|
Oral
Questions
May 11, 2009
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The nurses’ union have
rejected government’s final contract offer by a vote
of 63 per cent. It appears that we are headed towards a
strike. This will negatively impact patients and our
health care system but can be avoided if government is
willing to go to binding arbitration on two clauses that
cost no money and are simply policy decisions.
I ask the Premier today: While
a strike could be only a week away, why will you not
send these issues of dispute to binding arbitration?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, quite simply, a strike can be avoided if the
nurses decide not to go on strike. It is my
understanding that 80 per cent voted and that 63 per
cent of those who voted, voted to have a strike. The
math on that is 50.4 per cent, so one out of two nurses
wants a strike and one out of two nurses do not want a
strike.
The reason that the other
nurses do not want a strike is because we have answered
everything they have asked for. We asked to resolve the
question of recruitment; we have done that. The question
of retention, we have done that. We increased their pay
package, done. Increase standby fees, done. Increase
shift differential, done. We also replenished their
educational leave fund, $180,000. We also formed a
senior joint quality of work life committee to address
system-wide nursing and patient care issues. We have
also enhanced experience credits for nurses wanting to
come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We can do no more.
We do not want a strike,
but if the nurses decide that they are going to strike
there is nothing we can do about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, although the final contract offer was voted 63
per cent by nurses, the strike vote was actually 89 per
cent which was taken earlier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not sufficiently
explained why these two clauses cannot be sent to
binding arbitration.
I ask
the Minister of Finance today to explain to the people
of the Province why you are so determined to put the
nurses on the street because of these two policies, and
tell us why you are refusing to go to binding
arbitration.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Leader of
the Opposition, we are not determined to put the nurses
on the streets. They will decide themselves.
As the Premier has
indicated, they have asked us to address the issues of
recruitment and retention and we have done that. They
have asked to be made competitive. They will be the
highest paid nurses east of Ontario, so we have answered
their concerns, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say something
about collective bargaining. It is not simply we take
what we want and then we go to binding arbitration on
what we do not like. That is not the way this works. We
put a package offer in front of them. Myself and the
Premier explained to the president of the union that
this is the final offer, and we said time and time
again, we are not going to binding arbitration. The
market adjustment also deals with issues of recruitment
and retention. Government wants to maintain maximum
flexibility.
I say to the Leader of
the Opposition, 30,000 of the public sector employees in
this Province have accepted those two clauses, I do not
see the problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
But market adjustment in
this sense is also about bypassing the collective
bargaining process, and the minister knows that, and
cutting deals with individual nurses. This is what the
problem is.
For example, if a nurse
that is working in Burin for the past five years and has
that experience, they would be paid about 8 per cent or
9 per cent less than a new recruit that is working
side-by-side if government wanted to negotiate that
deal.
So I ask the minister,
the issue here is about union busting. It is really what
it is about, and this is what it looks like, unless
there is a reason that government can give for not going
to binding arbitration.
So I ask the minister: What
is the objective here? Is it to bust the union and have
segregation of the nursing workforce in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I was going to say
I would expect more from the Leader of the Opposition,
she obviously does not understand. You should not
mislead the public, I say to you.
Mr. Speaker, market
adjustments are all variable pay incentives. It can be
retention bonuses, it can be recruitment bonuses, it can
be bursaries, relocation expenses. It is something that
is going on out there now. We are developing a policy
that will address all of these issues and we will apply
them fairly and consistently. We have never said, as a
government, that we are going to pay one nurse standing
side-by-side more than another nurse. What we have –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. KENNEDY: Can
I finish my question, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KENNEDY: My
answer? Yes, can I?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KENNEDY: Now
perhaps, Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. member to
direct his comments to the Chair and to conclude his
answer.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have not said that we
were going to do that. What we have said as a
government, that we will maintain maximum flexibility in
addressing recruitment and retention issues, that this
deal is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, in these economic
times, and for the life of me I cannot understand what
the difficulty is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
While the minister says
it is not their intention, you are asking to reserve the
right to be able to cut deals outside of collective
bargaining with individual nurses, and that is what you
are doing under market adjustment.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, because these issues are non-monetary and
because they can be settled by an independent party, why
is it that government is reluctant to take that process?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I refer the Leader of the
Opposition to the comments of the Opposition House
Leader last week when he says: We need nurses in Ramea,
or we need nurses to work with nurse practitioners and
government should do something about it.
Well, one of the ways we
deal with recruitment, Mr. Speaker, is by having the
ability to deal with situations as they arise. What the
market adjustment will do, it will give us the
opportunity to address situations that need to be
addressed, Mr. Speaker, and it again goes back to the
main issue that the nurses talked about, were
recruitment and retention. What we have said is that we
will treat everyone fairly and consistently. Mr.
Speaker, a 31 per cent increase in these economic times,
when I heard the Member for Port de Grave talk about
layoffs there that were announced last week in terms of
statistics, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a
most generous offer and one that is part of a package.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We will be the first to
acknowledge the offers that are already on the table by
this government for nurses and we are not disputing
whether that is adequate or inadequate.
What I will say to the
minister is that outside of the market adjustment clause
your government, and governments before have also had
special agreements for nurses in this Province, and
Labrador is one of those regions. It was negotiated
without having this clause in the agreement. So
why is it required now to deal with special
circumstances?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me reiterate that a
new nurse entering the profession will start - him or
her - their salary will start at $55,000. Senior nurses
will go to $75,000. These increases, Mr. Speaker, are
ones that are necessary to address the concerns of
recruitment and retention.
The president of the
union, from what I understand, has said publicly that
she has no problem with the offering of recruitment
bonuses, she has no problem with signing bonuses, when,
in essence, Mr. Speaker, all we are doing as a
government is developing a market adjustment policy
which will ensure consistency and fairness across the
board.
Mr. Speaker, when it
comes to allowing for contracts to be negotiated,
Treasury Board will indicate to the health boards what
they can or cannot do within reason. All we are trying
to do, Mr. Speaker, is maintain maximum flexibility so
that the people of this Province receive the health care
that they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
According to governments
responses today in the vote that has been taken by the
nurses, I think a strike is inevitable and could happen
as early as the next week.
I ask the Minister of
Health today: Have any
contingency plans been finalized? When will they be
implemented, and when will patients start being notified
as to what the level of service that will be provided to
them?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: There
are multiple questions there, Mr. Speaker, but I believe
the first one: Has there contingency plans been made?
You might recall, I responded in this House earlier in
this session that in fact each of our four authorities
have negotiated with the nurses’ union essential
employee agreements. So throughout each of our
organizations there are arrangements in place with the
nurses’ union where they will provide essential
employees to be able to provide emergency response
services and care to those people who are critically
ill. When will that be activated? We do not have a
notice of strike yet, and until that happens, the health
authorities are at business as usual and they will
continue to provide health service to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Should, or when and should
the nurses’ union decide to serve notice, because I
understand they need to serve a seven-day notice, if
that should be served then that will activate a response
from the authorities that will then start to notify
patients of any changes that may occur in the services
that they are scheduled for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Although the minister is
waiting for an official paper trail on the strike, I
think everyone in the Province realizes what has been
happening and I am sure the health authorities are
preparing.
I ask
the minister, in comparison to a normal nursing shift,
what percentage of nurses would remain on a shift during
a strike period as part of that contingency plan?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, just by way of education for the member
opposite, these essential employee agreements are
negotiated by each of the authorities, site specific. So
within, for example, the Health Sciences Centre, the
emergency department may not see any changes in the
level of staffing that would be required to provide
emergency service. So I suspect that in the emergency
department there will be no change at all. In some other
unit there may be some slight adjustments in the level
of service or the number of nurses who will work that
schedule.
So the answer to her
question is quite simply, it will vary by site in terms
of a physical location. It will vary by unit, nursing
unit or critical care area or patient care area within a
particular site. So that may vary, but on average there
is around 40 per cent I believe across the system. On
average about 40 per cent of the nurses will have been
deemed as essential employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We have also heard the
minister state previous that all non-essential services
would be postponed should the strike occur.
I ask
the minister today, if he could outline for us what
non-essential services that would be and approximately
how many surgeries would be cancelled as a result of
this?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, one of the critical responsibilities we have as
a system and that is why the nurses’ union have worked
collaboratively with the health authorities. During a
strike, should there be a disruption in service, then we
want to make sure that we are able to respond to those
emergencies; people who are critically ill, respond to
emergencies, things that we cannot predict.
Those things that are
much more elective and can be planned for, those sorts
of programs and services may be postponed, they may be
rescheduled for after a strike but critically, one of
the things that we want to make sure we are able to do
is respond to emergency services in each of our health
facilities around the Province and those people who need
critical care, get the critical care they need. Those
people who need emergency response, they get the
emergency response. That will be the focus during any
strike situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My next questions are for
the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The federal
government is reportedly looking at financial aid for
the struggling lobster industry and they have been
holding meetings over the weekend with several fisheries
groups.
I ask
the minister, if he has been involved in those meetings
or if he has been given any indication by the federal
government what programs are being considered for
lobster harvesters in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the meetings, we have been
involved in meetings with our counterparts in the
Maritimes since before Christmas in trying to come to
grips with the falling price of lobster and the market
problems that they have been having, and throughout
those meetings, struggling with trying to come up with
ways in which we could address the times. Up until this
present time, basically it is talking about marketing,
diversification, so on and so forth. Of course, I read
the same article that the Leader of the Opposition read,
that the federal government now, through Minister McKay,
have indicated that they are looking at it and will get
back to the industry. That is news to us as well and we
are obviously waiting to see exactly what it is that
they now –
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I know in his statements
he quoted that programs would be available in Nova
Scotia and P.E.I. He did not list Newfoundland and
Labrador and certainly that was the reason for my
question to the minister, to ensure that we were
included. As well, I was aware of other programs that
were launched in Atlantic Canada between governments and
the private sector to encourage further sales in the
lobster industry. I am not entirely supportive of the
route they choose but the concept is a good one.
I ask
the minister if this is something that his department or
government are considering in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, again we are always open to any way that we can
assist industry, be it the fishing industry or any
industry, especially with regard to the workers.
Of course, we are aware
of the attempts that have been made throughout the
Atlantic Provinces, in any number of different ways, to
try to address this particular difficulty we are having
now with the market downturn. Again, we are always open
to any solutions that come our way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the crab fishery remains in turmoil with both
the processors and the union headed for a showdown by
the looks of it.
I ask the minister: Are
you aware of any new developments or discussions that
will see a full redemption of the crab fishery in the
next few days?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, since last I stood in this House the panel have
made a decision to hold the price as it is. It is
obviously not to the satisfaction of either party, to be
honest with you. Right now, the market conditions have
not changed and both of these parties, of course –
this is a collective agreement they have had between
each other, and I guess the onus is still upon these
particular parties to come to some sort of an agreement.
If the price is not there, then they have to make
decisions as to where they go from there.
I understand they are in
the process of that, and we will continue to support
them in any way we can to bring resolve to this
situation as we see it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, if this issue is not resolved soon, obviously
things could get worse.
I ask the minister: With
limited processing capacity available, what impact will
this have on plant worker who are obviously caught in
the middle of this entire dispute?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, admittedly this is a very, very difficult
situation. I think both sides of the House recognize
that.
We understand, too, that
the reasons for this difficulty do not necessarily rest
with us. It is about a recession, it is about poor
markets, it is about buyers who are not setting a price,
and it is about us being very, very vulnerable at this
particular time. Again, as I have indicated in the past,
we will continue to work as hard as we can possibly work
with these groups to ensure that the fishery continues
and that it is in the best interests of them, as an
industry. Again, I cannot control what goes on beyond
our borders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has
continuously stated that he would go it alone on the
European Union trade negotiations, putting issues
affecting our Province front and centre on their agenda,
and enter into bilateral agreements with the EU.
As stated in today’s
paper, the EU representatives said that they would not
be entering negotiations with this Province, and those
discussions will have to take place with the federal
government.
I ask the Premier: In
light of these comments, will we be joining the federal
government now as part of these trade negotiations, and
will we have an in through that route?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No,
Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. We will not be joining the
federal government in these negotiations. We will
continue to state our case.
We have proof now, as a
result of what they have done with the whole sealing
protest, that they will not be there to safeguard our
interests. That was our concern right from the start:
that they would not represent the interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they would trade
off our interests for the interests of other Canadians.
That is not in our best
interest, so we are not going to abide by that. We will
not co-operate with them. We will continue to state our
case on the more important issues – equally important
issues, forgive me – of tariffs and, as well, foreign
overfishing and custodial management.
So there are other bigger
issues. There is also the whole issue of the Atlantic
Accord and what is going to happen when European
countries do business in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have a case to make,
and whether they invite us to sit at the table or not,
we could not care less. We will state our case publicly,
here and around the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the Premier and the government’s decision to
opt out of the EU negotiations as part of the federal
contingency will have an impact, no doubt, on local
businesses and the products that we are exporting, and
our ability to be able to trade with the EU.
I am asking the
government today: Are there any
plans in place to look at other options, to look at how
we can deliver a stronger message so that our business
community is not impacted by those decisions?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, our history in this Province has been
giveaways. It has been giving away and giving in and
kowtowing to the federal government, and allowing the
Government of Canada to represent our interests around
the world to the detriment of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Those days are over.
Those days ended with this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There
are also a lot of very big, multinational, European
companies that want to do business in Newfoundland and
Labrador, because of our minerals, because of our oil
and gas, because of our fishery, and we have to take the
abuse from these hypocrites basically saying that we act
in an inhumane and a barbarian manner, when they chase
bulls through the streets in Spain, and matadors pierce
bulls in a Roman type atmosphere, and we are out trying
to earn a living.
We are going to do what
we have to do here to protect the interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I could not care
less what the rest of them do, I have to be quite honest
with you.
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 government previously
stated back in 2008 that it intended to bring forward
legislation regarding the autonomy of Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College. We have yet to see any such
legislation come to pass.
I ask the minister: Is
this delay linked to a re-evaluation of whether or not
this government should give Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
full university status?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing to work
through a process with officials at Grenfell College and
Memorial University and our own officials at the
Department of Education. We intend to move forward, and
when the legislation is ready we will have it before the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, in 2007 the student enrolment at Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College was approximately 1,400; however, Mr.
Paul Wilson, a professor at the college who is also a
Memorial University Senator, recently told the news
media that the college current enrolment is less than
1,000 students, and may be approaching a critical point
where it is no longer capable of maintaining upper level
degree programs. This is a significant decline,
considering that the college was hoping to have an
enrolment of 2,000 by the fall of 2008.
I ask the minister: Has
government looked at this decline and its causes, and is
this playing any role in the delay of bringing forth
legislation on Sir Wilfred Grenfell College autonomy?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: Mr.
Speaker, we are aware of the challenges raised by the
member opposite, as well as many other challenges that
confront us as we try to move forward with any
significant venture that we are going on like this. I
say to the member opposite, that is why we are taking
our time and we are going to make sure we do things
right.
I also remind the member
opposite that is why we brought in some significant
investments in tuition freeze in this Province. I also
remind the member that as a result of our investment in
that kind of initiative we are seeing a lot of enrolment
come to our institutions from outside of the Province,
in places like Nova Scotia and elsewhere.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, in the days following the release of the
Kelly-Davies report in 2007 many voiced their concerns
that the report lacked a thorough analysis of the cost
of extending greater autonomy to Sir Wilfred Grenfell
College. In response to the report, the university’s
administration calculated that, based on small
universities elsewhere, a separate university in Corner
Brook would require a budget of approximately $26.9
million with an enrolment of 2,000 full-time students.
I ask the minister: Has
government prepared its own estimates on the cost of
extending full university status to the college?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: As
I have said previously, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
development of legislation, and bringing it before the
House, issues like the member opposite continues to
raise are all part of an ongoing process where we are
engaged with officials at Grenfell, as well as Memorial,
in consultation with our own officials at the Department
of Education, and we will assess the issue raised, and
many other issues.
At the end of the day,
our intention as a government is to make that work.
Until we are ready to move forward with legislation and
the supporting guidelines to make it work we will not be
in front of the House, but we are certainly working
through a process and at the appropriate point in time
we will bring legislation before the House and move it
forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr.
Speaker, I also recently received a Department of
Education briefing note from an Access to Information
Request. The briefing note is dated November 20, 2008,
and it regards the cost of increasing the autonomy at
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. While much of it has been
blacked out, the note states that the long-term
financial implications of enhancing the college’s
autonomy cannot be predicted as it will develop over
time.
I ask the minister: If
cost cannot be predicted, what financial analysis is
being used and, with the ongoing delays, has cost become
an obstacle in giving Grenfell autonomy?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. KING: Mr.
Speaker, I say to the member opposite, with all due
respect, we are aware, as a government, that any
investment outside of the overpass and into rural
Newfoundland is going to cost money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KING: I
also say that there are many initiatives that
governments, over the years, become engaged with, where
it is very difficult to nail down exactly what a cost is
going to be from one moment to the next. I simply point
out, who would have known twelve months ago what the
markets would be like in the world today?
Certainly, we are
cognizant of that. We are cognizant of many other issues
that we have to address before we bring legislation
before the House and before we make the final move to
give autonomy to Grenfell College. We will make sure
that we do due diligence so that when we do come before
the House it will be a successful venture.
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.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday
past the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said,
when referring to crab pricing, this is the dance that
goes on every year.
Mr. Speaker, considering
the number of fish plant workers and crab fishers, and
the large revenue that the crab fishery brings into the
Province, this is a very flippant remark to be made by
the minister in charge of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister again, as I did last week: Will the minister
sit down with the union, harvesters and processors
together, as he did in February, to work through the
current issues on crab pricing?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, with the time that you get to get up in the
House, oftentimes we make comparisons, metaphors,
whatever you want to call it. That is one of them, but
it is not a flippant remark because it does adequately
describe how, during this time of year, in all the years
that I know in the fishery, that is the sort of dance
that goes on.
The former Minister of
Fisheries, the Leader of the Opposition, you know
exactly what I am talking about, right? It is something
that – it is not to downgrade any efforts on our part
at all, right? So the thing about it is, and I said
before as I say now: I am open and accessible to all the
groups that are involved in this particular impasse, if
you want to look at it this way. With the price setting
panel, I brought the groups together less than a couple
of weeks ago, again to speak with them to try to find a
common ground that we need in order to move forward. I
still seek that common ground. I am still accessible and
I am still working as hard as I can on behalf of our
government to get where we need to be.
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.
Obviously, the minister
is not ready to give the leadership that he should be
giving.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MS MICHAEL: Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday – call the three parties
together, I say, Mr. Speaker. Call them together!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS MICHAEL: Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday the Standing –
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of the District of Signal Hill–Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the
minister has alluded, last Thursday the Standing Fish
Price Setting Panel rejected the request by the
Association of Seafood Processors application to reduce
raw material prices for crab. Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of processors that are buying crab. It seems to
me that fact puts in question the position of the
processors that there is no profit to be had at the
current price set by the panel.
So I ask the Speaker:
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
unequivocally support the price set by the panel?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to be baited into doing a dance
here today, I tell you, because this is a serious –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. HEDDERSON: -
and I am not going to be led in that dance by anyone
from across the House, I can tell you that right now,
but I will say, Mr. Speaker, that again, and I
reiterate, that this is a collective bargaining
procedure, one which we have set up through the Price
Setting Panel to be able to negotiate and to work with
the two groups. Now, I have been asked to get into the
middle of that and to impose, I suppose, some sort of a
solution when again, I say to the hon. member on the
other side, this is two parties that are struggling to
come to grips with a downturn in an economy that is
beyond all of our control. So all I am saying is that we
are doing the best we can in these trying times.
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 will not repeat what I
said in response to the minister’s last question. It
still stands.
Mr. Speaker, the minister
in his statement in this House last Thursday saying the
comparison of local crab prices with prices in Atlantic
Canada is like comparing apples to oranges has caused
bewilderment in the industry, as reflected in an article
in Friday’s Telegram on the first page of the
business section where FFAW head Earle McCurdy questions
what the minister could have meant. According to the
head of the FFAW, snow crab is snow crab, which is my
point.
So could the minister
stand and explain to the head of the union what he meant
when he compared snow crab and snow crab to apples and
oranges?
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
Time for a quick answer
from the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr.
Speaker, I had to put on my glasses for that one because
I cannot see where this is going because again, I made a
comparison to draw attention to the uninformed that
there are differences between the snow crab situation in
the Maritimes as it is in this Province.
The Leader of the
Opposition, when she was Fisheries Minister, had a
report done, the Dunne Report and it identified fifteen
different variables. Let me put on my glasses. Bonuses,
markets, characteristics and quality of crab, price
setting mechanism, competition for the project,
jurisdictional processing requirements, shipping costs,
how it is financed and on and on and on again. Again,
there are differences. I made a point that there are
differences!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
questions and answers have expired. |
