The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a building in my district that has been designated as a Registered Heritage Structure by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

NaGeira House in Carbonear, known historically as Pinehurst, was built between 1922 and 1931 for William Charles Moores, a local merchant. Mr. Speaker, this home, which now serves as a bed and breakfast, owned by Peggy Norman and Gerry Rogers, has been described as one of the most preserved merchant homes of its era and features one of the most unique interiors of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate NaGeira House on this designation, which will benefit by giving this beautiful building provincial recognition, eligibility for grants, and installation of a plaque to indicate the building's historical significance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador West will be holding its first ever Come Home Year celebrations in 2002, from July 20 to July 27. A committee was established last fall to look at the possibility of holding such an event, and received overwhelming response from the community.

Mr. Speaker, a Web page was established in mid-March of this year and to date has almost 2,500 visits. People from as far away as New Zealand, Europe, New York, Houston, Washington and every province in Canada have left messages stating they cannot wait to return.

We expect this event to be the biggest celebration ever to be held in Labrador. The Iron Ore Company of Canada, since it started in Labrador West, alone has hired a total of over 60,000 people. Add to that the number of people employed with Wabush Mines, the towns, the hospitals and other places of work, and the numbers are incredible.

Many, who are adults today, were born in Labrador West and left at an early age and are expressing a desire to come back and visit their birthplace. Many who spent their formative years and attended high school and graduated there are very excited about renewing old acquaintances.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Labrador West was a very transient community during the 1960s and 1970s, and when families moved away not many of them had relatives there who would cause them to return for visits. However, this Come Home Year appears to be the thing they were waiting for, according to many of the comments received to date.

I certainly wish to thank the organizing committee for their efforts in the planning of events, and I am certain the Come Home Year will be an astounding success.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update my colleagues on a meeting which just took place between myself, the Deputy Premier, other members of Cabinet and caucus, and the new board of directors of Fishery Products International, where we advised the board of government's intent to hold them accountable for the commitments which they made to the people of this Province.

Government recognizes the significant role played by FPI in this Province's fishing industry, and when a new board of directors was elected yesterday, we immediately requested a meeting with the new board to discuss the future direction of FPI and the rural communities which will be affected by their corporate actions.

In the weeks leading up to yesterday's meeting, the dissident slate, which ultimately formed the new board, made commitments to this government and to the people of the Province regarding the future of FPI, and specifically the future of FPI plants and plant workers in this Province.

The purpose of our meeting was to remind them of the commitments they have made and to advise them that this government intends to hold them fully accountable for delivering on those commitments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: We advised the new board that we expect them to state their intentions and provide government and the people of the Province with an outline of their corporate strategy and details of an action plan by which they will fulfill the commitments which have been made to the people of the Province and to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These decisions and plans must be - and, I say, must be - consistent with the promises that have been made to government, the unions, the communities, and, most importantly, to FPI employees in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government will continue to hold FPI accountable to the people of this Province, and we will be convening another meeting with the board within the next couple of weeks to discuss these issues further.

Fishery Products International was created by the Legislature of this Province, and the FPI legislation can be modified at any time to ensure that the provisions of the act reflect current circumstances and address contemporary concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say to the minister that we welcome his words, and I am sure the Province is eager to hear words that say that the government will stand up and ensure the commitments that were made by the dissident slate for the Board of Directors of FPI made over the past number of weeks, that this government will ensure that they adhere to those commitments.

While we welcome his words, Mr. Speaker, we are anxiously awaiting the government's actions, some action that we have not seen in the past number of weeks on this issue. We have not seen the action, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: I will just point out why we have not seen action, Mr. Speaker. We have not seen the action -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ( Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.

In the past couple of the weeks when the Atlantic Fisheries policy review was on, when a key element of the FPI takeover -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, agree that it is very important to the well-being of this Province that FPI carries on its traditional way of operating within the Province, particularly as the communities around are affected.

I would like to point out something that the former Minister of Fisheries stated yesterday when he talked about the fishing industry being a $1 billion industry in this Province, compared to the mining industry, another very important industry in the Province that has a $1 billion export value. The difference, as the former minister pointed out, is the number of people who are dependent upon the fishing industry is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the number of people who are affected by the fishing industry in this Province reaches right around the entire perimeters of the Province and to all regions. It is important that FPI, the new board of directors, understands that if it is not acting in accordance with the legislation that is there today than the power of this Legislature can be used again to make sure that it does work.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Library Week, April 29 to May 5, and the important role of community libraries in our Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Library Association chose as their theme, "Let Libraries Carry You Away"- a very appropriate theme which speaks to the world of possibilities reading opens up to us. Reading can transport us back in time, to a far away place or into the future. We read to enhance our education, for work-related research, or simply for the pleasure of it.

Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Library Week and the joys of reading, we must also recognize the importance of being able to read. The Department of Education has identified the teaching of reading and writing, particularly in the early grades, as a priority and has undertaken a comprehensive strategy to focus on literacy in the primary classroom and provide our youngest students with a solid foundation in literacy skills.

In addition, the Department of Education has invested an additional $2 million, over the past two years, to allow the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board to increase the inventory of books and resources in our ninety-six provincial public libraries.

It is recognized that the availability of reading materials is a significant factor in improving public literacy and that there is a direct correlation between a population's literacy levels and its economic prosperity.

This Library Week, I commend the staff, volunteers and all those who help operate our public libraries for the valuable work they do and I encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to drop by their local library, pick out a book and allow themselves to be carried away for the joy of reading.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement. I certainly will join with her in recognizing the importance of Library Week, the importance of reading, of writing, of literacy in general, and the importance of having these community libraries in our Province supported. It is good to see that additional money is being invested.

I say to the minister that there are other resources that need to be looked at in our libraries beside books, especially with regard to our CAP sites. As recently as February we had our CAP sites hours cut back in one of the libraries in my district from twenty-five to ten. This has happened in twenty-eight libraries.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I hope that the minister is indicating that these additional resources will address that type of problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, want to recognize the importance of Library Week and the role that libraries play in our communities. The ability to read and write is fundamental to everything else that we have to do in our lives. Even mathematics is problematic if a person cannot read to understand what is being asked. I would like to say, and I cannot help but wonder, the monies that were used for the relocation of the Library Resources Board, the thirty-one positions, how much benefit that could have been to the libraries of the Province if that money was allocated to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: It is something that in ninety-one communities hardly needs to be decentralized.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries. Obviously, as a result of yesterday's news and outcome of the shareholders meeting of FPI, there are many questions that people have and many questions that need to be posed. I am glad to see this morning that the minister, I suppose, and Cabinet and caucus, met with the current board, but I would like to ask some questions today, particularly in view of the fact that former competitors of FPI are now competitors-owners of FPI.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker: In view of the current legislation which, if we enforce it in its entirety as it now stands, how does the minister plan to defend the interests of the Province when domestic competitors, former domestic competitors, former domestic foreign competitors which are now directors and management of the company now have a say in the management of the company, determine its policies and have full access to vital information about its finances, business operations, acquisitions and competitive strategies? Could the minister inform us how he plans to enforce the current act on the one hand, and how he plans to deal with this situation on the other?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to let the hon. leader across the floor know that we had a very good meeting, our first, and we will be having many, many more. In fact, over the years I think maybe his party and ours have been a little lax in holding regular meetings with the board of directors of FPI. It is only in recent months, Mr. Speaker, it has come to the forefront in that FPI has received the notice maybe that we should have been paying to it over the years; but, having said that, the board this morning, the new board, gave us a full commitment that they would live up to the commitments that they have made to the people of the Province and to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they fully intend to comply with the act and the legislation governing FPI. As for what we can do about the - he talked about the competitive interest in FPI. In a circular that was distributed - an open letter to shareholders by the dissident group - it outlines what they intend to do there, and we will hold them to that.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and I have said time and time in this House and outside the House, we will do everything in our power and the power of the Legislature to protect the interests of FPI and the assets of FPI to the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: As a result of yesterday, it is clear that a concentration of ownership in the industry has occurred. For anyone to deny that, Mr. Speaker, would be denying the nose that is clearly on your face.

I would like to ask the minister: What strategy or plan does government, through the Department of Fisheries, have to deal with the concentration of ownership, have to deal with how that may affect rural communities, how that may affect the price of fish, how that may affect the numbers of people who are employed in the processing sector? I would like to ask the minister: Could he elaborate and tell us the strategy and plan that the Department of Fisheries has to deal with the obvious - I repeat, the obvious - concerns and questions raised with the concentration of ownership that has just occurred?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman raises some interesting questions and I will address some of them now. He talked about the price of fish. As you know, and everybody in the House knows, we put a piece of legislation in the House last year that governs the price of fish in this Province. It is called the final offer selection, and it is doing a good job. It did a good job last year and it is doing a good one this year.

All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that the minister and the Department of Fisheries controls all of the licencing of fish plants in this Province and we will be very diligent in the responsibilities that the minister holds; and we will, as I continue to say, do everything in our power, if something unfolds as it should not, to make sure that is corrected and that we protect the assets of not only FPI for the Province but every other fish plant as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are obvious questions and I will pose some more right now. For example, now that the former competitors are now both competitors and owners of FPI, because that is the case - for example, a question needs to be asked and I would like to ask the minister, has he asked it? If a new quota, for example, becomes available in the Canadian zone, will FPI be able to compete for the quota on a level playing field, say, if Clearwater or any of its other domestic competitors are also competing for it, while at the same time they are on the board? Will it be able to compete on even terms, I ask, Mr. Speaker? Furthermore, will FPI have as much information about its competitors and its strategy on how they will get that quota, as its competitors will have about FPI? There is an obvious concern here. It is an obvious question. The question that I pose to you again, to answer those: What type of strategy do you have in place to ensure that such a situation does not exist?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He raises questions about quotas. He knows the stand of this Province and he knows the stand of this government, and it has been since 1989, that we should have more control over the say of our fishery that the federal government holds. We started that in 1989 and we have continued to press the federal government to have more control over the allocations of fish in this Province.

I have written the federal minister, asking him to ensure that the quotas that FPI had, and will have in the future, will remain for the benefit of the plants that are now in operation and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister what his position was vis-à-vis quotas staying in the Province and urging the federal government. I asked him this question, and I will ask him again: What is the department's strategy now that the former competitors are now competitor-owners of FPI? Will FPI be able to compete on a even basis if a new quota becomes available, when some of the very board of directors of the company may also be competing for that? Will there be a level playing field? Will FPI, for example, have as much information accessible to it about its competitors' strategy as obviously the competitor owners have about its strategy? What is the minister's plan and the government's strategy to deal with this very legitimate question and this very legitimate concern on behalf of the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that this government could have done to say that you are allowed to buy shares in FPI and you are not. The fact remains that there were competitors out there prior to any of this rising in the Legislature and in the public of Newfoundland in the last month or so. There were competitors out there with substantial shares in FPI. Sanford, for example, in New Zealand, had 15 per cent of FPI for a number of years. I have never heard that raised in the House of Assembly before, in the last seventeen years that FPI was in existence. I have not heard any of this. We cannot stop someone from buying shares in FPI. All I can say is: Yes, I do believe, and I am firmly convinced, that we will ensure that FPI knows of what quotas are going to be offered up by the federal government. I think that any business would know that. We will certainly do everything, and it is government's obligation to ensure that they do it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about yesterday. I am talking about what this government's plan is for tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, for the backbone of the industry of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery. That is what we are talking about.

I would like to ask him this question. Again, these are legitimate, bonafide questions that deserve to be answered, and answered frankly and forthrightly, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker. The question is this: In view of the fact that former competitors, for example, are now competitor/owners/operators/directors of FPI, did you ask this morning if Icelandic Fisheries and Sanford, for example, which were FPIs competitors in cold water shrimp, that if FPI wants to spread into a new market or expand existing products in the U.S., Europe, or Asia, will they be able to do it even though they are in direct competition with some of its board of directors or shareholders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, he keeps talking about FPI as if the whole structure, everything in the whole system of FPI, changed this morning. The only thing that changed with FPI is the board of directors. As we have debated here in this House, as I said on a number of occasions, and the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said, there is nothing we could have done short of nationalizing the company to prohibit the shareholders of that company from electing a new board of directors.

You talk about the competition. There is a Competition Act, or a competitors act of Canada. There is also the corporations act of Newfoundland and Labrador that regulates what a competitor or a conflicting interest that a director might have in a company that he owns and one in which he is a shareholder on a board of another company. That is in legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I am doing here today is performing the role that I constituently have to perform, and that is to ask the questions that the people of the Province want asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are advocating one thing and one thing only, and that is holding government accountable for its actions and a plan for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the minister is saying, and I would like to ask him: Is he saying that there are no questions being asked as a result of yesterdays decision? Is he saying that the questions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the minister: What is the plan and strategy that government has for what is obvious -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Johnny (inaudible) is going to be mad at you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I could care less who is mad at me, if we are on the right side of the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Frankly, I could care less.

The questions I am asking deserve to be answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the questions I have asked to the minister are clear. They are questions and concerns that have been raised outside this Legislature. He knows that, and if his staff have not briefed him on these concerns then he should do something with his staff. These questions are legitimate. They are bonafide.

In informing the new competitor/owners of FPI about the FPI act, I would like to ask him this question: Can the act - we believe it can - but how do we hold shareholders to account? Because as a result of yesterday's decision shareholders have decided what is in collusion or not, not boards of directors. I would like to ask the minister this question: Has he informed the board this morning that the act - not shareholders deciding, not the board of directors I say, that is clear. Has he informed the new board that the Fishery Products International Act, on the basis of collusion and acting in concert, that this government will enforce that act to the letter of the law?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I respect the hon. member's right to ask the question, Mr. Speaker, and I have been trying to answer the questions. Now if he does not like the answers there is no need for him to get hostile at me. I have not said anything to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I read a ministerial statement here yesterday afternoon that stated what this government was going to do and how we were going to hold the new board of directors accountable to this government and to the people of this Province. The hon. member actually clapped for me, along with the rest of his colleagues.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is we will do everything in our power. You have to also remember that eight of the board members that were elected yesterday were very prominent business people in this Province. That is something that has been missing in this whole conversation; eight individuals, and most of them are in that room today. They said anything that would damage FPI would be to damage the community and damage the Province in which they live. They are also very community minded individuals, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Many of whom rely on the people of those communities to earn a living themselves. They have no desire to hurt these communities in any way because not only would it be hurting these communities it would also be hurting their chances of increasing their business in those communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Final Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister this question. The FPI Act, as it currently exists, indicates in clause 7 that the company cannot sell all or substantially all of its marketing, processing, or harvesting operations. I would like to ask him this question: Have you specifically talked to the new board regarding the current marketing arm of FPI, formally known as Clouston Foods? Have you indicated to the new board that you, as Minister of Fisheries representing the government, representing the Crown, and ultimately the people of the Province, will not stand by if they choose to sell or get rid of that marketing arm?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that question is simple. The answer is, yes. Not only that, but I told him that FPI was created under legislation in this House and if there was not sufficient legislation to do with that board of directors or the company in general what we wanted done to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we would come back into this House and (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Minister, basically it is a good time during Libraries Week to go back to the issue of language arts in the primary grades. We need some clarification, minister, as to where you are going with this. I have a letter to the parents from the Avalon West School Board which states that the board will not reduce instructional time in music, art, physical education, or other subjects next year. If the board is not going to decrease time in other subject areas how will it be able to carry out the minister's instruction to increase instruction time in math, 20 per cent to 25 per cent, and from 25 per cent to 40 per cent in language arts? Minister, please.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate what I said in the answer to the same question a couple of weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: The same question. Maybe different words but the same question. Let me say again, what we are attempting to do here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more questions.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in our school system is utilizing that 10 per cent of the time, which is now optional in the system, so that will see the 25 per cent increase to 35 per cent. What we have said as well is that we would like to see an additional 5 per cent of the time to focus on literacy, so we have asked the schools and the school boards and everyone concerned - and we have been involved. This is not an initiative of the department alone. This is certainly something that has been done, in consultation with the boards - to get that 5 per cent by focusing on literacy in other subject areas as well, so that when they are teaching music, or when they are teaching math, or whatever subject they are teaching, that they spread the whole issue with respect to literacy across all of the curriculum. That is how we have suggested they can get the 40 per cent, and we have been told by the boards and by schools that we have been working with, that this is not a problem. In fact, the10 per cent optional is used in most cases now for the teaching of literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I find this funny: for the minister to get in her place today, after creating a crisis for the last two or three months, in saying that she is going to take away from music, and now she is saying that nothing is changing. Because this is what has been going on in the school system, language across the curriculum, for as long as I can remember. So, Minister, you are getting up and saying nothing has changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but what I did ask is: Can the minister get up and tell the House now that nothing has changed with regard to time allocation in the primary grades?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the only crisis that has been created out there is what the hon. member has been promulgating, and that is: there has been a major change with respect to literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time the members opposite recognize that we have a problem in our Province with respect to literacy, and that what we are attempting to do is to try and improve the lot for our people, starting with our youngest students. We would like to do more, but at this point in time we are looking at K-3. Let me repeat, it is K-3. We are not talking elementary, we are not talking junior high, we are not talking high school. We are talking in the Grades K-3. Let me say again: We are not reducing time on music; we are not reducing time on art; we are not reducing time on phys. ed. I guess I will repeat it again: There is 25 per cent of the time that is allocated now for language arts. There is a 10 per cent optional in the school day, which is being used now by the majority of schools for language arts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS FOOTE: What we are saying is, let's look at all subject areas and focus on literacy so we can bring the added attention that is so desperately needed to the area of literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I take from what the minister has said that there will be no changes next year in the primary from K-3, and that what she has said in the past, and she has stated in her press releases or whatever, that it is going up to 40 per cent, that is not going to happen. Also, you indicated that there would be a 5 per cent in math. Are you saying now, that will not happen either?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I would ask the hon. member opposite is that when he puts out his press release today after his question, which he does every time he asks a question, that he get the answers right this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I will do everything I can to increase the focus on literacy. If that means asking teachers, which they normally do now, to focus on literacy across all subject areas, then we will ask them to do that, because that is in the best interest of the students of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Minister, I am sure you will recall a couple of days ago I mentioned and asked questions concerning the money that is going to be for infrastructure in the year 2001.

Minister, as you are very much aware, there are more than 200 communities that have contaminated water supplies in this Province. As many, or more, communities also have problems with sewerage and waste management. What emphasis is the department giving to these needs in approving infrastructure projects?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the hon. member for the question. There is no doubt about it, that in this Province we do have problems with water supplies, where we would like to improve the number of them that are already there, and we are working at that. I want to say to him that this year the infrastructure program and the capital works program that we are going to bring forth is going to be a green infrastructure program. We want to put major emphasis, in fact most of the emphasis, on the communities that have some problems with the water supply, and we will continue to do that. In fact, last fall my predecessor announced up to $100,000 per municipality, 100 per cent funded by the provincial government, if these people came forward to improve chlorination systems or to install new chlorination systems. Also in the budget was $10.1 million to improve water quality for the communities; and I would think that later on, when we release the infrastructure program, that the hon. member will see that the vast majority of the dollars from the infrastructure program and capital works will be to address the water quality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I can only say that I wait for that announcement and I will be very interested to see exactly where this money goes.

Mr. Minister, as you are well aware, the communities most in need cannot afford to pay their municipal share to quality for provincial and federal funding. Does this Province have any plan in place to help those communities that cannot come up with their share of the infrastructure cost or any cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that is a major problem for many of the rural municipalities in this Province. In fact the smaller towns, towns that are less than probably 5,000, you could categorize them in two or three different categories. Up to now we have had a 50/50 cost sharing basis with many of the smaller municipalities; and I realize, and this government realizes, that formula had to change. In consultation with my caucus colleagues and Cabinet colleagues, we are presently looking at that, with the hope that we can address that particular problem. By doing that, then we can improve on the water quality within the smaller communities that are there and be able, at the same time, to address the regional problems that exists.

I would also want to say to him, as far as waste management - because he did ask me that question earlier - we do have a major problem here in the Province with waste management; but I can say to him that the number of municipalities that have come to me, and I have tried to see as many of them as I can over the last number of days, the culture is beginning to change. People are beginning to realize that we have to work together as a region. We have to work together as a group. We have to get rid of many of those landfill sites that are out there. We have more than 250 of them. They are eyesores. We do not know what is going in many of them. What I can say is that I have worked with the Member for Windsor-Springdale and his is one of the areas out around King's Point, Springdale and around Triton, Brighton, where they are coming together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. LANGDON: There are many, many other communities on the Burin Peninsula, down around the area of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. LANGDON: I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Environment, to work together to improve that for the whole Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. On March 19, 2001, a decision was rendered by the adjudicator of the board of inquiry into a Human Rights complaint involving the dismissal of a health care worker. This decision established that the Department of Health and Community Services is an employer where a person is hired to provide home support services with funding provided by the department. This, Mr. Speaker, is a significant decision. It confirms what we have said all along. I ask the minister: When will the department fulfill its duty, as an employer, and provide workers' compensation coverage to home care workers employed through the self-managed care program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for the question. There is no doubt that the question raises a serious issue and a matter that has been brought before this House previously, and it is a matter that has been actively considered by this government.

We are all aware that a short time ago a report from the home support advisory committee was tabled in this House, calling for a number of changes that, in fact, in total, would cost the taxpayers of this Province some $70 million. The matter that hon. member refers to is one of these.

Government is actively pursuing this. We recognize that our home support workers are very valuable employees. They perform a very important service to the citizens of this Province. We also recognize that they are among the lowest paid of our health care workers. Certainly, as a government, we want to do everything we can to support them.

In this year's Budget, as the hon. members would be aware, there is a provision contained within the Budget to provide in the area of some $5 million to increase the wages to these home support workers; as a matter of fact, to increase the basic wage. The lowest wage will go from $5.84 to $7.01. That, I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize as an important first step towards dealing with that issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. SMITH: The other matter that the hon. member raises is under active review and certainly is something that government recognizes that we have to do. As soon as we are able to identify the funds to do it, we certainly will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the department must pay compensation for lost wages plus interest, as well as $2,000 for emotional damages as a result of discrimination against the complainant. I ask the minister: When will this government stop abdicating its responsibility as an employer to these workers and ensure that they are covered under a no-fault insurance, as recommended by the task force on workers' compensation, or would this government rather take the option of running the risk of being sued each and every time there is an injury in the home care sector?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this government certainly does take seriously the issue at hand. It is not a matter that we are waiting to be forced by any quasi-judicial body or the courts to act on issues that we think are of relevance and of importance to the citizens of this Province. As I have indicated to him, this is a matter that is being actively pursued by government and will be dealt with in due time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition on the bulk water export from the Province proposed by the Premier. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province.

It is time we demand our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spin-off from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we started a petition campaign just two weeks ago, and we are starting to get petitions come in now already. Mostly, so far, from St. John's, but we are getting some from rural areas as well. The last time we presented petitions on this issue, we had literally thousands of petitions to ban the bulk export of water from this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. The Premier, himself, has admitted that we do not know what the clawback federally will be from bulk water exports. We do not yet have a comprehensive royalty regime put in place in this Province, and already the Premier is talking again about exploring the idea of exporting water in bulk. That is not to mention the possible implications under NAFTA, which every other province and the federal government, I may add, have said are very serious. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. Even if there were no implications under NAFTA the fact of the matter is this, that this is a resource that is growing more valuable each and every day. This is a resource that is far less expensive to process than oil and is, in actual fact, as the former Minister of Fisheries said yesterday, worth more than oil, and will continue to grow that way.

Water is in growing demand around the world and we cannot allow this resource to be treated the way other resources have been treated in this Province in the past. We have to demand our full and fair share. We have to process this resource, bottle it in this Province and demand maximum benefits from this resource right here for the people who own it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave of the House to report on the Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking leave to revert back to Presenting Reports.

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment; Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission; and Governments Services and Lands.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank members on both sides of the House for their cooperation and assistance, to the staff of the House of Assembly for their assistance, and to all the members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we are debating a motion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to debate the resolution that we put forward yesterday, which essentially calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the House of Assembly to inform the new board of directors of FPI of their firm resolve - of this House's firm resolve and the government's firm resolve - to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Act.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly talk about the history of this important issue. First of all, we have to put it in the context of what happened eighteen months ago, when there was a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the problem with the minister? Eighteen years to start with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back eighteen years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a politically and economically sensitive, important issue to the people of the Province. Eighteen month ago, in 1999, there was a group of Canadian companies that made a takeover bid. At that time this House was asked to consider, and government was asked to consider, lifting the 15 per cent share restriction on FPI to allow such a takeover to occur, or potentially occur. There was an offer made by the company, which was called NEOS at the time, to the FPI shareholders. There was a response to that offer by FPI. While that occurred, there was a commitment in this House, taken by both side of the Legislature, and enforced by both sides of the Legislature, I am pleased to say, that if there were to be any changes whatsoever in the current act, that those changes would have to be okayed by the people in the communities who are affected. Ultimately, history tells what happened. This Legislature indicated at that time that the evidence was not clear enough for us, as elected politicians representing the entire Province, that we were satisfied that we would move in that direction to lift the share restriction. Now we wonder why the debate is occurring. I point this out as a matter of fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you do. You know why it is occurring.

Since that time we have seen a group of people who wanted to actually buy out the company, privatize it, in terms of a share offer. What they could not do and was said no to them, they began - which was their legitimate right - to purchase shares in Fishery Products International up to the ceiling. The limitations imposed upon by the Legislature and imposed upon by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, people began to question in the Province, legitimately, what was at stake here. The question was asked by many people, and I asked it in this Legislature. Was a group, or that group, trying to accomplish through the backdoor what they could not through the front? A legitimate question. The Deputy Premier and former fisheries critics, and Opposition, would have asked the same questions that anybody would have asked because it was the right set of questions to ask. Since that time government sought legal advice, which they promised, and legal opinion from the Department of Justice which they made a commitment on March 26 - the Deputy Premier did - and yesterday the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Fisheries said that they would table in the House what the legal advice was surrounding this issue, at that time. What was government advised to do? Which would lead from our opinion and give some more information out to the public through this Legislature on what advice government was given, why they acted the way they acted, and eventually what transpired yesterday.

The spirit and intent of this private member's resolution is very clear - and it was summarized yesterday by the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - that there are many concerns surrounding what transpired yesterday. No one can dispute that former competitors of FPI, in certain markets and certain species all over the world, are now competitors still but yet are also directors of the company. Now that raises many questions. Some of them I asked today and some we will ask tomorrow, and we will continue to ask questions as they arise. Forgetting all of that for the moment, the issue that is at stake is: How will the development of rural Newfoundland and Labrador continue to occur? How do we, in our roles as members of this House, how do we as people who have been elected to serve, ultimately, and protect that resource, protect it for the people so that maximum benefits can be gained from it? More importantly, how we use that resource to continue to grow the economies of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? That is what is at stake. Will we continue to grow operations in terms of numbers of jobs associated in the processing sector? Will we continue to enjoy forever and a day the existing quota and add to quotas as time goes on? Will outside interests, outside of the place we call home of Newfoundland and Labrador, have access to fish quotas, our quotas, to be used elsewhere? No one can say that that is not a concern or that we are fearmongering because it has happened. It happened in shrimp. It has happened in other species, many other species. We know that. It happened in Northern Cod. The question is: How do we now, in view of the change and changes that have occurred, fulfill our obligations, which is first and foremost to the people of the Province? That is the question.

Within the FPI Act; I believe that the act is very strong. Now, how do we enforce it? There are legitimate questions I asked today that government needs to answer on. For example, the questions related to the notion of in concert and in collusion. What was substantial yesterday, critical yesterday and very telling yesterday is that the act says: empowers the board of directors - not this Legislature - alone to determine if a group or a number of individuals, or a number of companies, are acting in concert. That did not happen yesterday. Shareholders determined that. Shareholders determined if that was true. Now if the full provisions of the act were applied, I do not know what would have happened yesterday. That remains open to speculation but no one can dispute the fact that shareholders of the company decided the collusion and in concert issue, not the board of directors. The act does not say that. The act is very clear on that issue. So there is a legitimate question that deserves to be asked. The provisions within the act are clear. The provisions in proviso, if it were enforced in law and in body, who knows what may have happened yesterday? I certainly do not, but speculation and the question deserve to be answered on one side.

On the notion of the protection of this Legislature, what power do we have? We have a lot of power, if we choose to exercise it. Clause 7 of the Fishery Products International Limited Act is very clear. It say that the company, as it now exists, cannot sell all or substantially all of its harvesting, its processing or marketing aspects or operations of the company.

Mr. Speaker, there are questions that deserve to be answered, and I am pleased to see today that the minister met with the company. In his statement he has asked, I assume, for a written strategic plan to be presented to government - Is that the case? Is that what has been requested? - certainly, that demonstrates how the company plans to do two things: How it plans to fulfill the promises it has made to the people of the Province; and, secondly, and at the same time, how it plans to fulfill its commitments and promises to the shareholders that FPI, as it used to exist yesterday, was not a company that took advantage of new opportunities or emerging opportunities, and that the share value was much lower than it should be.

I am interested to see that plan. I am interested to see how two things and two promises to two separate groups are going to be fulfilled at the same time. Can it be done? Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of conjecture. It sure can. Innovation, entrepreneurship, anything is possible; however, this company, unlike others, is an act of this Legislature. So we have a legitimate stake in this issue, we have a legitimate role in asking the questions that should be asked, and we have a legitimate role in demanding of the company to demonstrate to the people of the Province, through this Legislature, how they plan to do exactly that. I will wait and see what comes forward, and we will judge it then upon it merits. It is the only thing we can do.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns that surround the Province today are ones that again are legitimate, are ones that many people are asking, and it is about the future. What does the future hold for rural communities? What does the future hold for FPI in its role in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the issue that we are debating today. That is the spirit and intent of our private members' resolution, that we are asking this House and we are asking this government, with any change in directors that has occurred - and it has occurred - that we express in the strongest possible terms, and hopefully in one voice from this Legislature, that it is our clear intention, and our only intention, to say to the company that operates, that this House, because you are an act of this Legislature, or a creation of this Legislature, because we have a say in what you will do, beware and understand clearly that whatever we have to do, whatever must be done to ensure that this company - and the protection of rural jobs, the protection for rural Newfoundland, from our point of view, how we economically grow rural communities as vital parts of this Province, that in this instance and on this act we will move and do whatever is necessary to do.

That is the hub of, that is the spirit of, that is the intent of, this private members' resolution. I ask all hon. members, when it comes time to vote on this resolution, that we do so in unison, that we do so together, and that we send a strong and clear message to anybody and everybody that, in the final analysis, when it comes to an act of this Legislature, its laws and its bodies, that we will do whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that yesterday evening - I think he heard me across the House - when he presented this resolution, I think I looked at him, and the resolution read, and I will read it: that the Government and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador inform the new board of directors of Fishery Products International Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

In order words, he is saying to us, or what the resolution says, is: hold the board of directors to the Fishery Products International Act. What I said to him was, unless we want to lay out our positions very clearly, and we do, and in terms of support, let me say to the hon. gentleman, as I said to him yesterday evening across the House, that he will find no objection to this resolution on this side of the House. Let that be clear to everybody; because we in this House, as I said yesterday evening, all of us in this House, are concerned with what is happening and what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador; not only, I say to him, in the last three or four weeks, but what has happened here since 1982, since 1981, what happened in 1991, what happened in 1987, and the effect that it has on the social and economic fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let there be no doubt in anybody's mind that every person in this House is a good Newfoundlander and Labradorian, because that is what is required and that is what people come to this Legislature for.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made a number of points about the shareholders being the people who decided on whether people were acting in concert or not. That was a piece of legislation that was put in place in 1987. Without being critical, but just to point out to the hon. gentleman how things change, I want to read to him what the Minister of Fisheries of that day said about that act, about Fishery Products International. The hon. gentleman on the other side says, will the government consider, at this point in time, changing that act? Let me read to him what his own colleague, who now sits as the Member for Lewisporte, said. I have no doubt that the Member for Lewisporte meant it when he said it: We think that we have built into a privatized FPI the legitimate protection that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve from the operations of this company. He made that statement.

Mr. Speaker, if the legislation has failed, then I have to say to the hon. gentleman that it is a failure of the act that was passed in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can I ask a question (inaudible)?

MR. TULK: No, you can ask a question after. You will get the chance to speak last anyway. I want to finish my thoughts, if you don't mind.

We support the resolution. This morning, however, I do not think you can have it both ways. I do not think you can have it the way, I have to say to you, that the president of Fishery Products International has had it for the last month, when he walked into my office, called me at 8:00 a.m. and asked me if he could come and see me. I said, by all means, come on now. He arrived in the office at 8:30 a.m. and we had a discussion about the possibilities of this, because somebody had told him that probably one of the greatest supporters, and one of the greatest people who was a supporter against the NEOS deal was Beaton Tulk. He came into the office and he asked me the question: Do you have concerns? I said: Of course I do. I looked him straight in the face and said: Vic, what do you want done? Nothing, he said, stay out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TULK: Nothing! Stay out of it!

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is not true.

MR. TULK: That is absolutely what was said. It was also said to the Minister of Fisheries. It was also said to the Premier of this Province: Stay out of it. Let matters proceed as they should.

Not only that, but I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I think it was on Monday afternoon - the vote was Tuesday, wasn't it? On Monday afternoon, at 4:00 p.m., I talked to the gentleman out there and obviously he was feeling somewhat down. He had expected it, because at that point the share proxies were in anyway. The score was pretty well known. I said to him: Vic, do you remember the conversation we had? Yes. Then he comes back and says: Well, you could have nationalized it. Basically, he said, you could have nationalized the company.

Now, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot come to a minister of the Crown and say that you do not want them to intercede, that you do not want them to get involved, and then, when you have lost the battle, come back and say: Oh, government could have done something. That is what I understand the hon. gentleman said yesterday. I find that somewhat disturbing; because, as I said to Vic Young that morning in my office, I have a fish plant called Beothuck Fish, the best fish company in this Province, run by the best management in this Province - I don't care whether it is FPI or who it is - and I want to make sure they are protected, and there is no stone that I will leave unturned to do so.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. gentleman placed a resolution on the Order Paper, and it says that we basically confine ourselves to the Fishery Products International (inaudible). I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to confine myself only to that act; because, in the process of what has gone on in the last three or four weeks, the people who are now the shareholders, no longer the dissident shareholders but were the dissident shareholders, have become the shareholders, and they made commitments to this Province, and they have to be held accountable for those commitments. I have to say to you that the day we met with them, the people concerned about plants in their districts on this side, the minister concerned, and myself, we put it to them: You made the commitments. We want to see you live up to those commitments, and we will do whatever the legislation is, and if the legislation needs to be changed to do it, we will do that as well.

We are waiting for them, to be frank with you, to come back to us with their statement of where they intend to take this company in future meetings. We also told them that we will monitor them rather closely. Mr. Speaker, we will do what is required to be done, but let me say to the hon. gentleman on the other side that I think there is another important question here other than just processing, and where processing goes on in the Province. I think there is another important question, and I think this is the key issue. If you asked me today what the key issue is in terms of the survival of outport Newfoundland, what I call outport Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland, if you asked me what I think is the key to the survival of rural Newfoundland, I don't believe it is anything that this Legislature can do. I don't believe it is anything that you can put into legislation in this Province, and I don't think it has the same value as processing, and that is the control of quotas. The one big danger that is here is quota. Where does it go and where does it go for processing? That is the underlying fundamental question in Newfoundland and Labrador today. If you have a social conscience, that we have heard, that everybody suddenly wakes up now and has, if you hear that - five years ago I was hearing: let private enterprise take care of the works. It will all be taken care of by private enterprise. The fishery is not like that. That is not the fishery. There may be industries in this Province that should be solely run by private enterprise. The fishery is not one of them. The fishery is the soul and the culture and the fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the area that I represent, the area that the Member for Bonavista South represents, the area that my colleague from Burin-Placentia West represents, that the Member for Grand Bank represents, that the Member for Terra Nova represents, that practically everybody in this House represents, if they are to survive then you have to have control and some say in the resource, and the resource here is represented by quotas.

Mr. Speaker, what I have done - this does not take away from your resolution. I say to you today, it does not take away from your resolution because I have left it in there totally. You will get a copy immediately. I would ask the Speaker, if you want time to consider it, to do it. I have left your resolution in completely but I have amended it; but I think it is a positive amendment, I say to the hon. gentleman. I think it is. It says:

BE IT RESOLVED that the government and House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador inform the new board of directors of Fishery Products International Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

That is the hon. gentleman's resolution, right there. Then I have gone on and added:

And their intention to hold the company's board of directors accountable for the public commitments it has made to the residents of this Province to maintain and enhance employment levels and continue to operate all of its existing plants.

That is what I have added to the resolution. I think I have made it stronger, I say to the hon. gentleman. I think he will agree that probably makes it much more specific. I have then gone on because I think it represents the core question. This party believes that it represents the core question. If you look at the Jobs and Growth report - I don't know if the hon. gentleman had a chance to read it yet or not, but if he does, he will see that it is reflected in there as well.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government and House of Assembly call upon the federal government, as trustee of the fisheries resources adjacent to our Province, to ensure that all current and future quotas held by this company be harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of the residents of this Province.

I have added that to the resolution. I say to the hon. gentleman, what I have done here - I am not going to vote against your resolution. I have no intention of doing it. What I have done is clearly spelled out to the company and to the people who, today, control the fisheries resources of this Province, the quotas of this Province, the resources itself, is that we, as a Province, want to have some say and we want to ensure that the fisheries resources adjacent to our Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The last: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government and the House of Assembly call upon the federal government, as trustee of the fisheries resources adjacent to our Province, to ensure that all current and future quotas held by this company be harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of residents of this Province.

What we are saying to the federal government is we want you to ensure - because we have no control of it here, none at all. We are saying to the federal government that in order to ensure what happened yesterday, that in order to do away with the uncertainty that is out there - like the Minister of Fisheries said this evening: There are eight good Newfoundlanders on that board. Nobody is going to convince me that a fellow like Rex Anthony or a fellow like Frank Coleman, who has a great deal of interest in this Province - there is nobody going to convince me that Peter Woodward; Derek Rowe - even Derek Rowe, even though he is (inaudible) company, Vic Young was - John Crosbie; Brendan Paddick of cable television. It depends directly, that his company depends directly - take in Bonavista, for example, the people of Bonavista being able to prosper because he owns a cable company.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I know. I hope not.

There is nobody who is going to convince me that those eight or nine Newfoundlanders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am going to say what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker.

- that those eight or nine Newfoundlanders, who sat on that board, are somehow out to put the blocks to Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nobody going to convince me of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: You cannot have it both ways. Nobody can convince me of that. I think those people have the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. I believe that in the final analysis - in the same way everybody in this House would - that they will vote in what they consider to be the best interest of their Province. So it is time to do away with this idea that there are some Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have a hidden agendas, who want to somehow put us all down, that somehow or another FPI cannot survive unless there are a certain board of directors and a certain CEO there. That says you are indispensable. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I came awful close to asking the question: Do certain people feel themselves to be indispensable? There is obviously nobody in this Province who is dispensable.

There is a problem with quotas. There is a problem with resource. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North would know it better than anybody, and I said it yesterday in my speech. The town of Englee cannot survive unless somebody finds a resource for it. The town of Twillingate is in trouble unless somebody finds a resource for it. You can have all the laws and all the say you like about processing but if you do not say that the resources that are adjacent to our coast have to processed in Newfoundland and Labrador and if you do not have a voice in saying that then you do not feel (inaudible). I think that is the greatest thing that can do away, to be frank with you, about the uncertainty that is in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I think the biggest concern that the people, who are afraid of what happened yesterday, who are concerned about what happened yesterday - I think that is the biggest concern that they have, that somehow or another that resource will be gone. That it will be taken to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick and maybe taken off to Iceland. That is the fear that we have. It has been inbred into our conscience because we have seen so much of it in our past history.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is what I said, it is in our past history. It is almost part of our conscience. We are almost scared to get up in the morning afraid that somebody is going to take something from us, and it is perfectly understandable that that is the case. So I have strengthened the resolution to say exactly that. The people who are stewards, trustees, for this resource will ensure that that resource is processed in this Province.

Madam Speaker, having said that, I will invite other people - I will not take any more time because there are other people in this House who want to make a statement on the resource. I suspect there are other people who are going to be there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, just on a point of order. I wonder if we could take about five to ten minutes for myself and my colleagues to review the amendments. This is standard. We have oftentimes introduced amendments to private member's resolutions where we have recessed the House just for a few moments; because this is the first time we have had a look at it, the first time I have heard it. So I would like to have a brief look at it for ten or fifteen minutes, if that would be okay, Madam Speaker? We will come back and let others, who want to participate in the debate, to do so.

MR. TULK: I have no problem with that, Madam Speaker.

For the clarity of the speaker, I would like to say that I have amended the motion by adding the words to the original motion.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand that.

MADAM SPEAKER: This House will now recess for ten minutes.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I think it was by agreement that - basically, we broke for a period of time to allow the Opposition to take a look, as they should, at the amendments that we put forward. The point is: Are we okay with the resolution? If we are, we can go on and debate it without any further hassle.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The resolution, as proposed, and the amendments, as proposed - it is one of those times, which has occurred on private members' day in the past, where both the government and the Opposition are in complete agreement on the private member's resolution, as amended, if I can put it that way. There are other members, certainly on our side - I understand there are members on the other side who would like to speak to the amended resolution as it now exists.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will just speak for a few minutes on this resolution, in support of it, of course. This resolution and FPI in Newfoundland and Labrador is important to more than just the eight communities that FPI operates plants in. As I said a couple of days ago, I spent the last three years as a skipper on a fifty-five footer, fishing shrimp and crab. Pretty well every pound of what we landed, in those three years, was sold to and processed by FPI. I guess once you look around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - I had calls today from fishermen, fisherwomen in Daniels Harbour, who have no direct involvement in Fishery Products International through sales. There is no fish plant in the area. The closest one, I guess, is Port au Choix, which basically processes shrimp. They are groundfish fishermen. Even though they have no direct involvement in FPI, no direct connection to them, they are obviously very concerned about potential fallout from the actions of yesterday.

I spoke a little earlier in response to the minister's statement on FPI. I would like to get back to it because I did not have leave to carry on. I am not going to get anybody's blood pressure up today. I will try not to anyway because I think we are all in agreement with what we are saying here.

Madam Speaker, as we go on here we keep coming back to the harvesting. The Deputy Premier, a few minutes ago, spoke about the harvesting sector and FPIs quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador, the waters around Newfoundland and Labrador, and concerned about how we protect these quotas for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, we all know that the federal government has sole control over allocations and harvesting of fish in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. I hesitate to use Canadian waters. I guess this is where we come into the problem, in that this Legislature really is in a bit of a difficult situation when dealing with those issues. I was going to get to it in my response to the minister's statement that it is fine today - and I agree with the amendments as proposed. The amendment: "...that all current and future quotas held by this company be harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of residents of this province." As I said the Deputy Premier spoke about -

MR. TULK: Note the word maximum (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I know. The word maximum, yes.

There was a suggestion, I believe, that we should write a letter or correspond with the federal government on the matters of making sure - and looking for reassurance from the federal government that these quotas will remain the property, so to speak, of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am getting to my point. My point is, I guess, that in recent weeks the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review has been ongoing. That is something that does not happen every other day. However effective it might be at the end of the day, it is going on and we have, I guess, to give it the benefit of the doubt, and give the people who are conducting the review the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure but I think what I am going to say is right, and somebody on the government side can certainly correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that this government did not submit to the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review panel when it was going around.

We are looking for some kind of co-management. I know that we have been getting lip service from the federal government on this issue for years, and I know that is something that is going to be difficult to attain, but when we have an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review ongoing that deals with so many issues in the fishery - every issue, basically, in the fishery, whether it is allocations to some extent, management, certainly, of the fishery, issues like vessel replacement - the Member for Port de Grave and I had a little to and fro on that the other day about who got control over it. Ultimately, whether Richard Cashin has his mouth going about it or not, the federal government are the people who control that department, and control harvesting, and control quota allocations and so on. So we should have been at that Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review, and we should have put a position forward to the federal government at that time on how we think -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) put forward four weeks ago.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, it was my understanding that it was not. As I said, I look for -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, but I think the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review is the panel; and while it is good to correspond with the minister, ultimately the panel is also there.

Anyway, moving on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't mind him too much.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't mind him too much.

Anyway, I will got back to some of the Deputy Premier's statements also. He spoke about several weeks ago when Vic Young called him at 8:00 in the morning and asked for a meeting, and he came in and met with him. I guess this is why this is here today, saying: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the government and House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador inform the new board of directors of Fishery Products International Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

I guess there are a lot of people, myself included, who question whether or not the previous board actually upheld the act, as it is, on collusion and acting in concert under the 15 per cent ownership rule. The reason I brought up the Deputy Premier's meeting with Mr. Young is that he asked: What can I do? What do you want me to do? As I understand him to say it, Mr. Young said: Nothing. Stay out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay out of it, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I asked a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture a couple of days ago: What is the government doing to ensure that the board of directors of FPI are upholding the Fishery Products International Limited Act? I do not know what you told me. I could not get an answer out of it. I am not sure that you answered my question. You told me that you had been aware of the meeting that happened over the weekend.

I will get back to my point about Mr. Young, and the government's response to Mr. Young. If you would just listen for second, what you said was that he said: Don't do anything. You said: Fine, we won't do anything.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I am going to.

I know that the hon. gentleman is new here. I know that, and I appreciate that, but let me just say to him that what I said to Vic Young was quite clear. It was in the best interest of - at the time, I thought - FPI as they existed. Is there anything we can do? The answer was: No, stay out of it.

It does not reflect anything that we have or have not done, but that was the advice we received from the CEO who presumably represented the board of directors. That is all there is to it. You cannot put any more than that to it. If the man had asked for help, he would have gotten it, but he did not ask.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my point, if the minister would settle down and listen to what I have to say, he will understand that my question was not whether the government did anything as a result of Mr. Young's request or not. The question is, and the question to the Minister of Fisheries a couple of days ago was: Did the board of directors uphold the act?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, whose opinion is that? Is that a legal opinion? Is it your opinion, or whose opinion is it?

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Just to try to clear up the matter, Mr. Speaker, you have asked a question and you asked it last week. Last week when you asked the question, I told you that it was up to the board, the current or the past board of directors of FPI, to determine whether or not the dissident board was acting in concert. It says that in the legislation. It does not say that the minister or the government determines whether or not the board was acting in concert. What it says is that the board determines that. Mr. Young never once looked at me and said: We don't have the ability to determine that. He did not say anything in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am tempted to go back and agree with the Minister of Education's suggestion that we need to get more language arts education in the schools, because some people are not very good listeners or something.

What I am saying is: Are we satisfied that the board of directors carried out the act? I am not saying that you should have carried out the act. The board did not rule. Let's face it, Mr. Minister, the board did not rule whether there was collusion or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I guess the question is, then, in debating - and that is the reason this resolution is here today - is that we hope that the government, in the future -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Anyway, it was not any individual's decision, I don't think, to decide on whether or not there should be interference from the government. The board of directors were responsible to uphold the act on that clause on whether or not collusion existed, and there are questions. We asked questions the other day and we haven't gotten answers, I suggest to the minister, to the members opposite, on that. Maybe when we get the legal advice that the Department of Justice sought, we will get a satisfactory answer to that; but, as of to date, we do not have a satisfactory answer.

I guess why I went down that road on the acting in collusion, and whether the board upheld the act as it presently exists, is that we still have clause 7. I guess the reason why everybody in this Province, or the majority of the people in this Province, are paranoid about what is going on here today, and the minister spoke about it a few minutes ago, is how it has been our history that we have seen resources taken from here. We have seen the benefits from the resources taken from here and carted off.

I suggest to the minister and to the House that it is not just the past. It is the present. We still have those types of things; not to the extent, probably, that we had them in the past, but it is still there and that is why people are paranoid about it today.

The minister brings up St. Anthony from time to time, and Englee from time to time, and I know that Fishery Products International -

MR. SPEAKER: And Twillingate -

MR. TAYLOR: And Twillingate, right.

MR. TULK: And Ramea, and Burgeo (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I know. I know where the plants were.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I know that Fishery Products International closed down St. Anthony plant in 1992, and I know it did not reopen until Clearwater started to build a plant there in - what is this? 2001. In 1998, I guess it was, three years ago, they built a plant there and reopened it in 1999, I believe it was. Yes, some time in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I know that, and the concern in Newfoundland and Labrador today is about who is going to operate the plants best, I think. That is some of the concern that you see there in the public, but this is not about who is going to operate St. Anthony plant best. It is not about who is going to operate the Bonavista plant, or Catalina plant, or Port Union plant best, I guess; any of the eight plants, or the twenty-odd plants, or thirty-odd plants, or however many plants we have operating in Newfoundland today. It is about control of the industry, it is about consolidation of ownership of the industry, and it is about competition. I understand the minister's comments earlier about changes to the Collective Bargaining Act and binding arbitration, final offer selection, and all of that. I understand all of that, but we all know that in the fishery today there is the price and then there is the price. We all know that. If you don't, I do. Like I said, I spent the last number of years at it.

MR. TULK: How did you do with it?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you still pay taxes on it. Now, some fellows might not.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, we did alright.

I heard somebody - I believe it was the Minister of Transportation, the other day - say that he threw away more fish that I caught.

MR. TULK: How did the crew do with it?

MR. TAYLOR: The crew did good, Sir. I was one of the crew, actually. I was the skipper and crew. I wasn't the owner.

This is where the concern is amongst the fish harvesters. The fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador today are concerned about how the control of this industry now is resting in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and how that is going to affect the competition on the wharf. It is a legitimate concern, a very legitimate concern, and I suggest that in the fishery, although the Collective Bargaining Act has been improved, although final offer selection is an improvement over the past, that in large part the industry has not advanced and the collective bargaining within the industry has not advanced to the stage yet where all this under the table money can be cleaned up and we can really deal with it through contract negotiations in the absence of competition. There is that concern.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the major concern of everybody here

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief now.

I guess the major concern of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the concern certainly of myself and the reason that this resolution is here today, is concern about what happened eighteen months ago with the NEOS bid. Some of the same proponents today came back and have now taken control, I guess, of the board of directors. The industry is very concerned about what will happen with the marketing arm of FPI, and what impact that will have on the day to day operations of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the future of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly share those concerns and hope, in the days and months to come, that the governments sees fit to keep the current board of directors of FPI to their commitments to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the past number of weeks and to hold them to their responsibilities under the Fishery Products International Act and ensure that not all, not substantially all, not even a little bit all, of the assets of FPI, particularly its marketing arm in the United States, are sold to competitors or otherwise, and that we maintain control of the very important market that we have in the United States for the benefit of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have an extremely sore throat, so I don't know if I will speak very long. If I get lost at some juncture, it is because, as my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, said: sometimes my brain gets ahead of my mouth.

As the leader said earlier, he wants to go back eighteen months ago to when NEOS came in here and asked the government if they would lift the 15 per cent restriction at the time. We said we would only do if the communities affected agreed to it, and it did not happen. Shortly after being sworn in as Minister of Fisheries, back some fifty or sixty days ago, I had the occasion of Mr. Young, the president of FPI, or the CEO and president of FPI, call up and say: We would like to give you and your staff a briefing on the structure and on FPI in general. So, myself and the assistant deputy minister went to Mr. Young's office and he and a couple of his vice-presidents gave us a briefing on the company. It is a very impressive company, as you people know, especially some of you who have FPI plants in your town. We spent about two-and-a-half hours there that afternoon, and at the end of it Mr. Young said to me, that there appeared to be some movement afoot, on behalf of Mr. Risley, to again take a run at the board. I asked him what his concerns were at the time and he said that he was concerned that, with the Legislature opening, they might be coming back to ask if we would have the 15 per cent clause removed. I told him at the time: There are no intentions, on my behalf, to have the 15 per cent share restriction removed, and no one in our government. Basically, that was the end of the conversation.

He said there was something afoot, and about a week after that Mr. Risley came in - and I was privy to the meeting that he had with the Premier - and said: We are just here, basically, on a social call, to tell government that we are putting forward a slate for the upcoming board of directors' election. We asked, at the time: Are you asking us to remove the 15 per cent share restriction? The answer was a categoric no. Are you asking us to do anything at this time? No. Well, thank you very much, we will see you later.

They entertained a discussion, I know, in the House of Assembly since then, while I was at the International Boston Seafood Show. This is when it all broke, the following week. The Leader of the Opposition got up and said: Why didn't you grill them on this, grill them on that, grill them on something else? But, to have done so - eighteen months ago, or twelve months ago, we went through all of this with NEOS and the takeover. At that time, for us to grill him on what they were going to be doing and this, that, and the other thing with FPI would have been to assume that they were going to win.

We knew they were putting forward a slate. Mr. Young had told me that all he was interested in, at that time, was that we not remove the 15 per cent share restriction. Okay. So, when it all broke, and at the time I was at the Boston Seafood Show - I wish for all of you, if you have the opportunity, to go to the Boston Seafood Show. I do not know if my critic has been there, but it is definitely worth taking in, because you realize the role that Newfoundland plays in the fishing industry of the world. The first time I went there I was absolutely amazed, because I was always taught growing up in school that Newfoundland was the fishing capital of the world. I figured that we produced 95 per cent of the fish that was consumed in the world. To my surprise, when I went to work with the Department of Fisheries in 1989, I realized that we produced one-half of 1 per cent of the fish that is consumed in the world. Having said that, if you go to the Boston Seafood Show you would realize very quickly that even though we are only a small part of the entire fishing industry of the world we have a great presence there. The companies that are taking part in the fishery of this Province are doing a tremendous job in marketing their product and having a presence.

Anyway, it all broke, and I can remember I actually listened from Boston to the comments that were being made by the Opposition that day and the general drift of the comments. I have spoken to members opposite since I got back. The general drift that I got from it was that you people, on the opposite side, wanted us, basically, to interfere in the selection of the board of directors, and, from what I was hearing on the phone, and heard later, that basically you wanted us to nationalize the company.

I have talked to a member opposite and I told him that is the impression I got all the way from Boston. He said: Boy, if you got that impression, you got the right one, because that is the same one that I had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Never mind now, boys. Listen now. I wasn't too bad with my colleague across the floor.

We sought legal advice, not only from our own legal experts in the Department of Justice, but we also went outside the Province. The reason we did that is because we thought that a number of the law firms would somehow be involved in representing different individuals and companies in the Province who were taking part in this takeover, or bid for the board. Everyone who has come back to us from that point on said: Basically, the only thing that you can do to interfere is come out and say, no, the shareholders of a publically traded company are not permitted to select a new board of directors.

Basically, to summarize what that means, is that the only way we could have prevented that under out legislation is to draft an anti-Risley act and bring it into this House of Assembly, or to nationalize the company, whereby, forever and a day, what you would be asking us to do would be, either me or the government would have to determine who was going to be the next board of directors for FPI. If we wanted to get into that, then you know what would happen, what would happen to the share price in FPI, what would happen to Newfoundland's image in the world. You have a company up and running and all of a sudden it becomes a very profitable company, then you want to take it over and tell these people who own this company they are not allowed to vote for a bunch of directors.

From that point on, Mr. Speaker, I had a number of discussions with Mr. young and some of the vice-presidents from FPI. In fact, I had one or two in Boston when I was there at the time. When I said, what do you want us to do, what can we do, the answer was: Don't know, or nothing at this time. I have had numerous conversations with Vic Young on this. The Premier has had numerous conversations with him, because I have been privy to those conversations. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last weekend, not this one past but the weekend before, I had a call from Mr. Young or his vice-president saying: We need to talk to the Premier today. It is a Saturday. Can you get in touch with him and have him call us? I did that on a Saturday, and I did it on Sunday. I know that he talked to them.

I was in my office on St. George's Day. No one else was in the office, it was a holiday. I had a call from Mr. Young. He was very upset over the comments that Mr. Crosbie made in the national papers in this country and he wanted to talk to the Premier again. I got the Premier to call him back. The Premier came on the Fisheries Broadcast that afternoon and said what Mr. Crosbie was saying was not right and it was not doing the Province any good. We have done everything that Mr. Young has asked us to do. So I do not know.

As I said, I was getting the impression from the Opposition over there that they wanted us to nationalize the company, and then last Monday or the Monday before last I hear the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party on the air saying exactly what we had been saying, that you can't - you shake your head. Give me the quote there. I heard him on the Fisheries Broadcast. I have this here and I can table it if you do not believe me. It says: I think it is an internal corporate battle. You cannot get involved in exactly what goes on in the board of directors. Mr. Williams says that. But to my dismay -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MR. TULK: What is the point of order? He did say it.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He obviously said it, but I want to be clear to the Minister of Fisheries. At no time in this Legislature, in Question Period, or outside this Legislature in public commentary, or anywhere, did anybody on this side of the House, ever suggest, ever intimate or leave an impression, that we wanted this government to nationalize FPI. To suggest that is the case is complete and utter rubbish, minister. No one has done it. Any sober, sound reflection, or look at Hansard in this House, would not lead you or anybody else in the Province to reach that conclusion. If you did, all I can tell you that you grasp of quantum physics is much better than ours, because it just did not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I was interrupted, I said that - and I will stand by what I said, by the way, Madam Speaker, because one of the members of his own caucus said: Gerry, if that was the impression that you had, that we wanted to nationalize the company, boy, that was the impression that I had. Now that was one of your own members and I do not want to name him here today, because I have some respect for his views at times.

Well, if you did not say, nationalize the company, what have you been saying for the past month? The government has to get involved, the government cannot let this happen, the government cannot let this dissident slate be elected. Alright. So what are we to do?

The only thing that our experts in the Justice Department, and our legal experts outside the Justice Department, say is: The only way that you can stop it is to nationalize the company. You tell me what you meant, because we do not know and I have been asking that question.

Mr. Williams, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, says: You cannot get involved in what goes on with the board of directors. I do not know exactly what he said, but I can tell you how it was interpreted on an Open Line show, that all of a sudden this is changed and government should have acted. I am asking the question here, like I have been asking it for a month: How should we have acted? It is easy to go out there and say: You should not do this, you should do that. All I can say to some of you is that some of you change your minds more often than some of us change our underwear.

The other thing: All through this debate we have constantly asked the Opposition, we have constantly asked our legal experts, and we have constantly asked the previous board of directors of FPI what should we do. The answer has always come back: Nothing.

MR. TULK: Stay out of it.

MR. REID: Stay out of it.

Then, yesterday afternoon- and I was just asked the question outside the House of Assembly by a reporter - Mr. Young made reference yesterday that the government could have done something, and had Brian Peckford been Premier today, he would have done something. But, Brian Peckford and the Member for Lewisporte drafted, crafted and pushed that legislation through the House of Assembly and bragged, to this day, that it was a good piece of legislation, and it was not a bad piece of legislation. I have asked -

AN HON. MEMBER: Supported by (inaudible).

MR. REID: That is what I said: And it was not a bad piece of legislation. All I am saying is that for three, four or five weeks we have been constantly hearing: You have to do something; you have to do something; you have to do something. We asked the question, what should we do, and no one has the answer.

The legal advice to us is that we could not act unless we were ready to nationalize the company. So we didn't. Mr. Young said yesterday that we should have acted, and Mr. Peckford would have. Well, if he had told me what he wanted us to do, maybe we would have acted, because I am just as much in the dark today as I was yesterday on what we could have done.

The reporter also asked me outside the House of Assembly: That Mr. Young suggested - and this is very important, because it answers my hon. critic's question, if he would listen. She asked me: Mr. Young said yesterday that he did not have the wherewithal - this goes back to the question from the Member for the Straits - or he gave the impression that he did not have the wherewithal, to determine whether or not people were acting in concert. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that if Mr. Young did not have the wherewithal to determine if they were acting in concert, and if he thought that they were acting in concert and did not do something about it, then all I can say is he was negligent in his duties to the board of directors, to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, furthermore, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because if he did not have the wherewithal to determine if they were acting in concert - had he told the government that he was extremely concerned about this, that he did not have the wherewithal to determine if they were acting in concert - then he should have let all of us know that. Because, the legislative right was in the board's hands. It was the board's hands , and not the government's hands, that were given the responsibility to determine if this dissident board were acting in concert. You said there was nothing done about it, but there appears to have been something done about it over the weekend.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could I remind the hon. Minister that his time is up.

MR. REID: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. REID: Over the weekend here is what happened. There was a deal struck. I do not know who did it. I know that the lawyer for the past board of directors of FPI came to an agreement that they would back out those they thought were acting in concert. They would not vote. One, Mr. John Risley, 15 per cent of the shares; Icelandic Freezing Plants Limited owns roughly 15 per cent of the shares; and Derrick Rowe who owns less than 1 per cent. What they did is they said: Here are the people we think could be acting in concert. We will take them out and lay them over here. They are not going to vote on Tuesday. So that leaves us with roughly 70 per cent of the shares left. The agreement was that if the past board, led by Mr. Young, got 50 per cent, plus 1 per cent, of the remaining shares in that company to vote on their behalf yesterday at the board meeting, then that would be as far as it would go yesterday. They would withdraw from the meeting and they would have until May 29 to determine whether or not the three that were cast aside as acting in concert, were actually acting in concert. But, if 50 per cent plus 1 per cent of the shares voted in favour of Mr. Risley and his group, then Mr. Young would step down and say that the vote was final. In actual fact, the vote came in at 82 per cent. So if you are talking about acting in concert, how can you say that 82 per cent of the shareholders in FPI were acting in concert? How do you do that? How do you tell the Ontario teachers' pension fund, who has invested in this company, that they were acting in concert?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You wanted to talk about it.

What I am saying is: Had Mr. Young thought and determined that these people were acting in concert and that he did not have the wherewithal to challenge this, he made no indication to us that he had a problem because the legislation gives him and his board the power to determine whether they were acting in concert. We would not have even had a vote yesterday -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has had time now to conclude.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I will clue up by saying that I believe we were very diligent in examining what happened to FPI and the board of directors selection in the past five or six weeks. We have done everything in our power. We will continue to do everything in our power to make sure that the new board of directors live up to the commitments that they made to us and the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this private member's resolution that is brought forward here today and make a quick comment on what the minister talked about, how people were saying that the government should have done more; and the government did enough. I say to the minister, the only person I heard that from was somebody on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true. I know what I heard, I say to the minister.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: He is misleading the House when he said that the comment only came from that one person. I know who he is talking about. I am telling you it came from more than that one person. It came from this House when you were calling on us (inaudible) to do something that you would not identify. Mr. Young said it yesterday, that the government could have stopped this from happening.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the people in the House. I am not talking about Mr. Young. I am talking about the people in the House here.

I say to people opposite that I understand the government, the minister, and the deputy minister met with the new board of directors for Fishery Products International. That is welcome news because there are many fears out there. There are many concerns out there. I have initiated a call to meet with the new chief executive officer of Fishery Products International. I have initiated a call and I expect to get a meeting to express my views and to express the people's opinions in the district that I represent, which includes two major fish plants; probably a district that is more concerned about this particular takeover of this Newfoundland fishing company than any other district in the House of Assembly here today. I am talking about -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I have to do this because I know that you cannot rise and do it yourself; but the Madam Speaker, in the chair right here, has three FPI plants in her district, I will have you to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I do not know how much the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows about the fishery, but if you have three fish plants that Fishery Products International owns in your district, I say to Madam Speaker -

MADAM SPEAKER: Baine Harbour, Marystown and Burin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then: How many fish plants are owned by Fishery Products International and if you will name them? He talks about eight or nine plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Anyway, sit down.

MR. REID: We are operating nine in the Province right now, Madam Speaker. Do you want me to name them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, name them for us.

MR. FITZGERALD: If he is going to name nine, Madam Speaker, he is not going to include Baine Harbour, I say to you. If he does not include Baine Harbour I do not know where the three is that would be in your district because they would not be included.

MR. H. HODDER: Baine Harbour is not included.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it is right that you have two but I am not so certain about three.

Madam Speaker, I compliment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question (inaudible) Madam Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was you. It was not hers at all.

Madam Speaker, I say to members opposite that I attended the shareholders meeting yesterday down at the Delta Hotel, as well as two other members: the member from Green Bay and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor-Springdale.

MR. FITZGERALD: Windsor-Springdale.

MS S. OSBORNE: And the Minister of Fisheries was not there.

MR. FITZGERALD: I was not certain what was happening when I went into the meeting there. In fact, I did not have any idea what was happening. I thought it might have been a situation where the people who were allowed to vote were going to support and vote for the present board of directors. Then I was concerned about a court case unfolding where Fishery Products International, as we know it, would get all tied up in a court battle rather than dealing with the fishery, rather than dealing with economic activities within the fish plants in our districts, and I feared of how the whole thing would unfold. I met Mr. Young at the door and he indicated to me that the votes were tracked, and the vote was over as far as he was concerned. It was obvious what was going to happen. The dissident board had been -

MR. REID: When was that? Before the vote?

MR. FITZGERALD: That was before the vote was counted or disclosed, I say to the minister.

MR. REID: Before it was counted or before it was taken?

MR. FITZGERALD: Before it was disclosed. There were some proxy votes because the tracking was done at the time and he had known they were going to lose by quite a margin, Madam Speaker. When the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. REID: I have to clarify something because the Member for St. John's West just indicated that the Member for Bonavista South was there and that I was not. The reason I was not there yesterday is because Mr. Young told me the day before basically what the outcome of that meeting was going to be so I did not see why I should there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to stop taking orders from Mr. Young.

I say to members opposite, when the Leader of the Opposition got up and talked about what happened eighteen months ago, members on the opposite side said: Never mind eighteen months ago, go back eighteen years ago; which the member could have but everybody knew what he was talking about. He was talking about the NEOS bid eighteen months ago and we should have been prepared for what was happening here.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) just put the current debate in context.

MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly. I say to members opposite that I can go back eighteen years myself because I was involved and working in the fishery at the particular time when Fishery Products International had been, I suppose, born by this Legislature and was put in place by the Bank of Montreal, the federal government and the provincial government in order to look after the affairs of seven or eight fish plants that were in trouble.

Madam Speaker, at that particular time, in 1992 when the moratorium was announced, I lost my job. I worked in a fish plant that Fishery Products International owned and closed down, and when this whole debate started about a new dissident slate of directors taking over Fishery Products International, I wondered to myself if it was going to be the people on the inside saying: Don't allow this to happen; and the people on the outside saying: Come on, come on, because now a new beginning, a new chance, a new board of directors, than it might include me because I have been left out of this. Maybe I will get a job. I was surprised that that did not happen, not to a great extent. There was some of it but not a lot, and it did not happen because of the fact that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador trusted and had respect for people who had earned their trust.

Madam Speaker, there is no argument over here on this side as to, I suppose, the intent, to the personalities or to the ability of the thirteen members who are now making up Fishery Products International. There is nobody over here on this side -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not, I say to the member. I will tell you what, I say to the Member for Bell Island, that you were not there to see it but there were lots of sharks around the Delta Hotel yesterday. There were lots of sharks around the Delta Hotel yesterday, I say to the member opposite. Lots of them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You would not know if it hit you in the eyes.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an argument about Vic Young, John Risley, Mr. Sobey or Mr. Hickman. This is much greater than that. This is about a company that affects not only the nine communities where they have a physical presence but it is about a company that pretty well affects the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes when a change is brought about, a change is welcome. A change is exciting. A change is new; but other times, like this change, then it is not comforting.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many plants did the FPI organization close down over the last ten years?

MR. FITZGERALD: How many plants did they close down? I am not too sure of the number of plants but I think it was something like eight other companies that came to form Fishery Products International as we know it today. There was a fair number of plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. A lot, you are right. That is why I wanted to say that I thought it might be a situation where people who were involved and lost their jobs, and communities that had lost their plants, would come and rally behind this but I have not seen a lot of evidence of that. As I said, I was one of the people who lost my job back at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ended up on your feet though.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ended up on my feet and a lot of other people ended up on their feet but there are some ruins left out there as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not going to stand here today and heap praise on the former CEO of Fishery Products International, but I tell you what, he was a very capable, reputable man who had a social conscience. I tell you what, every time that I made a telephone call to his office I was accommodated. I tell you what, every time I wanted a delegation to come in and talk about opening a plant, or every time I had a delegation come in looking for extra work we were accommodated. When we left, we left knowing the truth.

It is not about Vic Young. Myself and Mr. Young had a lot of disagreements as well. I remember when I was trying to get the plant down in Port Union open. The biggest plant - and this could be another argument that somebody might shout out. I know Marystown is by far the biggest plant now, but I think at that particular time Port Union was the biggest plant in all of the Fishery Products International operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you try to get him to run for the leadership?

MR. FITZGERALD: Did I try to get him to run for the leadership? That is something you will have to ask him. You have to ask him those questions. I cannot go answering those type of questions today.

MR. SHELLEY: We know who you got.

MR. FITZGERALD: We know who you tried to get to run and we know that there has been no honeymoon with your leader. We know that you made a mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, there are lots of people involved in our party who are capable of being leaders. That is one thing, there is no shortage of people who are capable within our party.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely, all leaders.

I have never agreed with the amount of production that has been happening in Bonavista. I have never agreed with the plant in Port Union, which employed 1,400 people, being closed down; the flagship of the Fishery Products International operation, and nothing being done there. It was something that included a lot of meetings. It included a lot of delegations coming from our communities in to meet with the present board. At that particular time when we left we would have an answer. With the new board, with the new group of people - and I refer back to the NEOS bid eighteen months ago. I remember meeting with them. At that particular time those people were going from one community to the other making up a business plan as they went. People who thought they were going to be offered some opportunity, all of a sudden said: We had better stop and look at what is happening here. We might just lose the little bit that we have. We have gone through enough turmoil in this industry. We have gone through enough hardship. We are not so sure that we believe what we are being told, and because of that, that particular bid failed. So it is no surprise to see a group of people come back again to try to take over this fishing company which means so much to this Province.

I remember a few weeks ago; we met with Mr. Risley and some of the people on the board. We raised a question, and I raised a question: I am not so sure how we can go and make up our mind, or how I can make up my mind, and support what it is that you are trying to do, and what it is that you are asking us to support, because I do not know what it is you are going to do. Show me a business plan. Show me your plan.

While I am unhappy with what is happening in Bonavista as far as shellfish production, crab production, is concerned, and while the people there want to have a longer term of work, and while they want to have more people working at the plant, they were not willing to accept a proposal that said we will build a new plant and we will operate a new plant for you, unless they were sure that what they were being promised was going to become a reality.

Now, eighteen months later, we have the same situation again where people have come back and asked us to support them in trying to take over this particular operation with no business plan. I say to people opposite, and I say to the people here, that is what concerns me.

The Mayor of Harbour Breton, I say to the minister there, I talked with him down at the meeting as well. He got up and asked a question. He pledged his allegiance to the new board of directors and to the new company, but he wanted some assurance that the fish plant in Harbour Breton was going to remain open. The reason why he wanted the assurance is that he was there not representing Mr. Churence Rogers; he was there representing the people who elected him to come in as their representative, with the majority of them getting up in the morning, putting on their rubber boots, and going to work in that fish plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like he did to keep the plant open.

MR. FITZGERALD: Like he did to keep the plant open, absolutely, I say to members opposite.

That is what the member was concerned about, and that is what this member is concerned about, and that is what everybody here is concerned about. I intend to meet with Mr. Risley - Mr. Rowe. If Mr. Rowe can convince me - I am going to suggest that he come down and have a meeting in Bonavista, to talk to the people there, because it is not only about me. It is about the people who are trying to get into that plant today to go to work. It is about people who want to raise their family in Bonavista. It is about somebody in Port Union who has thirty-five years seniority. That is what this is all about. The onus is on the new board of directors to go and to make those people feel comfortable with what is going to happen. If they can create some extra work, if they can get other people to come to work in the plant, then we will support them 100 per cent.

I think the time has come now, when the new board of directors, the people who are going to set the direction for this particular company, a company that means so much to Newfoundland and Labrador, it is about time that they set direction and say: Here is what we intend to do. Here is how we are going to do it. Here is how we are going to build the company. Here is how we are going to increase shareholder profits. Here is what we are going to do for the nine communities that now have a presence with our company.

That is what needs to be done and this debate can stop, knowing that the fear, I suppose, more than anything else, is not going to happen. I have the fears for those reasons. I can be convinced; I can be their biggest supporter. I am not naive enough to think, because they are different from the people that I have been dealing with before, that they are bad people. That is not the intention altogether. But, I will tell you what. There was a good rapport with the other directors. It would make you feel good to go down to the meeting at the Delta Hotel, and I am going to say, to see Vic Young, the CEO of Fishery Products International, and the board of directors, out in the crowd, shaking hands with every mayor there and calling them by name; shaking hands with every union member there and calling them by name. That is a wonderful relationship. I have never heard Vic Young, once, speak about the success of Fishery Products International without mentioning the 3,000 and once the 6,000 people who made the company a success.

That is the assurance that people want now. They want not to be called by name, but they want to be able to go and know that their place of work is going to continue for them and it is going to provide them with some benefits. Mr Speaker, when those fears are alleviated - I don't know what we can do in this Legislature; you are right. I don't know who the minister was referring to, that he said wanted to nationalize the company. I don't think that is the way to go. That is nonsense. That cannot happen. We have to allow free enterprise and businesses to exist here and prosper and hopefully be a part of it. We don't want to put up any walls to keep people out, or any fears.

The Member for Bonavista North, the minister, the deputy premier, the next senator, talks about Beothuck Fish, what a wonderful company it is, and he is right. There is a great lesson to be learned from this new board of directors. If they want to set direction for Fishery Products International, they do not have to go any further than Valleyfield. They do not have to go any further than Valleyfield in Bonavista North to take direction. When you see what is happening there, Mr. Speaker - I talked with one of the managers there the other day and I said: Boys, what are you doing there?

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will just clue up very quickly.

I said: What are you doing there today? They said: The manager said we have 100 people working. I said: You have 100 people working? What are you doing? He said: We are doing crab. I said: Where are getting the crab from? He said: From Greenland. We don't know if we are going to make any profit on it, we are not sure yet; but, by God, we will pay the expenses. We will pay the overhead, and we have 100 people working here.

That is the kind of thing that keeps rural Newfoundland alive. That is the kind of business, the business people, and the kind of enthusiasm and the kind of interest that we need.

If the new board of directors of Fishery Products International can take some direction and take some lessons from people like Mr. Way down in Valleyfield, then I think we will have a success story.

One piece of advice to government is to make sure they keep their feet to the fire, make sure we have the watchful eye on what is happening here, because I firmly believe that this is our company and it is one that we should still have some control over.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words to say on a very important topic that represents not only my district but also the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen, over the last number of days, where the shareholders have had the right to elect a new slate of directors for a company called FPI. As a result, I guess, we are going into somewhat new waters being charted by the new group.

If I can use a quote from what Mr. Young said, to begin my few words, it is this: FPI and all that it stands for is far larger than a board of directors or any chief executive officer. It is Newfoundland's most important company and it is rural Newfoundland's most important employer. The very strength of FPI comes from its people and it will be up to them, regardless of who the new board of directors might be, to keep that strength alive and well into the long-term future. As we always said at FPI, seafood is our business and people are our strength.

Basically what he is saying is, it is up to the people who live in these communities to ensure that FPI's values of quality, honesty, teamwork and innovation continue to exist. I have to say at the beginning, there is no doubt about it, that FPI has been good to the Town of Harbour Breton, and we have a good working relationship with Vic Young as well. There are no two ways about that. However, I also want to say that I want to pay tribute to the Mayor of Harbour Breton, Churence Rogers, and also to the union executive, Eric Day and his people, who have indeed from time to time gone to Mr. Vic Young and said: These are the changes that we want you to do; because basically, you know, we are talking about, in a sense today, a company having a social value or a social conscience. I am telling you, from my point of view, that I think every person who comes to this House, who is elected, comes here sent by their people to have a social conscience, to be able to represent them, and that is what I try to do.

I recognize today that the old slate for FPI is no longer there. We have a new slate. It is incumbent upon every one of us, not as the House of Assembly but also as citizens and people in our communities, to say to the new slate of directors there: You have made commitments not only to government; you have made commitments to the community and you have made commitments to the people, and we want to made sure that you honor them.

I can tell you one thing: as an MHA who has represented the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune four different times, I will work with the people in my area to ensure that the new board of directors does indeed live up to the commitments that they have made. There are no two ways about that, and I know that when I travel to my district over next week, and I understand that Derrick Rowe is going to be in Harbour Breton some time next week, there is no doubt about it, he is going to hear it from the people of the area, he is going to hear it from the mayor, he is going to hear it from the councillors, he is going to hear it from the Costa Bay zone board, and he is going to hear it from the people in the area, what they expect of them, what they have said they will indeed do and that they will indeed honor.

I have been in the room also for a number of instances, and one in particular when my colleague, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Bellevue, and the Member for Grand Bank and myself, when the Premier met with the union people, met with Earle McCurdy, Reg Anstey and those guys, and there was no doubt about it, there were a lot of questions that were answered by us.

I can tell you that in that meeting, when it was all said and done, people like Earle McCurdy, people like Reg Anstey, came to the Premier and said: We are satisfied. We know that we have your support. The people from my area, who were union people, came up and said the same thing to the Premier. Now, I was not in the meeting when he met with the mayors, but I understand from Churence Rogers again that the commitment was made, that they will indeed stand by these communities to ensure that what the company has said, that we will do that and live by the commitment that they have made. It is incumbent upon every one of us here to be able to come back into the Legislature and to ensure that indeed happens.

I will tell you one of the things that really, in a sense - I do not speak very often in the House and I am not a person to look for media. If they come and see me, then I guess I have to go and do a scrum, or whatever the case might be. The thing for me is: sometimes when I hear the bantering back and forth - I understand that; that is the political nature of the House - it hurts sometimes when people say that, because you are a member of government, you have no conscience. Your conscience has been seared by a hot iron; you have no feeling for the people.

There is nobody in this House who has more feeling, as I would put it, for the people in their district than I do. I want to represent them and continue to do that. I know that the Member for Bonavista South has done the same thing, and other members as well. I have made it a point to be able to work with people not only within my own community but other communities around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up a lot of time, but what I will say to the new board of directors, is: You had better be vigilant. You had better do what you are going to be doing, because this Legislature is here. We will hold your feet to the fire. Not only do we want you to maintain your status quo, but we want you to build on what you have so that we can have more people working in the Harbour Breton area than we have already now.

I will end by saying this: Not every community in my district thinks that the FPI company, in the past, had a social conscience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: You go to Ramea today. That was a town that was vibrant and had 1,400 people. Today, there are less than 600 people. You talk to these people, and they feel they were abandoned. You go to Gaultois. It is the same type of thing. I am sure for the people in Trepassey, it was the same type of thing. I think now that we have an opportunity in this House to be able to make sure that this does not happen again and that the particular company here will honor its commitment and, as a result of that, all of our people will benefit because of us being here.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as a member representing a district with three FPI plants, I am thankful to have these couple of minutes before we conclude today's debate.

Mr. Speaker, prior to entering the House of Assembly today, the hon. Member for Grand Bank the Minister of Education, the Minister of Treasury Board, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Industry Trade and Technology and I met with Mr. Risley and his board and the Minister of Fisheries, of course, and we met with the new board of directors. Everyone there, the new board, the government members, were just as much aware, as the people of my district are aware, that I publically supported Vic Young and the old board throughout the lobbying and the various meetings leading up to yesterday's election of the board of directors. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Young was well aware of my willingness to assist and lobby on behalf of FPI.

Some weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I wrote Mr. Young and I asked if there was anything that I could do, anything that my government could do, to assist FPI. I asked if there were any suggestions that he could offer, any suggestions that his lawyers could offer, anything that I could take back to my government in support. Mr. Young responded to my letter. He called me in my office a day or so later and his response to me at that time was there was absolutely nothing this government could do prior to the vote of the shareholders. His comment to me at that time, Mr. Speaker, was that, while when the Premier spoke he was probably not as selective as he should have been with his words, that in fact the Premier was correct, there was nothing else he could say, there was absolutely nothing that this government could do.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that we could have prevented shareholders from exercising their vote because of the person that they supported. That would have been like saying to the hon. Member for Bonavista South: There are people in Bonavista South that can't vote because they support a particular candidate, or saying to the people of Labrador West that you cannot vote because you supported the NDP party. That just could not be so.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I enjoyed a good working relationship with Mr. Young and his company for many years. During my years on the Marystown council I met with Mr. Young many times, sometimes under pleasant circumstances and sometimes not so very pleasant. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was involved, in the years when we fought as a region, to save the FPI plant in Burin. We fought and we supported the people who were lobbying for us, Lew Bailey, the mayor of Burin and others, and we did everything possible to convey to Fishery Products that we believed there was a future in the fishery for Burin. The end result was the conversion of the FPI processing plant to a secondary processing plant, a facility that remains the jewel in FPI's crown to this very day.

Mr. Speaker, after my election in 1996, my very first call was to Mr. Young at FPI to discuss the plants in my district. He assured me at that time that if his plans for FPI in my district worked as he hoped they would we would have no worries about the FPI performance in my district during my term of office. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I was not overly disappointed. The plans discussed with me at that time did come to fruition, and just a couple of years ago, as part of the plan, FPI invested some $12.5 million in new flow line technology in the Marystown plant.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was involved with FPI through some of the more difficult times, but the end result was Mr. Young at FPI earned my confidence just as Mr. Young earned the confidence of the FPI workers in my district. It was that earned confidence that resulted in my support and the support of the FPI workers that was so obvious in the past few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Young earned the confidence that I referred to because he portrayed a social conscience, a social conscience when it comes to the closure of plants and how it affected our communities, a social conscience in dealing with the people in our plants.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the responsibility of this government to ensure that the social conscience is alive and well in this Province and, if it does not occur, to bear down on the company by whatever power the Legislature has to ensure that it does.

Mr. Speaker, it truly concerns me that this new company now has 70 to 80 per cent of this $1 billion industry. When the industry is in the control of a few hands you have to think of what may happen to the company as a whole. When I met with the group today, I reminded them that they have raised high expectations and that this government would hold them to these expectations. I requested that the board meet with all stakeholders in my district to discuss their plans and their commitments at the very earliest convenience.

Mr. Speaker, this government will hold this new board accountable for their commitments and the promises that they have made.

I could go on for quite some time, but I realize that the hour is late and it is time to conclude.

So I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to rise and have a few comments on the Private Members' Resolution. The importance of this resolution, and to protect the jobs in my district in Triton - I have nearly 400 jobs involved at the plant in Triton. The importance of us, as legislators and law makers, is to make sure that the laws are entrenched, to make sure that we enforce these laws, and to make sure that the companies and the industries, no matter who is there, are going to be responsible and carry out the wishes of the people through our legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me and my district because this is the one industry that people need to have a good way of life in the town of Triton.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to us on this side of the House to keep the government's toes close to the fire to make sure that everything possible is done. I congratulate the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Fisheries in saying what they said today with respect to the legislation and with respect to the whole situation with FPI, and the other members who got up and spoke about the situation in their own districts with FPI plants.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be on the record as saying that I, for one, will do everything possible to make sure that the legislation is adhered to and that the government will keep their commitment in making sure that the FPI plants are not only maintained but, as in the resolution, enhance the employment. Because that would be the key to making my district a better place, to create more jobs, not only to maintain what is already there, but to increase on the ability of the plant to produce more product and more jobs.

Having said that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes to speak..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just wonder if the hon. minister could take her seat for a minute. I know it is 4:45 p.m. now, but I understand there is an agreement that the minister can speak and the hon. member will clue up afterwards.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for the record - because I understand the Speaker has risen and asked for the record - yes, there has been an arrangement made so that we can conclude by 5:00 p.m. I know the minister wants to have a few words on this private member's resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the resolution and, in particular, in support of the amendment to the resolution.

In some respects, I guess, what has happened in my district is a little different in that I have three fish plants. I have Clearwater in Grand Bank doing very successful business there. I have a lot of confidence in Mr. Risley, given that when he made a commitment he lived up to that commitment in the Community of Grand Bank. We have seen over 300 people employed there. When I look at Fortune, where we have FPI - we have been struggling in Fortune for a period of time just to get fourteen weeks work. It has been difficult for the people in Fortune. Then I look at St. Lawrence, and I have Mr. Penney and Grand Atlantic Seafoods. So I have three operators in my district.

This became an issue, obviously, when people started to ask for support for one or the other. I had to speak very honestly to all the constituents who asked me my views on this, to say quite clearly that it really did not matter to me who comprised the board of directors of FPI. The issue was whether or not the plants would continue to operate, and not just continue to operate to the level that they have been operating at, because that has not been satisfactory. With all due respect to FPI, to Mr. Young, and the so-called social conscience there, while it has been great to have the fourteen weeks and being able to get them, I wanted to see if, in fact, Mr. Young had a plan that would see the plant operate for even longer than fourteen weeks. That was something that we could never get. My sense of it was that if there was another board of directors, someone who could make a commitment to continue to operate all of the plants that are presently operating, not just to the level that they are presently operating, but to improve on that operation, then that is what I wanted to see happen. I did not take a position one way or the other, Mr. Speaker, other than to say to the people in Fortune who had concerns - and there are always concerns when you are talking about change. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely, and I suppose in Newfoundland we are traditionalist and we are probably more leery of change than most people, because we are comfortable with what has been happening.

Having said that, I have to say that having met today with the new board of directors, with Mr. Risley and the new CEO, that I came away with a great level of comfort given their assurances that what they have committed to publicly, throughout this whole process, is something that they will live up to. But, I have to say as well that they left that meeting knowing, in no uncertain terms, that this government will do everything in its power to ensure that they do live up to those commitments. I would not be prepared to support anything that will see anything less than what the people of Fortune are getting now in terms of employment. In fact, what they are getting is not satisfactory. If we can look at the fifty-two week operation in Grand Bank, that is now operating under Clearwater and replicate that in Fortune, then what has happened today is a good news story and one which we can all hold our heads high and be very proud of this transition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: That is not a good enough offer.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, having attended that meeting this morning, I have a great level of comfort in what was said. Certainly, I think there were enough questions that those of us in attendance put to the new board. That they have gone away knowing full well that we are going to hold their feet to the fire. They have committed to live up to the commitments that they gave during the process. I looked at those in attendance, the Newfoundlanders on that board, and I think if we look at the representation on the board when we have - I guess there are nine, in fact, Newfoundlanders on the board, if you include Mr. Good. While he does not live here anymore he is from Newfoundland and his parents still live here. His father still lives here.

Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to think that these people would not be as committed to ensuring the success of FPI than the previous Newfoundlanders who served on the board of directors. If you look at the caliber of the individuals and the integrity of those individuals, then I feel very comfortable indeed. I will have no qualms at all about going back to my constituents and speaking, favorably, in terms of this transition and what has happened over the last couple of days here, knowing full well that we have that commitment from the new board of directors. They know that at the end of the day we have the hammer, as it were, in terms of the legislation.

I will conclude with that and say that we, on this side of the House, are as committed to rural Newfoundland as anybody anywhere else in this House, or anybody in this Province. When it comes to a social conscience, I can tell you, that when I look at my constituents I want to do everything I can to ensure their future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank everybody who has chosen to participate in the debate today. I just want to make a few very comments on some of the things that have been said. First of all, I want to make sure, for the record, that nobody, absolutely nobody in this caucus, publicly or otherwise, has ever talked about nationalizing FPI. Foolhardy even to suggest it. Foolhardy even to think that it is possible.

Secondly, the Minister of Fisheries, for whatever reason, got a bit of an edge to him today, and that happens to all of us some days. I can appreciate that, but it did not add to the debate today, from this perspective: when it came to the questions about what you heard or what you thought you heard, or what you were told about when you were in the Boston Seafood Show, the first day that this issue arose was on a Monday and the deputy premier answered the questions. If you look at the comments he made on Monday, and look at the comments that he made today, they were not different; because he said that whatever will be done, should be done, could be done, will be done. You said that, right?

Now, with respect to your Premier, Sir, he is the one who walked outside this Legislature and said, frankly, I was not interested to ask enough questions. He said it. Now, if you were here, you would ask the questions that we asked. Were you interested enough in asking this?

With that said, the only reason that I brought up the NEOS proposal was to put the current climate in context, not to revisit the past, not to make allegations, not to, in any way shape or form, cast aspersions, but just to put the current debate in context of why people were legitimately asking questions. That is all. That is it in a nutshell.

Let me say this: I would like to say a big thank you to Vic Young and to the outgoing board, because they have performed a vital service, and I do not think anybody would disagree with offering that thank you. Secondly, I want to say to the incoming board: please do not think for one moment that anybody on this side of the House or in this caucus has ever, publicly or otherwise, cast aspersions on their characters or their commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador. We have not, we did not, we will not, because that is not the issue.

With respect to the private members' resolution, it is irrespective of this Legislature on who operates FPI, on who its manager is, who its plant managers are, who its CEO is, who its board of directors are, irrespective of this Legislature that we should even concern ourselves from this perspective: Our role, and the reason for the private members' resolution today, and the reason why I accepted, in the spirit they were meant, the amendments put forward by the deputy premier, is that we live up to our obligations, whether that may be Derrick Rowe or Mr. Risley or Mr. Paddick or Mr. Crosbie, or former directors or former CEOs. Life changes. Life goes on. After the next election and subsequent elections - I have been here for three - the faces in this House, while some remain the same, there are new ones added. So, things never are the same.

The Minister of Education made a good point in that change for some is an uncomfortable thing. Some people embrace it, others oppose it. They want a reaffirmation of certain principles. They want people they are used to dealing with - Newfoundlanders, being who we are - assurance that those people will not be hurt or comprised in any way. What the private members' resolution intent - and I believe the amendments that were made, that we accepted intent - is to provide that reaffirmation, to reaffirm the principles that the act stand upon, the principles that members, individually - forget for the moment that there is the government and an opposition - vote today, on Private Members' Day, on what we want to affirm to the people of the Province of what our stand is on a particular resource item, namely the fishery, and the role that FPI has played in the social and economic development of the Province. That is all we are doing. To get into the debate of anything else, while it may be important in context, really to the point is: what the point of this resolution today is, is to provide assurances, to reaffirm to the people of the Province that this Legislature, and every member who votes for this resolution, reaffirms to the people of the Province that that is our responsibility, that is our obligation, we take it seriously, and we will do whatever is in our power to ensure what the private members' resolution speaks to. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and conclude, because I think I made my points in opening and I have made them in closing. I appreciate, for the most part, the comments made by those who participated in the debate, and I guess we will proceed to the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are voting on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now voting on the resolution, as amended.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank hon. members for their cooperation today. I think it was an excellent debate. I also want to advise hon. members that tomorrow we will be going back to the Budget and debating the Concurrence Debate, the last that was introduced today, Government Services.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.