have been
expropriated, and they feel like they are caught in the
middle, just where the assets are: between a huge
disagreement between government and the company.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister again today: Knowing
full well that AbitibiBowater is not prepared to pay out
the holiday pay and the severances that are owed these
workers who are now employed by Nalcor Energy, will
government and Nalcor work to ensure that the financial
rewards they were due are indeed paid?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, we have said it publicly - I have said it
myself here in this House, some of my colleagues have
said it – we will ensure that all of the workers of
AbitibiBowater who are entitled to things from
AbitibiBowater, as their former employer, will receive
what it is that they are entitled to with regard to
their severance, for instance.
We are working diligently
with the workers, with the unions, to ensure that all of
the obligations of AbitibiBowater are realized. It is a
very complicated process, Mr. Speaker. It involves a
number of jurisdictions provincially, federally and
internationally in terms of the labour laws, and we have
to be very careful about how we do this so that we do
not compromise what it is our end result is that we are
trying to achieve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
A group of former
AbitibiBowater workers in the fifty-two and under age
group formed a committee a number of weeks ago to
propose an economic stimulus package that would benefit
the Central Region while providing benefits to those
same workers who are unable to access a pension.
I ask the Premier today: Has
his government given any consideration to this proposal?
If so, what action do you intend to take to help these
workers?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, I am in receipt - and I assume this is what the
hon. Opposition Leader is referring to - I am in receipt
of a proposal from one gentleman who has indicated he is
representing about 100 gentlemen, and he called it, in
the discussion I had with him, a pension bridging
exercise, not an economic stimulus package, so I assume
we are talking about the same thing. That pension
bridging piece of information, I have received. I have
passed it on to my officials to review and to come back
with some commentary to me on it. Once that is done, I
will make some decision as to whether or not that is
something we want to pursue further, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In the next few weeks the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador could be facing a
nursing strike. Nurses have agreed to government’s
wage proposal but are frustrated with two particular
clauses in the agreement, namely: the extended earnings
loss benefits and the market adjustment clauses.
I ask the Premier today -
I know that both sides have
made compromises, but I ask again: Why won’t
government move away from these two clauses in order to
avoid a nursing strike in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have made a most
generous offer to the nurses, Mr. Speaker, in this time
of economic recession - a 27 per cent increase to the
top-tier nurses, and a 31 per cent increase to the
starting nurse, along with signing bonuses, bursaries -
but it is all part of a package. The package that we
have put on the table included two clauses which have
been signed off by 30,000 other public sector employees
represented by all of the major unions. So, what we have
done, we have said this is where we are, this is the
package we are willing to offer, and it is a package.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of
the market adjustment and the extended earnings loss, I
really do not know what the difficulty is. All of these
other unions have signed off. We feel that this offer is
most generous. In fact, it is unheard of in these
economic times.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I hear what the minister is saying, but it is
not a good rationale to have nurses on the street today
in this Province, or looking to go on the street in this
Province, in the form of a strike simply because
everyone else has done it so you have to do it. To me,
it is not a good argument.
Mr. Speaker, the minister
indicated that the market adjustment clause would be
accepted by nurses as market adjustments are already
happening, such as sign-on bonuses and relocation
incentives. Minister, you know that these things are
very different. What you are proposing is that nurses
who work side by side in the same health care facilities
would receive different pay for the same job.
I ask you: How
do you expect this kind of proposed market adjustment to
bring stability and to be able to maintain nurses in our
health care system?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, and I
speak for everyone on this side of the House, and I am
sure everyone in this Chamber, we all appreciate the
role that nurses play in our health care system -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: -
but, as a government, there is only so far that we can
go.
What we have done is we
have addressed the situations of recruitment and
retention. We have done that through the raises that
have been put forward. They said to us, we do not want
pattern bargaining applied. So we done that; we have
gone outside the template. We have never said - I have
never said, nor am I aware of the Minister of Health
ever saying - that we will pay two people working side
by side more money.
The purpose of the market
adjustment letter is to give us maximum flexibility in
addressing recruitment and retention issues and thereby
addressing what nurses are saying to us, that their
concern is about work conditions and the ability to have
time off.
What we have said is that
we need the flexibility, and I am not aware - maybe the
Minister of Health can point out, but I am not aware -
of two nurses working side by side where Eastern Health
or any other health board is paying one more than the
other.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
You may not be aware of
it now, and it is not what we want to see, and what you
are proposing is just that.
This minister knows that
he and his government have already broken the template
for bargaining - he has said that - so why not go all
the way? Why not go all the way? What is there to gain
by government, to insist that these clauses stay in an
agreement? We know what the loss is to patients in this
Province. It is a loss of stability in our health care
system when nurses are on the street.
So, Minister,
is this going to be financial savings for the government
in some way? Is that why you are so stuck on ensuring
that this clause is in the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We are not stuck on
anything, other than improving this health care system
and making it as good as it can be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: However,
Mr. Speaker, there comes a point in time when that
average Newfoundlander who is making the $25,000 or
$30,000 or $35,000 who has gotten that 21 per cent
increase. We have now gone to the point where we are at
31 per cent.
Federal service
employees, Mr. Speaker, got a 6 per cent raise over four
years. Now, what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is be
fair. We feel we are being fair and reasonable. The
market adjustment is currently being applied out there
where we have health boards applying it inconsistently
and perhaps it could be said, unfairly.
What we want to do is
bring all of this under one roof, under Treasury Board,
where we can apply a consistent policy and ensure that
the very issues that the nurses’ union is complaining
about will not occur. That is the purpose of what we are
doing here, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have heard nothing but
good in the last week or so, despite the threat of this
impending strike, of the way that nurses have treated
people, the care and compassion with which they are
treating people. All we can say, Mr. Speaker, is we have
been fair and we are continuing to be fair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, if this is not going to achieve any kind of
savings for government, if the real objective here is to
get nurses to stay on the job and not walk off the job
in the form of a strike, I have to ask the minister: Why
are they not prepared to go to binding arbitration?
There are no monetary issues here. It is simply issues
of policy that can be decided by an outside party.
So I ask you and your
government, to avoid a nursing
strike in this Province, to ensure that there is
protection for the health care of the people of the
Province, will you not agree to go to binding
arbitration on those two clauses?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr.
Speaker, we are acutely aware - again, everyone on this
side of the House and everyone in this Chamber - of the
impact of a pending strike on the patients and the
health care system of this Province. Our number one
concern are the patients. However, Mr. Speaker, there
comes a point when we have gone as far as we can go.
In this particular case,
Mr. Speaker, the government, we have given, we have
given, we have given. Recruitment and retention, we are
addressing it, Mr. Speaker. Working conditions, we are
addressing it, Mr. Speaker. These issues have been
signed on, and, Mr. Speaker, they were not easily
accepted by some of the other unions. So what we are
trying to do here is maintain the consistency, Mr.
Speaker, treat all our public sector employees alike. We
have said to the nurses, we value your work, we know the
role that you play, we are giving you the biggest
increase in this country right now. In relation to that,
Mr. Speaker, there has to be something back. There has
to be something in it. In this particular case all we
are asking, Mr. Speaker, the two clauses that every
other union in this Province has signed onto are
accepted. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is an
unreasonable request. In fact, it confuses me, I say to
the Leader of the Opposition, as to why the union has
made such a big deal about these two issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It was recently revealed
– my questions are for the Premier – that the former
PC Party Leader, Mr. Byrne, inappropriately used public
funds to pay a party worker $3,000 in the 2001 St. Barbe
by-election. As the Premier knows, taxpayer money is not
permitted to be used for such expenses. It was also
identified in the Byrne Statement of Facts that one Gus
Coombs, a PC candidate in 1999, inappropriately used
$2,000 for an election expense. The same statement of
facts referred to helicopter use to travel to that
district around the same time for the St. Barbe
by-election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In addition, there were
also three lawyers paid $13,000 for PC Party work from
Mr. Byrne’s constituency allowance.
I ask the Premier: Will
Mr. Byrne be repaying this money pursuant to the
restitution order, or will the PC Party of Newfoundland
and Labrador be reimbursing the taxpayers for money
specifically used for PC Party operations?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just let me
begin by saying that the Chief Electoral Officer is an
officer of this House and we have every confidence in
his ability to deal with this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we were not
aware of these circumstances, as the Opposition House
Leader has said. We became aware of them in the
Statement of Facts in the case of Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Speaker, we were more
than prepared to pay back the funds from Party resources
but we understand that the courts have ordered Mr. Byrne
to repay these funds.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, these
instances are in the Agreed Statement of Facts relating
to this case and there may well be many other examples
of inappropriate expenses that have not been uncovered
or reported.
I ask the Premier and the
government: Are you willing to
support an independent third-party investigation into
election campaigns, to determine whether any other
inappropriate funds were channeled to the Progressive
Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said in my earlier
answer, we have every confidence in the Chief Electoral
Officer and his ability to deal with these issues. If
there was impropriety it was not by the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The facts were
discovered, Mr. Speaker, because the Auditor General was
allowed back into this House and able to audit the
affairs of MHAs; the same Auditor General who was kicked
out of the House by members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In case the minister was
not aware of it, the individual in question, Mr. Byrne,
was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador when this happened.
Mr. Speaker, all parties
have supported investigations into problems that have
been identified in other areas. For example, in health
care we asked Justice Cameron to investigate, in Justice
we asked Justice Lamer to investigate, in the House of
Assembly –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The Chair is having
difficulty hearing the hon. member put forward his
question. I ask members for their cooperation.
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker, in other
areas, as I say, where we have had issues: in health
care we asked Justice Cameron, if it was Justice we
asked Justice Lamer to come in, and if it was the case
of the House of Assembly we asked Justice Green to come
in.
I ask the Premier: Why
are you so adamantly opposed to a third-party
investigation that protects the Province’s electoral
laws and would identify any abuses that have occurred?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, Mr. Speaker,
we have every confidence in the Chief Electoral
Officer’s ability to deal with this issue, we have
every confidence in the Auditor General and his ability
to audit MHAs here in this House to ensure that funds
are spent appropriately, and we have every confidence in
the courts of the land to deal with any improprieties or
legal misdoings that may have taken place. All of those
processes, we feel, Mr. Speaker, adequately protect the
people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In a public statement,
the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Reynolds, justified his
decision by stating that Mr. Byrne had already been
convicted and dealt with by the courts, therefore no
need to investigate.
I say to the Premier, who
we all know is also a lawyer: Why are we refusing an
investigation under the Elections Act, which is a
totally separate issue than anything the former member
might have done under the Criminal Code?
Absolutely separate, got
nothing to do with each other: Why
is this government refusing, when they claim to be open
and transparent, to allow such an independent
investigation?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask members for their
co-operation.
Members may not agree
with the questions being posed, but the member has every
right to ask the question, and a minister identified has
every right to provide an answer.
The hon. the Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are not
interested in hiding anything. That is why we brought
the Auditor General back in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: That
is why these investigations have taken place. That is
why these court proceedings have taken place. It is
because we believe in transparency and accountability.
We did not turf the
Auditor General out. We brought the Auditor General in
and said, have a good, close look at what is going on
here, and if there is any inappropriate activity, then
deal with it. He has done that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS DUNDERDALE: And
the Chief Electoral Officer will do the same. We have
every confidence that he has the tools and the ability
to take whatever action is required surrounding these
issues, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday
and Friday past I spent time in Grand Falls-Windsor. I
spent time with the workers who have been displaced
because of the closure of the mill. I have heard what
they are going through at this moment. I spoke with the
workers who cannot get their severance, with the loggers
who cannot get the workplace reduction program that they
expected. I have also spoken with workers who have told
me there are people who are now going to social
assistance.
So I have a question for
the Premier, and my question is: If this government is
so sure that you can negotiate with AbitibiBowater to
get the severance covered and the workplace reduction
program money covered, if you are so sure you can do
that, why won’t you put money up front to deal with
what the workers are going through right now at this
moment?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have been
meeting with the workers out there for a long time, and
we did not just hear their story the last couple of
days. We have been out there many times. We knew that
there were troubles with that company. We have been
working with the employees out there and with their
union representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I alluded
to, in response to an earlier question, that this a very
complex issue. With all due respect to the hon. member,
I do not want to denigrate what she is saying, it is not
as easy as just writing a cheque, and covering something
off by writing a cheque, and I understand that is not
how she may exactly have meant it, but there are things
we have to do. Because of the legal processes that are
open to the company, because of legal processes that are
open to the unions and the employees, we have to be very
careful not to do something that may damage - what it is
we are trying to achieve here is to see that those
employees receive their severances at the end of the
day. So we have to be very careful how we do things. The
suggestion being made is not something that we believe
is something we should be doing at this time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last Thursday and Friday
were not the first times that I have been out to Grand
Falls-Windsor, not the first times I have met with the
workers; just so the minister is aware of that fact.
I am well aware of the
situation, and I am also well aware of the frustration
that they are going through. These workers, right now,
are getting more and more frustrated with every day. The
message they gave to me loud and clear on Thursday and
Friday was that they are not feeling, at the moment,
that the government is carrying their needs.
I ask the Premier: Why
can’t this government give a clearer explanation to
them so that they will feel something is going on to
meet their needs?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, I share the frustration of the hon. member
opposite, I share the frustration of the employees, and
we should be directing it to the appropriate place. The
appropriate place is not this government. It is the
company that has made these callous and heartless
decisions that are impacting the employees that we are
speaking about in this House of Assembly every day.
We are reacting to what
the company is doing. We are trying to make sure that
the employees, at the end of the day, receive everything
that they are entitled to receive. Because of the
complexities, it is not my place to go out and explain
all of those complexities because I am not in a position
to do that, but the union has access to legal opinions.
Other people, the employees themselves can certainly
engage, if they wish, legal opinions. I can just tell
you as a layperson, not a lawyer, that there are legal
complexities that I have to be very careful about what
it is I do as chair of the task force not to compromise
what it is we are trying to achieve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am not asking the
minister or the Premier to go out and explain the
position of AbitibiBowater. I am asking them to explain
to the workers why they are so confident when they say
they are going to take care of them, because they do not
see themselves being taken care of. Explain your own
position to them, Minister. That is what I am asking
for.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
MR. SKINNER: Mr.
Speaker, first of all, we have always said, as a
government, that the obligations to the employees
regarding the severance are AbitibiBowater obligations.
By taking care of that obligation we have indicated
already, publicly and to the workers, that we will do
everything within our power to ensure that we exert
whatever pressure, whatever influence, whatever legal
authority that we may have on the company to live to its
obligations.
There are, as I said,
legal processes involved here. To do something like the
member opposite suggested may in actual fact be illegal
for us to be doing. It may in actual fact be something
that we cannot do. These are federal laws that govern
these things. As I indicated earlier, there are also
international and provincial laws but the particular
example that the member uses has to do with federal laws
that we have to be very cognizant of and respectful of
and, again, not compromise what it is we are trying to
achieve here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers has expired. |
