March 29, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 4


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome visitors to the public gallery from Swift Current Academy school in the District of Bellevue.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Gander; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize Mrs. Kathleen Elizabeth Hanrahan of Gander who is celebrating her 100th birthday on Thursday, March 29. Mrs. Hanrahan was born in Brown's Arm in 1906 and was the first of thirteen children for Elizabeth and Hedley Powell. She moved with her family to Norris Arm, Badger, and Grand Falls-Windsor, where she graduated from high school and met and married her husband Gerald. In 1958 they moved to Gander where Gerald opened Gander's first barber shop and they raised three sons and two daughters. In 1971, Mrs. Hanrahan retired as an operator from what was then CNT at that time.

Mr. Speaker, today Mrs. Hanrahan still lives in her own home and is still strong and sharp as ever. She entertains her visitors by reciting poetry and sharing stories. Mrs. Hanrahan said she has two regrets in her life: she never learned to drive, and she never learned to play the piano. She is now preparing for two open houses this week to celebrate her birthday as many people will be visiting, including her two sisters from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mrs. Kathleen Elizabeth Hanrahan on her 100th birthday celebration that begins tomorrow in Gander.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lakeside Academy of Buchans, which took the first place ranking for the Newfoundland and Labrador schools with a B+ rating in absolute overall performance from the fourth AIMS Report Card.

Lakeside Academy in Buchans is a new state-of-the-art school that was built in 1999. The building houses students from Kindergarten to Grade 12 and boasts a large gymnasium, a fully equipped computer lab and a public library which offers Internet access to students and town residents. The school has a reputation of providing quality education and for receiving consistently good ratings in the AIMS Report.

Mr. Speaker, AIMS tracks and publicly records the performance of individual schools offering a comparative analysis of high school data throughout the Atlantic region. The report hopes to provide incentive for improved performance in Atlantic regional schools. The AIMS Atlantic Canadian High School Report Card is a tool to be used to improve the education system for our children so they are prepared to compete and succeed in the global economy.

Mr. Speaker, what is quite remarkable is the fact that Lakeside Academy has improved their ratings over last year, which is quite an achievement considering that this is the second consecutive year that Lakeside Academy has been in the top five. This is very encouraging and it speaks volumes of the quality of the teaching staff and the support parents provide in meeting and retaining these high standards of education to see our rural school continually strive for growth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Lakeside Academy of Buchans, the first place finish in the fourth AIMS Report Card.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge an exceptional ten-year-old boy from the Inuit community of Sheshatshiu in my district.

Phillip Nuna was born with spina bifida but he doesn't let that stop him from being an active person, despite having to use a wheelchair.

Earlier this year, young Phillip had the chance to try cross-country skiing for the first time. Mr. Doug Copp, from the Canadian Association for Disabled Skiing, paid a visit to Birch Brook Nordic Ski Club and introduced Phillip to the sport through the use of a "Sit-Ski" rig, which allows the physically disabled to ski. In a sitting position, Philip was able to push himself along with his ski poles.

From all accounts, Phillip very much enjoyed his first cross-country skiing experience and continues to pursue it. He has also been invited to take part in the Jackrabbit Ski Program - an instructional program for children - under the guidance of program organizer Cathy Jong.

Phillip, at just ten years old, is to be commended for his determination and perseverance in his successful attempts to remain active and healthy, despite his disability. If all children, and indeed all adults, in this Province were to learn from Phillip's example, we would be very much better off, and much healthier for it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Phillip Nuna on his accomplishments.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this year the Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation had as their motto, "For All The Right Reasons". For All The Right Reasons, forty-six major sponsors came forward. For All The Right Reasons, hundreds of volunteers came forward to make this a truly successful event. For All The Right Reasons, 727 ATVs were registered for the event; and, For All The Right Reasons, 548 ATVs took part in the run in extreme weather conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this event is to raise money for the Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation. We had hoped to have the Janeway's name included in the Guinness Book of World Records. Had the weather co-operated, allowing all those registered to take part, our hope would have become a reality.

The weekend event held March 10-11 raised an incredible amount of $97,310.27 for the Janeway Children's Hospital; a figure that smashed the previous record high of $81,000, and six times the amount raised during the inaugural run in 2002. The five year total, Mr. Speaker, for this worthy cause tops $320,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating organizers and participants on the fifth annual Run for The Janeway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to recognize a World War II Veteran and long-time volunteer in the name of Mr. Frank (Jiggs) Borland.

Jiggs, as he is commonly known, was a Radio and Gunner Operator during the war and was involved in the Liberation of Dieppe on September 1, 1944. After the war, Jiggs started a farm near Bishop's Falls and there he raised his family.

He spent a great deal of his time volunteering with many boards and various organizations. Jiggs served as the veterans representative for the Legion on the Veterans Pavilion Board. He has been a Lions member for forty-nine years and was instrumental in organizing and constructing the Lion Max Simms Camp for the handicapped. This facility is well recognized today and widely used across the Province by people with disabilities.

On March 31, this Friday, Jiggs will celebrate his eighty-first birthday, and on April 27 he will travel to Europe to represent Newfoundland and Labrador during the celebration of the Liberation of Holland.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the contributions of Mr. Frank (Jiggs) Borland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate four students from the College of the North Atlantic, Port aux Basques campus. Krista Elms, Lydia Francis, Holly Farrell and Erin Hickey were first place winners of the College of the North Atlantic's Annual Business Case Competition.

The competition was hosted by the College's Grand Falls-Windsor campus on the weekend of February 7, with representation from Corner Brook, St. John's and Port aux Basques. During the competition, the students were given a business case to analyze. They wrote a formal report and presented their case in front of five judges. They were quizzed on their presentation and had to defend their positions.

This is the first year that the Port aux Basques campus was represented at the competition. The trophy will be held at the College of the North Atlantic at Port aux Basques, which each student also receiving their own individual trophy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating these four very bright students from the College of the North Atlantic campus at Port aux Basques in their first place victory.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Fisheries if he had discussions with FPI about the restructuring of its American division and the appointing of Mr. George Armoyan - who some call a corporate raider - as its executive director. His answer was: No.

Last week the minister said that he had just recently learned that FPI was shipping fish to China for processing without his own department's permission. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries admitted that he did not know what FPI's plans were for the employees on the Burin Peninsula because the sands kept shifting.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he will now get personally involved with FPI before they dismantle and strip the remaining assets of that company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will make the hon. gentleman's day when I tell him and tell the House and tell everybody who wants to hear, that the Premier, as Leader of the government, is always involved. As a matter of fact, it is only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to inform the hon gentleman and the House that as I left a meeting to come to the House of Assembly just before 2:00 o'clock today, the meeting was actually in the Premier's office with the Premier, with other ministers, with officials, discussing FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago FPI closed the plant in Harbour Breton, laying off 350 workers; recently announced the closure of Fortune and the downsizing of the plant in Marystown, throwing another 700 people out of work on the Burin Peninsula. With communities devastated and the future of hundreds of individuals in complete turmoil, the best that his minister, the Minister of Fisheries, can do is to facilitate a meeting between the FFAW and FPI. That is what he offered here in the House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier will not call a public inquiry into the operations of that company, will he, at least, have the decency to get personally involved with discussions of FPI so that he can let the people on the Burin Peninsula know what the future holds for them?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many ways you can say it. I just finished telling the hon. gentleman, telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that as of only a few minutes ago we had a very high level meeting in the Premier's office, involving the Premier. The Premier, as leader of the government, wants to be involved. The speaker of the -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, can you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Is there something in Beauchesne that can be used to silence the Member for Bay of Islands? There has to be something, Your Honour. I certainly do not mind back and forth across -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair is providing time for the minister to place his response, and I ask all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows me, knows that I don't mind give and take back and forth across the House, but if a serious question is asked, then as a minister and Deputy Premier, I am trying to give a serious answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, if the Opposition wants that, that is fine. If they do not want that, we can play by the other rules.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the Premier and all of you over there, you can hold all of the meetings you want on FPI but if there is no one in the room representing FPI, I do not see where the meetings are going and you will not know any more today, or tomorrow, or next week than you know already about what is happening to the operations. Get the officials from FPI into the meeting and do not ask them what they are going to do, tell them what to do, I say to the minister. Tell them what to do!

Mr. Speaker, on another issue. For the past few weeks the Premier has been out there making all kinds of announcements about tomorrow's Budget, many of which he said were promised in the Blue Book in the election of 2003. Well, Mr. Speaker, he made a lot of promises in the Blue Book, one was that he was going to eliminate ferry rates and bring the cost of ferry transportation inline with the cost of road transportation.

I ask the Premier today: Will he live up to the commitment and the promise that he made to the people of Fogo Island and other islands in this Province back in the election of 2003 and eliminate ferry rates?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the political rhetoric coming from the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that nobody, and I mean nobody, in this government will take any direction from any member of that caucus when it comes to asking questions of FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Leader of the Opposition and most of that hon. crowd opposite were in a Cabinet serving under a Premier who said: I have no need to ask questions of FPI. Frankly, I do not want to hear from FPI. There is no need to ask questions of FPI. I am not going to ask questions of FPI. We will take no direction on how we deal with FPI from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker; none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a rant! What a rant! I asked a question about ferry rates and all I want to know is: Will the real minister responsible please stand up?

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, during the election the Premier promised the people who live in island communities in this Province that he would eliminate ferry rates. In the Budget of 2004 and again in 2005 he raised those rates by 10 per cent. On Saturday of this week, April 1, the ferry rates will go up again by 5 per cent.

I again ask the Premier, or whichever Minister of Transportation wants to stand up and answer it: Will you now stand and tell the people of those islands that you will live up to the Premier's commitment and eliminate those rates rather than increase them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there was no commitment in the Blue Book to eliminate ferry rates. There was a commitment in the Blue Book to bring ferry rates in line with road equivalency. That was the commitment that was made by us when we were campaigning in the 2003 election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: And that, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment that we plan to keep. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just completed this week has been the evaluation of the ferry rates around our Province as they relate to road equivalency, and over the course of the next while we will be dealing with that evaluation. For the record, Mr. Speaker, even with the increases that were implemented in the last Budget and the Budget prior to that, even with those increases, the vast majority of the ferry rates in this Province, for passengers, vehicles and freight, are less than or equal to road equivalency travel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: The minister talks about how the cost of ferry transportation today is in line with the cost of road transportation. I have an individual who owns a trucking firm on Fogo Island and every time he puts that truck on the ferry it costs him $162 to travel nine miles.

I ask the minister: Is that what you call the equivalence of road transportation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, if the Member for Twillingate & Fogo had been listening he would have heard me say that the vast majority of the rates in the Province are equivalent to or less than the road equivalency. I didn't say 100 per cent, I didn't say 90 per cent, and I didn't say that the ferry rate from Fogo Island to Farewell for a tractor trailer was the equivalent of taking a tractor trailer from Fogo Island to Farewell. I didn't say that. I said the vast majority are. I said we are going to deal with it. I said we received the report on the evaluation just this week and, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with it.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, the rates that are in this Province right now, even though we increased them by 10 per cent and 5 per cent in the last two years, are the rates that his government put in place when they were in power for fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the previous government designated Swift Current Academy as a necessary existent small school. This designation recognized the difficulty of transporting students to other areas, and the special circumstances being faced by schools in rural communities. The present government, as part of its rural resettlement program, eliminated this category of school. I ask the minister: Will she reinstate the policy of necessary existent schools today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my information, just for the record, that the designation of small but necessarily existent schools came into effect in 1999. It came into effect at that time to ensure that schools that were in isolated areas, or students did not have access to other schools, were adequately resourced. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, a teacher allocation formula come in to ensure that all schools, including the small schools, were resourced appropriately.

If we follow the teacher allocation formula this year, going into the next school year, there would be approximately a reduction of 151 teaching units throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As announced last week, this government has certainly taken action on that. We have announced $250,000 to review the teacher allocation formula because it does not meet the needs right now. In addition to that, we have also decided that none of the 151 teaching units will be laid off for next year.

When the Eastern School Board was doing their plan, I was specifically asked if the designation for small but necessarily existent schools was still in effect in Newfoundland and Labrador. It remains in effect; it is still in legislation. Just because the designation is in effect does not necessarily preclude the fact that a school board can close a school; and, in essence, there have been a number of schools since 1999 with that designation that have closed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As I mentioned yesterday, I would ask ministers giving their replies to keep their comments to approximately sixty seconds or less.

The Chair recognizes, I do believe, the Member for Bellevue who was asking a supplementary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question. Will you designate Swift Current Academy as a necessary existent school? Will you answer the question, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I was explaining - and this is a very serious issue for some of the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador - the designation on the Swift Current Academy school was put in place in 1999, as were other schools at that time. Some of those schools with that designation have been reconfigured and some have closed over the years since 1999.

When the school board was doing their long-term facilities plan, they specifically asked if the designation of small but necessarily existent schools remains in effect. It does remain in effect. There has been no order to say that designation does not remain in effect; however, I must be perfectly clear that the designation does not preclude the fact that the school board can close a reconfigured school.

In correspondence that I sent to the school board, to Mr. Milton Peach, on January 31 of this year, I indicated that the designation alone does not prevent the closure of a school if the elected school board can provide reasonable access to an alternate learning environment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, students from Swift Current Academy will have to be bused for one hour and forty-five minutes each way, a total of three-and-a-half hours on a bus each day over treacherous road conditions. It is the equivalent of putting a student in St. John's on a school bus today and shipping them off to Western Bay to go to school, putting them on a bus in Western Bay and sending them back to St. John's - the same amount of time it would take to go from St. John's to Western Bay, Newfoundland.

I ask the minister: What is the policy of your government? How long are you going to leave children on school buses in Newfoundland and Labrador? Are you going to treat them as human beings? It is ridiculous, what you are doing to the people of Swift Current Academy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school board has put a motion to move the students from Grade 7 to Grade 12 from Swift Current into Tricentia.

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the parents because they did the bus ride, along with somebody from the school board. They left Swift Current and picked up students from other communities as well that would feed into the school. The bus ride did take one hour and forty-five minutes, which I do believe is excessive to have children on a school bus; I have to agree with that. I feel the parents have been very proactive in how they managed this and how they were able to time the bus ride.

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, the parents will again have an opportunity to present to the board, and this is the type of information that the board needs. This is very real evidence, real information that the parents have put together, that they need to present to the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: If the hon. member across is asking me if I think an hour and forty-five minutes one way on a bus is excessive, yes, I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has called upon this government numerous times in the past to provide an energy tax rebate to consumers in our Province. Just this week, the Government of New Brunswick has indicated they will rebate the equivalent of an 8 per cent sales tax from all home heating bills, which includes oil, electricity, natural gas, propane and firewood.

I ask the minister: When is his government going to help the people of this Province and provide a similar break?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the hon. member has been hiding for the past two years. First of all, the average household in this Province consumes between 2,800 litres and 3,000 litres of home heating fuel. If we rebated the HST on that amount, to the average consumer it would average out between $165 and $177 a year. We rebated up to $400 a year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - two point four times the amount we rebated than they do in New Brunswick.

This government has a policy not just to rebate people making $150,000 a year, not to do that, but to allow it to go to people making $30,000 or less of net income, to allow these people who are affected most by rising prices to benefit. They are benefitting more than twice as much as a person in New Brunswick in a similar situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is not saying is the fact that he has only announced the refund, the rebate, for those burning oil. How about people burning electricity and wood and propane? He has just selected a small number to look after.

The minister has previously stated that he could not remove the HST because he needed the approval of the other Atlantic Provinces and the federal government; however, the Government of New Brunswick has clearly found a way to provide the same benefit through a rebate program.

I ask the minister again: Will he take the same initiative on behalf of the people of this Province in the upcoming Budget tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I think I have to start making corrections to what the member has indicated. I never said we can't do it without the consent of other provinces. I said, in order for it to be done you must need the consent. That is not saying it is an excuse for not doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We did not raise the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the member stands in the House, a member of the very government that initiated a home rebate program excluding electricity when she sat in Cabinet and all her colleagues sat in Cabinet. The reason we didn't add it to electricity, Mr. Speaker, was very clear. Electricity increased over the past five years at a rate that was marginally above the rate of inflation, when home heating fuel went up by astronomical amounts. That is the reason we excluded it. If, in the future, it is necessary to have a program that is all inclusive, if the increases reflect that, we as a government will consider and look at that in the future, but the evidence is not there on the basis that member used when she sat in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, this government is flushed with cash or they are giving the appearance that they are, and it is only coming from one source, from increased revenues from our offshore resources. They have been making announcements left, right and center for the past three weeks, but when it comes to giving consumers of this Province a break they are totally silent.

My question is to the minister: When will the average consumer in this Province start to get some benefit from the resources off our Coast? When are you going to give consumers a break?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you consider being $1 billion in debt on an annual basis, as that government left us, when you break even and have a balanced budget you are spending the equivalent of what you are taking in, if that it flushed with cash she better go back to the bank again and learn some information on what flushed with cash means.

Mr. Speaker, here is what we have done: A home heating rebate of $9 million; $6.9 million in environment and conservation; $12,000 or less of net income and no income taxes a single person; $19,000 as a family, no income tax; we phase it out at $21,600. That is what we have done. We have doubled the home heating fuel rebate for people on income support. We increased the rate last year by 2 per cent for single individuals living on income support. This year another announcement. My colleague today is making another announcement on low income people. We have put forward numerous programs. We have indexed the seniors' benefit. We have indexed the child benefit. We have put tens of millions of dollars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health.

I want to say to the minister, that this Province would benefit more than any other Province in this country from a national pharmacare program.

I want to ask the minister if his government is fully committed to working with the federal government to insist that we have a national pharmacare program in this country so that residents of our Province could benefit from it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would like to thank the member for his question. It is an important question; always good to have constructive important questions.

I would like to say to the member, that we are certainly prepared to work on that. I am planning a meeting with my federal counterparts. We are certainly prepared to look at that. There is only one more sleep to the Budget tomorrow and there is some news in the Budget tomorrow on prescription drug programs as well. So, I ask the member to stayed tuned for that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: I hope there is more than a little good news because we need a lot of good news on this front, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, 35 per cent or more of people in this Province do not have any coverage at all for prescription drugs, other people have limited coverage. Waiting until there is a national pharmacare program, hopefully some day in this country, will this government immediately provide coverage to people of this Province by expanding the provincial drug care coverage so that people who suffer from MS, from Alzheimer's, from diabetes and other diseases do not have to make a choice between bankrupting their families or purchasing a drug? Will the minister commit to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would say to the Member for Labrador West, we are not going to wait for the national government to act on this. We are not going to wait for other provinces to act. This is an important issue. Yes, we are going to look at and work towards a national program but we are not going to wait for that, we are going to take action and I ask the member again, to stay tuned for tomorrow because we are taking action in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, while this government has been on a spending spree, the plight of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to be ignored. We only have to look to the health care needs in the Province to see where government has failed to balance its priorities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Waiting lists are not glamorous issues, Mr. Speaker, but they are very real to anyone whose health is compromised while waiting months to see a specialist.

I ask the Premier: Why, when government is obviously flush with funds, are waiting lists still an issue in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would like to address that, Mr. Speaker, by saying that last year we put over $23 million into trying to reduce wait times in this Province. This year we have made several announcements, in addition to the announcements that we have made last year for new cancer clinics, dialysis and other issues that will help reduce the wait times in this Province. We have put additional resources into reducing wait times. We are at national benchmarks in most areas on wait times in this Province and there are additional measures coming forward tomorrow to address wait times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last year the First Ministers' health accord saw a substantial injection of new money going into Newfoundland and Labrador to enable this Province to reduce wait lists and provide better health care. Yet, we heard recently of cancer patients having to travel to other provinces to avail of treatment.

I ask the Premier: With all of this additional funding from the federal government for health care, why do cancer patients have to travel outside of this Province for treatment, away from their loved ones who provide much needed emotional support?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, it is truly regrettable that we have to send patients outside the Province. I have a great deal of sympathy for those patients and for their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in order to help reduce the wait times in that particular sector for those cancer patients suffering from breast and prostate cancer, which is the patients that we are sending to Ontario, we have made the decision to send them to Ontario for those treatments to eliminate the wait times for those particular patients. This is a very serious issue. The earlier we treat these patients the better it is for those patients, which is part of the reason we have taken those measures.

Again, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Budget Day and I anticipate that tomorrow we will be making very positive announcements regarding this particular issue as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: All I can, Mr. Speaker, is that I think the minister has been watching the movie Annie too often.

Mr. Speaker, government has said it will pay the full cost for certain patients to travel outside the Province for treatment because of government's ineffectiveness in dealing with the problem of wait lists. Yet, we have patients in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador who have no choice but to travel to St. John's for certain treatments and are reimbursed only a small fraction of their costs.

I ask the minister: How can government justify this double standard, and when will this government, with its obvious cash surplus, right this unfair practice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue as well and it is an issue that certainly we are prepared to look at. I am prepared to look at this within the department. If we can find ways to address the issue, we certainly will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, another real life issue is the catastrophic cost of drugs not covered under the Province's Prescription Drug Program. We previously raised this issue on behalf of those with Alzheimer's and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: We previously raised this issue on behalf of those with Alzheimer's and Multiple Sclerosis. We are hopeful that our appeals and those of the people affected have been heard and will be addressed in the Budget tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the arthritic drug, Enbrel, is also not covered under the Prescription Drug Program. I raised this matter today on behalf of a young women, Brenda Hickey, who may end up in a wheelchair without this drug, and others like her, who cannot afford to purchase this particular drug. Minister, has the drug, Enbrel, been included in your deliberations for tomorrow's announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would ask the member opposite to wait until tomorrow. The Budget will be coming down tomorrow and the announcements regarding what prescriptions will be covered will be announced in tomorrow's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Alert Foundation is a not-for-profit agency run by the Aliant Pioneers with approximately 1,000 subscribers, mostly seniors and disabled persons. They provide a wireless pendant, which can be worn on the wrist or the neck, that can access emergency response at the push of a button. As of April 1, the monthly service fee of $30 will be increased to $34.50 because of HST, which will be a hardship to many seniors on a fixed income.

I ask the minster: Is he aware of this issue, and has he done anything to address it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

No, I am not aware of that particular issue, but I am certainly prepared to look into it. If you have information on that issue, send it across and I will certainly do the best I can to get you an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Alert Foundation, as of April 1, will be required by law to charge the 15 per cent HST because the increase in users have driven their sales to $250,000, and that is the benchmark for paying HST. When you come to think of it, many seniors go to bed every night with that only comfort, that they can access emergency response by pushing a button. In fact, one of my constituents last week had to push that button 2:00 o'clock in the morning; 6:00 o'clock in the morning she had emergency surgery for a pacemaker. She was able to reach her son by that. I am going to suggest one-short term solution for government, is that they could provide financial assistance to this not-for-profit agency so that seniors would not have to pay this tax, their service could be lowered.

Another long-term situation is one that I am writing the Prime Minister about today, and that would be to tax exempt not-for-profit agencies for a lifeline response like this. Will you join me in adding to that support, and talking to your federal counterparts and providing the short-term solution, Mr. Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member in the previous answer, I would like to look into this issue. Obviously, as I indicated in the earlier answer, I do not have the information on this particular issue. I am not prepared to give answers to information on issues that I am not fully apprized of. I will look into this and I will certainly get her an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

This afternoon I notice in the gallery a former Deputy Speaker and Member for Port de Grave - I do believe I have the district right - Harbour Grace-Port de Grave, John Crane. We would like to welcome John to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling three orders in council relating to funding pre-commitments for the fiscal years 2006-2007 to fiscal years 2009-2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the next item, I have just been informed that another former member of our House, Mr. Ted Blanchard, is also in attendance today. Welcome back. You are always welcome in the public galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I do, I guess by leave and concurrence of members opposite, under Standing Order 65 move the Committees of the House for the new Session: Striking Committee members, myself, in my capacity as Government House Leader; Chair, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; the Member for Bonavista South; my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and also my colleague opposite, the Member for Bellevue.

The makeup of the Public Accounts Committee: the Member for Bay of Islands as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; the Member for St. John's Centre as Vice-Chair; the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for St. Barbe; the Member for Humber Valley; the Member for Bellevue; and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair making up the balance of that membership.

For the Government Services Committee: the Member for St. John's Centre as Chair; the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, my understanding, as Vice-Chair; the following Members: for Topsail, Terra Nova, Exploits, Torngat Mountains and Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune make up the balance of the membership on the Government Services Committee.

For the Resource Committee: the Member for Bonavista North in his capacity as Chair; the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I believe, is listed here - there may be some change to that, I am not sure - as Vice-Chair.

MR. REID: I will be there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Glad to hear it. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo says he will be there. I will be there, too, so we will see you there.

Other members: the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for Gander; the Member for Grand Bank; and the Member for Bay of Islands make up the balance of the membership for the Resource Committee.

Mr. Speaker, on the Social Services Estimates Committee: the Member for St. John's North as Chair; the Member for Port de Grave as Vice-Chair; the Member for Humber Valley; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and the Member for Labrador West make up the balance of that membership.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Commission of Internal Economy remain unchanged. Yourself, in your role as Speaker, as Chair of the Commission; the Member for Bonavista South as Vice-Chair, in his role as Deputy Speaker; the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board; myself, as Government House Leader; the Minister of Justice; the Opposition House Leader; and also the Member for Bellevue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers To Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

 

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that this afternoon -

CLERK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Clerk of the House reminds me that, while I do believe we had consent on the structure of the Committees, I need to ask so that we can make sure we have followed all the protocols.

Consent has been granted.

Thank you very much.

I do believe this afternoon we have a private member's motion. It being Private Members' Day, we will be hearing the motion put forward with notice by the Member for Grand Bank District.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak to the private member's motion that I brought in yesterday. It is a motion on FPI. I guess it is a second attempt by the Opposition to represent the people who are being affected by the actions of FPI, to represent it to the best of our ability, to try and deal with a most serious issue in our Province, one that is impacting a lot of areas but particularly the Burin Peninsula.

Let me read again the motion, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important for anyone who is listening to us this afternoon to gather a real appreciation for what is going on where FPI is concerned and where all of those who are being impacted are concerned.

The motion says: WHEREAS FPI was established by this Legislature to strengthen the fishing industry in this Province and to ensure maximum employment stability; and

WHEREAS the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture admits that he is having trouble obtaining information on all FPI operations; and

WHEREAS the provincial minister has said that FPI broke the laws of this Province in shipping out fish with no authorization; and

WHEREAS the provincial minister says charges will be laid against FPI; and

WHEREAS there are widespread allegations and suspicions involving the overall operations of FPI; and

WHEREAS the livelihood of thousands of people in this Province are being thrown, and have been thrown, into turmoil as a result of the actions being taken by FPI;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the government to establish an independent public inquiry into the operations of FPI.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and others will recall, that last fall I introduced a similar motion. At that time we did not have all of the information that we have today at our fingertips in terms of what FPI has been doing, and what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has claimed, that they shipped and shipped and shipped fish out of this Province with no authorization, and that they will be charged. We did not have that information last fall, Mr. Speaker. We did not know last fall that the minister would have difficulty accessing all of the information that he needed to access in order to do a comprehensive audit of the company. We did not know that last fall, Mr. Speaker, but today we do know it and that is why that has been added to the motion today.

The fact that, as an Opposition, we are bringing forward this motion again, I think we are providing the government with an opportunity here to acknowledge that there are serious issues here, and that while we didn't vote for the motion in the fall, for whatever reason, today here is an opportunity for the government to, in fact, vote on and support this motion, a motion brought forward by the Opposition out of sincere concern for the Province as a whole, but particularly out of concern for those who work for FPI or who worked for FPI and who hope to return to employment with that company.

It is actually an opportunity for the government as well here to really stand up and be counted, to acknowledge and do something about the way that FPI is responding to the government. Here is a government that I would like to think is concerned about the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, but we are not seeing any semblance of that when you consider how they have allowed FPI to just ride roughshod over the government and the Province. We have a company, an international company, like FPI, with shareholders from inside and outside the Province, we have a Board of Directors that is comprised of a significant number of people who are from Newfoundland - the Chairman of the Board happens to be Mr. Rex Anthony - and we are not seeing any indication at all from the Board of Directors or the company as a whole or the government that there is any resolution to what is happening here.

I know the President of the FFAW has stated publicly that he sees such an enquiry as something that would just kind of, I guess, cloud or muddy the waters. My response to Mr. McCurdy is: What is the alternative here? Is the alternative to go on and on and on for more and more months not really knowing what the future holds? The company has yet to come out and say exactly what it is they plan on doing. It was the FFAW that actually came out and told the people of the Province and, of course, their members how they would be impacted by the actions of FPI. Today we have still not heard from FPI in terms of whether or not they are closing Fortune. I am told that they have told the FFAW that Fortune won't reopen. FPI has not come out and said that they will cut the workforce in Marystown in half. I am told that is what they told the FFAW. The reality of it is that we have not heard from this company that employs thousands of people in our Province what their plans are.

Of course, it is all based on hope. A lot of people are hoping that what FPI told the FFAW, and may have told the government - I don't know. I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the House of Assembly whether or not he knew that FPI was going to close the plant in Fortune, and his response to me was, it wasn't his place to tell me or to tell the people of Fortune; that, in fact, it would be the government's position to tell us that. I do not know if the government even knows that FPI's plans are, which is a sad reflection on the government if that is, in fact, the case, when you again consider the number of people who are employed in this Province by FPI. Where do we stand? We really do not know.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture refers to the shifting sands. We have heard the union refer to the shifting sands. We have heard the Member for Burin-Placentia West refer to the shifting sands. Well, it is about time somebody found some firm ground somewhere, and found out and told the people who are being impacted what is happening. You have to be tired of these so-called shifting sands. Somebody has to stand up and be counted here.

This is a company that was created by the people of this Province, taxpayers' dollars. Federal and provincial governments created this company for the people and by the people. Today, we seem to have no say whatsoever in what transpires here. Who is involved? Who is making these decisions?

When I think about the Board of Directors of FPI, and realize the number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who actually sit on that board, I have to question where their allegiances are, their loyalties are. I know companies want to make a profit, and there is nothing wrong with making a profit. In my books, profit is not a dirty word, but you do not do it at the expense of the very people who helped to create the company, and the very people who made it possible for the company to do so well since its existence. That is what is happening here. I sincerely believe that is what is happening here.

FPI, the shareholders of FPI, are not satisfied with the amount of profit that they are making, and I sincerely believe that is the bottom line. Somewhere, we have lost sight of the rationale behind the creation of FPI. We have lost sight of the spirit and the intent of the legislation, the FPI Act that the government has the authority to do whatever it wants with because it is an act of the Legislature. The government can take this piece of legislation and strengthen it so that we do not have FPI riding roughshod over the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but somehow, for whatever reason, we have not been able to get this government to do anything to strengthen that, or even to acknowledge that it needs to be strengthened. So, today we have thousands of people not knowing where to turn, really do not know what the future holds, trying to provide for their families, having to move away.

I listened to a gentleman this morning from Rock Harbour, on the Burin Peninsula, and it is a sad tale that he tells. He talks about the number of people in Rock Harbour - and I think he said it was seventeen or eighteen - who, when the plant is in operation, work at the plant in Marystown. It is a small community of about sixty people. Now, that will tell you how important that fish plant is to the very survival of that community.

That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the very survival of communities, the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't forget that just because the fish plants are located in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, don't think that does not mean that it does not have an impact on the Avalon Peninsula.

People throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador have to travel to St. John's in particular for any number of public services. So, the money that they make while they are working in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is in Fortune or Marystown or Burin, the money that they make, they spend some of that on the Avalon Peninsula, particularly if they are looking to buy vehicles, in some cases, if they are not buying them on the Burin Peninsula.

The fact of the matter is that the wealth that is generated in rural communities is shared very much with our urban centres, and somehow I think we tend to lose sight of that. We talk about the survival of communities, and that is so important to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let's look at the principals who are involved here. Again, I go back to the board of directors. Let's look at one name that keeps coming up, and that is Mr. John Risley. Interestingly enough, I have a copy of a Letter to the Editor that Mr. Risley wrote, and it said: Don't write off rural Canada. This was in the Globe and Mail. I think it was in the Globe and Mail; maybe it was in The Telegram. He went on to say, "Through various business interests, I employ thousands of people in small communities in Atlantic Canada. It's my experience that the vast majority desperately want quality, year-round jobs, which they know are the key to retaining the next generation - key to the very survival of their communities."

He goes on to talk about the importance of rural Canada, and I read that as well, I would like to think, as the importance of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Risley is in a position to help ensure the very survival of rural communities, but what is he doing? He now has brought in Mr. George Armoyan to work with him - and, by the way, this is not a new partnership. You need to know that Mr. Armoyan has a history with Mr. Risley, and it would be interesting to do some background research on what these two gentlemen have accomplished whenever they put their heads together. I think it is important for anyone who is the least bit curious about what is happening here now with Mr. Armoyan and the U.S. arm of Fishery Products International, Ocean Cuisine, what is happening there. Anyone who is the least bit curious should really look into that and I think you will get your answers pretty readily, and that is what is so scary for those of us who are concerned about FPI and about what the future holds for the employees of FPI.

Interestingly enough, when we talk about Mr. Risley - and this is a piece in Atlantic Canada: From the top down. It is a story about FPI, in fact. I go back to my point about: Why is it that FPI is doing what it is doing? They talk about the labour being cheaper in China. They talk about the increase in the Canadian dollar. I still think, if you were to look at other companies that are doing similar things and having to face the same challenges but are still surviving, then it goes back to: How much wealth is enough for the shareholders of FPI?

Here is a quote by Mr. Risley. He said this - I guess it was reflecting on the takeover of FPI and Mr. Young's role and why it was important to do what they did. He said, "In my opinion, Mr. Young deliberately ignored the stated wishes of his shareholders." This is what John Risley thought of what Vic Young did when Vic Young was heading up FPI; when Vic Young ensured that there were employment opportunities throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador for the very people who made it possible for FPI to exist. So doesn't this tell you something about Mr. Risley's agenda? Doesn't this tell you where Mr. Risley has his priorities?

While he talks in glowing terms about the importance of rural Canada, he turns around and out of the other side of his mouth says, "In my opinion, Mr Young deliberately ignored the stated wishes of his shareholders." So much for all of the stakeholders, so much for the people in Fortune and Lamaline and Point au Gaul and Point May and Grand Bank and Garnish and Frenchman's Cove and Marystown and Rock Harbour, and you name it. So much for the people of Harbour Breton who know only too well that they have no future when it comes to FPI. Believe it or not, the people who depend on the fish plant in Fortune are still hoping that FPI will have second thoughts; that they will realize that the all-mighty dollar for their shareholder is not what this should be all about; that in fact they should look at the wealth they are generating and while they may be losing money in one part of the company, the reality is, they are making money on other parts of the company.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, leave to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to make some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

So, why wouldn't a company like FPI do what many other companies have done and continue to do? That is, recognize that you can take the wealth that is being generated by some components of your operation and subsidize those that are having a difficult time, at this particular time, so that in the end everyone wins? That is all I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the government to acknowledge what the Opposition is saying, that there is an opportunity here to hold FPI accountable. Regardless of what Mr. McCurdy says, as head of the FFAW, I know that I speak for my constituents when I say it is time to look into the operations and management of FPI. Whatever Mr. McCurdy's rationale or reasoning is for the position he has taken, I do not know, but I represent the people who work at the fish plant, on the floor, in the fish plant of FPI.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in this debate today. While I might not agree with the final conclusion of the resolution, I do think it is important that the resolution is on the Order Paper today and that we have an opportunity - all members, however many want to speak or are allowed to speak under the rules - to debate FPI, what is happening with FPI and what has been happening to FPI and the communities where they operate for the last several months now, Mr. Speaker.

I want to begin by making a reference to a comment made by the hon. member who introduced the resolution. She quoted me as saying that I was not prepared to outline FPI's plans because it is not appropriate for me to do so and it is not my job. I believe, if the hon. member would go back in time a little bit, I said that before the union and FPI sat down at the table to be presented with the plan that FPI had in mind. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, it might have been during Question Period when we came back in February to do the amendments to the Labour Relations Act for fisheries matters. At that time that was true. The government had not, at that point in time, been informed of the results of the internal review. The union had not, at that point in time, been informed of the results of the internal review. But, Mr. Speaker, since then we have. The union and the company, with the help of government, have been at the table. They were at the table for several days, Mr. Speaker. During the course of that time at the table, FPI put on the table what their proposals were for the Burin Peninsula, in particular.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have made it abundantly clear in scrums outside this House, when the House was closed - before it opens, but we just happened to use the area here for that purpose. I have made it abundantly clear in the media time after time that FPI have put a set of proposals on the table for the Burin Peninsula that were not acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since that time, the FFAW - because the FFAW members knew what the internal review proposals were. They were at the table. We knew. We were at the table. But since that time, FFAW have said publicly that these proposals do not meet with our approval. We are not going to negotiate them. We are walking away, and that is exactly what they have done. They have informed their members, as part of that walking away process, what the internal review proposals of FPI were.

So, it is now public knowledge. There is no need for anybody to say: We do not know today what FPI had proposed for the Burin Peninsula. We do know. It is fair to say that keeps changing, but the bottom line of what FPI proposes for the Burin Peninsula is this. Let me repeat it. They have no plan for Fortune. They have told the FFAW that at the table. They have told us that they have no plan for Fortune. To be fair to them, they have gone on to say that we will co-operate, and whatever, in any way we can to attract somebody to Fortune. Well, that is helpful. We will work at that. We are working at that as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

They have said to us and said to the union: In terms of Burin, we are prepared to move another processing line into Burin, and that would facilitate some job improvement in the Burin operation. To be debated how much that will be, it could be seventy, eighty or ninety people, depending on how much product they reroute from other sources to Burin.

In terms of Marystown, the company has made it clear to the union across the table and to us, that they propose to close the present plant in Marystown. By doing that, they say they would save significantly in overhead costs, and we do not dispute that. The plant in Marystown is a large plant - I don't think the union disputes that - that would be a cost-saving measure if they closed that larger operation that is much larger than they require to process their present quotas. The proposal would be to move the Marystown operation into the protein plant next door, that was built a number of years ago and is not being used. That is a smaller plant. It would reduce the overheads and therefore make a contribution toward reducing the losses; in other words, improving the bottom line. As part of that, they say they would make an investment of $3 million or $4 million, I believe. It would require an investment of $3 million or $4 million into additional equipment for that plant in Marystown.

The employment situation in Marystown would be as follows, keeping in mind now, Mr. Speaker, that the total employment situation in Marystown when they last operated on two shifts was around 600 people in rough figures. It could escalate one way or the other, but it was approximately 600 people. The proposal, if it were to go forward, would be a three shift operation with 115 people per shift for fifteen weeks or sixteen weeks, I believe. In other words, you would go from a fairly substantial operation to less than half and you would have your seasonality increased. That is the bottom line.

A large part of this, Mr. Speaker, is, FPI expects that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will enter into a worker adjustment arrangement. That is a large piece of what they are planning here, because the employment impacts are significant on the Burin Peninsula anyway, but if you do not have an older worker adjustment program to take out people, say, between fifty-five and sixty-four then the employment impacts become significantly more problematic. So we have said to FPI and to the union, yes, we are prepared, as a government, to put a proposal in front of the Government of Canada for consideration of a worker adjustment program.

Mr. Speaker, we have done that. We have now put in front of our regional minister and the Government of Canada a detailed proposal for a worker adjustment program for the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. REID: It is time for you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says it is time for us. Mr. Speaker, it does take time. We want to consult with people who are involved in this. We want to put together a package that perhaps has some opportunity to fly. It is not just a power point presentation. We already met with our regional minister twice on this matter, but now we have developed the details and the mechanics, and doing it properly, hopefully, for something that has an opportunity to fly. That is what we are interested in, not a short-term fix but something that has some opportunity to fly. We have done that and we will pursue that vigorously. We will pursue it without delay with our colleagues in the Government of Canada, and hopefully - hopefully - we will be able to convince them to buy into this; because, if we can, then it will go a long way, not to solving the problem but to lessening the size of the problem that people on the Burin Peninsula face.

Mr. Speaker, there are other things that FPI should be aware of. Oh, there is one other thing on terms of their proposal. I have said this publicly. This is no secret, Mr. Speaker. This has not been kept under wraps. FPI proposes that they be either allowed to ship out of this Province unprocessed or sell to some other buyer in the Province, if one can be found, two-thirds of their quota in yellowtail flounder. In other words, they are proposing only to process in Marystown the larger size fish. When the fish are caught, of course, they are graded at sea, as people know, and by the time they get to the plant and they are landed you have the small, the medium and the large. They are proposing, as part of this review, that they would ship out or sell to somebody else, if somebody else wanted it, two-thirds of their quota.

Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear. I do not know how much clearer I can be. I do not know if I need to go out and take out full-page ads or if I need to buy ads on television to get somebody in FPI to listen to us, because we have told them to their face at the table, we have told them to their face: Go pound rocks. This is not an option. It is not on.

MR. REID: Is the federal minister going to back you up on that?

MR. RIDEOUT: The federal minister, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows, has already commented very strongly on this in public when he said that, if a company that has a right to catch fish in Canadian waters are not landing it at least in Canada - it should be landed in the province where it is adjacent to, but at least in Canada - then they should not expect the right to continue to harvest that fish.

That has been said by the federal minister, Mr. Speaker, and we are very appreciative of and supportive of that kind of an approach, and we encourage our federal colleague. It may be a very good thing for Newfoundland and Labrador - I am sure it is - that he is in the position that he is in at this point in time. We encourage him to stick to that, not only for FPI but any company that has quotas, has public property resource or access to public property resource. It is good public policy, Sir, and we support you on it.

Now FPI should be aware, Mr. Speaker - I am sure Mr. Risley was, I am sure Mr. Armoyan was, and I am sure other shareholders in FPI were aware - that when they invested their money in FPI they were not just investing in any private sector company in Canada. They were investing in a company that was significantly different than any private sector company in Canada. They were investing in a company that had legislative restrictions built around it, so they can't cry wolf and say we didn't know what we were getting into; you changed the water on the beans on us after we invested our money. They cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. This act, in some form or another, has been around since the 1980s. It has been amended a couple of times since, to tighten it in certain areas, but the 15 per cent share restriction was there from the very first act that this Legislature passed. The privative clause was added last time, I believe.

MR. REID: You took it out, or tried to, in June.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I took it out, or tried to, in June.

Mr. Speaker, this House voted on a package that had been negotiated with FPI. Members on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker - at least one I know of - voted for it. I tried to take it out. The House decided to take it out, if we were going to do it, Mr. Speaker - this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This House decided, not I! As a matter of fact, I was not even Minister of Fisheries at the time, Mr. Speaker.

Let the word go forth to FPI today, if they are listening - or maybe I have to take out ads, as I said - that we are prepared to amend the act again. If that means tightening up this all, or substantially all, we will do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, although FPI, with their last CEO and the present board of directors, decided that selling 40 per cent put them in the all, or substantially all, category because they came to this House and asked us to amend it - but we can tighten that further, Mr. Speaker. We can make it none. We can make it 10 per cent. We can make it 20 per cent, but let the word go forth that we are prepared to tighten all, or substantially all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This House is open, and let the word go forth that we can do it quickly, Mr. Speaker, and that we shall do it quickly if we see any evidence of stripping this company, any assets of this company. So, be aware!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We could also, Mr. Speaker, enact legislation to direct the company to cross-subsidize. Do you want us to do that, FPI? Do you want us to bring in legislation to force cross-subsidization? This House has the authority to do it, and this government, Mr. Speaker, has the determination to do it if necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to, on behalf of the Premier and this government, simply say this: FPI, you are welcome in our Province to do business but you have a public responsibility, a legislative responsibility. We will ensure that you do it according to that legislation and we will amend the legislation to make sure you do, if necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: So, Mr. Speaker, we see no need for a public inquiry. The union sees no need for a public inquiry. A public inquiry will only delay things. We are not interested in delaying. We are interested in action, and I am going to ask my colleagues on this side of the House to once again stand and vote down this resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister said earlier, it is a good opportunity for people to debate a resolution, even though he has already indicated they are not going to support it. But it is a good opportunity to talk about FPI.

Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I would like to look at the company that was before the present board of directors and where it is now and the reason why it happened. And, as a result of that, I do not know what type of an inquiry it would be, probably a public, or would it be a standing committee of the House or whatever, but there needs to be some investigation into the company for the way that they have managed.

Let's look before the present board of directors, Mr. Speaker. You had a plant in Harbour Breton that was operating with 350 people, twenty-odd weeks of the year. You had a plant that was operating in Fortune for so many weeks of the year, twenty-plus weeks of the year. You had a plant that was, probably, working close to full time in Marystown for 650 people and 350 in Fortune. That is the scenario that you have. Sure, things have changed. The Canadian dollar has increased and there is probably competition from China and so on, but there is more than that. There is more than that.

I remember when the Minister of Transportation and Works was in Harbour Breton when they did their circuit, when John Crosbie was there and many of the others, when the new board of directors came. I remember, I was there. I saw the situation that the people in Harbour Breton feared, and do you know what, have become a reality. That is a situation that they inherited. They inherited a company where its debt was manageable, $72 million. They inherited a company where the shares were approximately $12 per share and over two short years, what has happened? We have seen that board of directors and the CEO who was there, Mr. Rowe, gut the company. They gut the company. They went from a debt that was manageable for $72 million to more than $300 million. The cast adrift the people of Harbour Breton.

I said in the House, and I could go back and find Hansard where I said I knew they did it on purpose, because two years before that, when we were government, they decided to lay off a number of people in Marystown, Fortune and in Harbour Breton. The people came together and said you are not going to do it, and we told them no. I said to our people: they will be back, but they will have a different tack. They had a different tack all right. They brought in a new communications person from Ottawa and worked with the company, and lo and behold, what did they do? They divided and conquered us. That is what their aim was.

So, in that sense, here is the situation - and what happened? Where did the $300 million come from, the debt? What did they do? They did not spend it on the plant in Harbour Breton. They did not spend it on the plant in Fortune and they did not spend it on the plant in Marystown. I tell you what they did. They went and bought the factory-freezer trawlers. That is what they did with it. They took the jobs out of Harbour Breton. They took them out of Fortune and out of Marystown and they put them on the factory-freezer trawlers and took the fish that should be ours to be processed and sent it abroad to do. That is what they did. They had no social conscience for the people in this particular Province, none whatsoever. They led up adrift and they did not care.

So, here is the state of the situation. In a matter of a couple of years they took a company that was profitable, a company that was employing thousands of people to the desperation they are in today. Why are they doing what they are doing in Fortune? Why did they close Fortune? Why are they only hiring 115 jobs, so to speak, into Marystown that is cost shared? One hundred and fifteen, eight hour shift, that would employ 350 people. Do you know why they are doing it? Why are they coming to the government looking for all the ins and outs and looking to find ways out of the debt that they are in?

It was not the people in this Province who did it. It was the shareholders who did it. People like John Risley, and now more recently Armoyan, and the Sanford group in New Zealand. The question is out there in the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Regardless of what side of the House you sit on, there are questions. People in the community question it. They ask: What has happened to the company? How much control does Risley have, as he pitted the FPI against the Clearwater? Where is Armoyan in all of this? The fact that Armoyan and Risley can get about 30 per cent of all the shares in FPI, is there collusion? I don't know. I don't think anybody in the House would know, but there needs to be some particular way of finding out, because I am telling you what it has done. It has caused the people in the town that I represent, Harbour Breton, agony, and the people today do not know where they stand. There are people leaving to work on the crab plant in New Brunswick, they are gone to Fort McMurray, they are proposing to work on plants in P.E. I. They do not know, they are in limbo. That is the problem that you have in the community. I said some time before, if you go to the community of Harbour Breton and you look at the houses, nothing has changed. If you open the door and go in, you will see that it has changed. I am telling you, there is a lot of difference when you work at the plant than it is making make-work projects do; a big difference. It is not the same level. People who worked in the plant were getting $17 a hour versus $8.50 on a make-work project, $34 versus $17. The same? No different? I guess it is a bit different. There is also a difference in the security of people not knowing where they are.

It also said, I think it was, that the President of the FFAW does not see a need for an inquiry. What does that mean to the people of Harbour Breton? Earle McCurdy still has a pay cheque. I remember when he went down to Harbour Breton, and I said it to the people who were there and I will say it until the day that I die, we never got the support from the FFAW, from Earle McCurdy and his people, that we should have gotten for Harbour Breton. We were cut adrift. He did not support us, I can tell you that right now. You ask the people of Harbour Breton and they will concur with you. It really makes me angry.

Last year, when we were here voting on the Income Trust, we had people from the FFAW Executive meeting members of the House of Assembly in the elevator and saying: Harbour Breton is gone, vote for the Income Trust. Two is better than three. That is what happened. Now he is telling us we do not need an inquiry to see what is wrong with FPI. There are a lot of unanswered questions. If there is not an inquiry there will still be lingering doubts in people's minds, and regardless of where we sit across the House, whether we are government, Opposition or whatever the case might be, we have a mind and we think, and there is not one person in this House who has not, at some time or another, thought about FPI and that particular situation. Have they done what is right? What is wrong here? Could it have been done differently? What is the situation?

Remember, it is a company that we are all proud off. FPI was a flagship. When they did the restructuring years back, how many dollars from the taxpayers of Canada and of Newfoundland went into that? Hundreds of millions of dollars. As the minister said earlier when he was speaking, FPI is not like the ordinary company, like Barry's or Quinlans or whatever, it is a different company. They are somewhat controlled by the Legislature, by the legislation that is here. I think that we should make it stronger and I would support the government if they did that. There is no way that we can allow that company to do what they have done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, it is not political, it is people's lives that you are dealing with.

I am convinced in what I am saying here, the fact that probably FPI will never have a fifty-two week operation in Harbour Breton, in Marystown or in Fortune. Do you know what? There are seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada. There are seasonal industries in New Brunswick, there are seasonal industries in Prince Edward Island, and there are seasonal industries in Nova Scotia. Do not tell me that the people of Harbour Breton would not be satisfied with twenty or twenty-five weeks of work in their plant in Harbour Breton. I know they would and FPI could find a way to do it. What has happened is they have taken the company, the management of the company, and they have caused a problem for all of us who represent the rural parts of the Province. It is not just the people of Harbour Breton, it is the people who work in the communities from all around. It is the whole region. It is the same thing with the people on the Burin Peninsula. I am sure the Member for Bonavista South has his doubts about their commitment for Bonavista. I am sure that the people sitting on both sides of the House are worried about what they would do in Triton, or what they would do in Port aux Choix. Where is the company?

Remember last year with the Income Trust, they were going to sell off the marketing arm, they were going to sell it for $100 million. Sure, the company was not worth $100 million altogether. They were going to sell 25 per cent of it, they said, for $100 million. People have the ability to think and people know what they were saying was wrong. I will bet you, what they are up to now is to find a way to deviate and to really do more damage to the company by what they are doing in the United States, by taking the four divisions, two American and two Canadian. Who is to say what they will do with the Canadian divisions of it? I do not know. I am not privy to it. What it does is leaves doubt in your mind, because they are still doing some things that people, the ordinary people, the people of this Province who depend on FPI and depend on the fishing industry - it is bad enough as it is out there, the rural part of this Province. I said yesterday, I think it was, when I had a chance to speak, but only for a couple of minutes, there is a big difference today in rural Newfoundland than ten or fifteen years ago, and we recognize that. There is a difference right across every province of Canada.

I was listening to the news the other morning, and one of the things that is happening in China is, people are leaving the rural parts of the countryside and going to the large cities. Everybody recognizes that. What is happening in our communities is the fact that, when the people - and I grew up in a community where there were primarily loggers. They left in the spring and they came back in the summer to mow the grass. Then went away in the fall and came back late fall, and went away sometimes in the wintertime as well, but there were a lot of younger people there and the people could do fishing and do other things connected to the forestry and logging. That is not there any more. Those choices are not there. What we have in many of the rural communities today is, there is no way that these people can earn their living, and what do we find them doing, like 13,000 of our souls have done last year? They found their way to Alberta and to other parts of the country.

We have a company here that was a flagship of this Province, one that we were proud of when we saw the flag flying on O'Leary Avenue, but I can tell you that this particular present board of directors have destroyed, pretty much, this company. It is still profitable, I understand that, but what they have done to the groundfish section of it, they have completely destroyed it and have ruined the lives of hundreds of people in this particular Province. That, Mr. Speaker, to me, deserves some answers that we are not getting. I think the only way that we could get them is through some type of an inquiry, whether it is a standing committee of this House or some other group or whatever, but there are a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of things that have happened that people in the Province are questioning, and we are questioning, and I think there should be a way that we could get answers to it. Because, I am telling you, FPI, if they are given the opportunity to do what they want to do, we will see many more things happening to the company that we will not like, but we should be in a position - if it means strengthening the legislation to prevent them from doing it, then we should, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say that it is a pleasure for me to stand here this evening and speak to this private member's motion but, as has already been said, I think it is very important and an opportune time that we speak to this entire FPI issue.

I do not think there is anyone in this House, as a member, who is more impacted by FPI than I am in my district. I may be corrected on that, but when I look at how the Burin Peninsula has gone for so many years, and as I thought about speaking here today, I thought I would try just for a few minutes to put kind of a human face to this; because, as people have said so many times over the past number of months, here we have an $800 million company that right now seems to be striking out at one particular area of that operation, at the present time that being the Burin Peninsula. If you look at a company of that size, you almost have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, and say to yourself, there must be something different that can be done here.

The Member for Grand Bank mentioned the individual who spoke this morning from Rock Harbour. I can go around and I can speak to you about friends and relatives who fit into that same situation. Here they have been for the last three to four months just waiting for answers, and I would ask anybody in this House if they would put themselves into that situation just for a minute or a few minutes. Maybe some time before this House closes today, or maybe some time tonight, just put yourself in that situation.

I will use Marystown as an example. For the past number of years, through an arrangement worked by the unions and the company, there has been a job sharing. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows anyone who has been involved in the Marystown operation, they will tell you that there has been uncertainty there for the last five or six years.

Now, in addition to the last four months or so while they have been waiting for answers, add to that the last five or six years where there has been uncertainty. When I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a cloud hanging over the people on the Burin Peninsula, I cannot say it strong enough as to how this is impacting the people who live there.

I have heard the president of the local union, Allan Moulton, who has said, and I have said, and I will repeat it here again now - let's take that Marystown operation. I will start with one of the communities in the northern part of my district, that being Brookside. If I move from Brookside I can go on through to the rest of the communities of Boat Harbour, Bane Harbour, and on down the Peninsula to Spanish Room, Jean de Baie, into Marystown, and then I can go to the other side and I can look at Garnish. I can go to Grand Bank, Fortune, Lawn, St. Lawrence, Burin and right back down to the plant again. Mr. Speaker, what you have is an operation that not only serves Marystown, but it supports the entire economy of the Burin Peninsula.

Anyone who is involved in business on the Burin Peninsula will tell you - you know, if some major projects through ship construction or oil were to come to the Peninsula tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't complain, I can tell you that, but the business people on the Peninsula will tell you that, how goes the fishery and how goes the fish plants so goes the economy. While the plants are up and running and doing well, the economy will do relatively well.

Mr. Speaker, when I look back at it, the Burin Peninsula has been built on the fishery. Burin, Grand Bank, these are some of the oldest towns in our Province. You don't have to go very far, speak to the people in Burin who will tell you that some number of years ago they put up one hell of a fight to keep the plant there. What year was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: 1984.

MR. JACKMAN: 1984. They put up one hell of a fight to keep the plant there. They hung onto it, and I am very pleased to say that through the arm, the Ocean Cuisine, this has been one of the strengths of the company. Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at it, that plant has operated for forty-forty-five weeks a year. The incomes that the people are receiving there are pretty good incomes. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I was thinking in preparation for this that, that plant has operated so quietly, and I think what it is; sometimes you are almost afraid to speak out and raise the praises of a facility like that because there is so much turmoil, like I say, in Marystown with the uncertainly that hangs over the people there.

Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House on one or two occasions, and I will repeat it now, we moved, my family, my ten brothers and sisters and my mother and father, to Marystown in October of 1968. The reason we moved there was because of the fish plant. My father went to work there and so did so many of the other people from my community who resettled there. It was a time when you saw, I guess you could say that it was progress, because, as a young fella, you know, sixteen years of age, I could go to that plant in Marystown on a Saturday. You would stand by the door, you would get your call to go to work and you worked there on your weekends. You worked there through your summers.

Mr. Speaker, on the protest line that was out on O'Leary Avenue the other day, I saw people there who started their career that they had in the fish plant. They started there back in the 1970s and they stuck it out through there.

Mr. Speaker, this company itself has spoken about the workforce that they have. They have spoken about the workforce in Burin. They have spoken about the workforce that they have in Marystown. The groundfish sector of it, the company has said that the production levels and the yield that it has gotten from these workers is second to none. So, we are looking at an $800 million company who said that their workers have given of their utmost time, their utmost efforts, their energy and I do not think it is unreasonable to say to a company: amongst your $800 million, it is time that you give back. I do not think there is anybody on the Burin Peninsula who would not say, up to a few years ago, that FPI was not a good corporate citizen. I think most people would say to you that they were. They supported activities in towns. They supported workers in all types of initiatives, from safety and so on and so forth, and I do not think that anyone would have too many bad words to say to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize here right now, amidst all of this turmoil, that the people who are employed in these places and the union leadership and the workers are willing to co-operate with this company at this point. But, I guess what it comes to, is that we are at a point in the road now where we have to make some decisions. I guess, as a government - I don't guess, I know, that we, as a government, are willing to take some strong stands here.

The minister talked about cross-subsidization here and we have, under the FPI Act - and we have the power to come within this Legislature to strengthen the FPI Act, and FPI needs to understand that we will do that if we have to.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if you look at the resource here, I met with the union leadership in Marystown on Sunday, and one of the things we talked about was the resource. That FPI has access to about 28,000,000 pounds of raw material. Here we are saying that if we are going to be processing groundfish - and let's just take a look at the Marystown operation - that the best that can be done here at this point is 115 employees, over three shifts. Now, I would ask anybody else in this room to just consider that. Just consider what kind of a quality of life you are going to have when you are working for fifteen weeks and then for the rest of it you are on EI. One gentleman pointed out to me, it is not even enough time to qualify for sick benefits.

So, here we are again, we have to question what FPI's commitment is to the people in this particular community of Marystown and the plant that is there. Going from 600 workers that were employed there, down to something like this. It is totally unacceptable. I guess from a perspective of what FPI has to do, here is what people are asking. We have talked about shifting sand, but really we have not heard an alternative. FPI has not come back with anything different from what they said out here. So now is the time for them to step up, to come back and do some of this.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, we need to reiterate a few points here. As I have already said, if we need to strengthen the act here, then, as a government, that is what we are going to have to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you do it?

MR. JACKMAN: It is asked across the floor: Why don't we do it? Well, I tell you why. Probably right at this point, is that we are hoping that FPI is going to come back with something that will prove to be a bit better than they have already done.

There is no one out there. There is one thing that came across very clear, Mr. Speaker, in my meeting with the union leadership on Sunday, is that they want FPI to be a part of this solution and there is no one in this government certainly who would want anything different. As I have already said, the fish plant productions, FPI has been an integral part of the life and the bloodline of the Burin Peninsula, as long as I have been there, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: 1942.

MR. JACKMAN: Since 1942 the fishery has been there and we want to continue that. We want to make sure that stays front and center with anything that is going to happen on the Burin Peninsula. We are just waiting, and we are encouraging, and we are saying to FPI, come forward with something better than you have put on the table. No one out there, from anybody in the union leadership or the workers, are saying anything different. Come forward with something different and we are willing to work with you on this. But that cloud hangs there, Mr. Speaker, and we need some answers here.

In terms of the inquiry; again, as already has been stated, the union people are saying: We don't feel that an inquiry is something that we need at this point. I, as a representative for the District of Burin-Placentia West, feels the same way. I can only reiterate what it is that we do want. We want something different than has been already proposed. They have got to come back with something different. They can do something different and we hope that they will.

In terms of us, as a government, as I have already said on a couple of occasions, I will say again, we have the power to strengthen the act and we certainly do not want to move in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, like the Minister of Fisheries, encourage all members this evening to vote against this at this particular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to this private member's motion made by colleague, the Member for Grand Bank. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I could probably speak for three days and I get fifteen minutes.

We did ask for an emergency debate here last week but the government did not think that it was important enough to do so. We did not get that debate, and that is the reason we are calling for an independent inquiry into the operations of FPI. The reason we are doing that, Mr. Speaker, is we have been now, for days and weeks, asking questions, both publicly and in the House of Assembly, pertaining to the operation of FPI. We cannot get answers from FPI and the Board of Directors of FPI. We have not been able to get satisfactory answers from the government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would go so far as to say that the government does not have the answers. If you listened to the Minister of Fisheries over the last few days, you will know why, because he has asked questions, he has not heard the answers. I will get into that later, but, Mr. Speaker, before I do, I just want to give a brief history of FPI and what has happened to it in the last four or five years, especially the current board of directors that exist and the operation that is over on O'Leary Avenue.

Back in 2000, John Risley, who owns Clearwater fisheries in Nova Scotia, came forward and asked the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, would he change the legislation in the House of Assembly to allow him to buy FPI outright. At the time, we had some debate in caucus and there was a great debate in the Province. We said no. As a government we said: No, we will not change the legislation to allow you to purchase FPI. In the legislation there is a clause that says: No one individual or any group of individuals combined can buy any more than 15 per cent of the shares in FPI. John Risley owned 15 per cent at the time. He could not buy any more than 15 per cent of that company. We said, we are not changing the legislation, so he took his money and he went back to Nova Scotia. Bill Barry, the great friend of the Premier's, the passionate Newfoundlander, was involved with John Risley at the time. They wanted to buy FPI. We said no. He went back to Nova Scotia, but he was not finished with FPI.

In 2001, a year later, he came back and what he did is, he convinced the shareholders of FPI, those who hold shares in that company from all around the world, to support him in throwing Vic Young out as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of FPI. Then he established himself and his own Board of Directors to head up that company. Now, they made all kinds of promises and commitments to the people of the Province about growing the company, employing more people not fewer people, and going to give the investors in the company more return for the shares that they have and the dollars that they have invested in the company. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what has happened to those commitments.

I have to say one thing, while we were in government we held FPI to their commitments about employing people in this Province and keeping their plants open, because not one plant closed under FPI flag when we were in government. We told them: We are holding you to your commitments. You make promises, you keep them, you do not lie. They did not lay off people. In fact, I would say to the Speaker up there or the Chair who is sitting in the Chair up there today, he was on the committee that we struck, an All-Party Committee of the House of Assembly, that went around the Province and, at the end of the day, FPI laid nobody off.

Now what do we see happening with FPI? Just last year they came in and made the announcement that they were laying off 350 people in the Town of Harbour Breton and they were closing that plant, going to devastate the community. All we heard from the previous Minister of Fisheries, the man who is now the Minister of Transportation and Works, was: Well, boy, you know the Canadian dollar is high. That is not doing much for us in the United States, boy. That is going to make it difficult to sell groundfish down there this year. We have stiff competition from China. We cannot compete with the cost of labour in China. He had all the reasons in the world why FPI had to close the plant in Harbour Breton; all the reasons in the world. In fact, from time to time I used to look at him when he was out in front of a camera and I wondered if he was a Minister of the Crown or an employee of FPI. That was what I used to wonder, because he was giving all the excuses that FPI Board of Directors were giving for closing Harbour Breton.

What happened? The union went down and they kicked up the big racket. They went down to Harbour Breton and they kicked up the big racket. They said, this is not going to happen, then they all went home. Well today, some sixteen months later, what is happening in Harbour Breton? Nothing, the plant is still idle. There are talks that someone might come in if they can get this, that or something else, but nothing has happened expect that a lot of them have left and gone to Alberta to work and the rest of them are on make-work programs getting $6, $7 and $8 an hour and on unemployment. That is their future. That is what the last sixteen months entail for these people. Where is their future?

Now this year, just before Christmas, FPI comes in and tells the government: Well, we might have to do some further restructuring. We might have to go down now and have a look at our groundfish operations on the Burin Peninsula. What did they do? We went out before Christmas and said, the rumors that we are hearing on the street and the people we are talking to in the industry, the contacts that we have in the industry - and, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the Department of Fisheries one way or the other for the last sixteen years, so I do know some people involved in it. They were telling me long before Christmas that FPI was closing its groundfish operations on the Burin Peninsula and that their boats were not going to be sailing any more to the fishing grounds; just before Christmas.

When I went on the open line show one morning, at the request of the host, and said this, I heard comments from the current minister of Fisheries that day: All Gerry Reid is doing is fearmongering. FPI has not made their decision. It is only routine procedure that the factory freezer trawlers and their trawlers come in at Christmas and that the crew go home, but they are going back to work in January. Well, where are they today? We are going to be into the 1st of April Saturday and these people still have not gone back on the water, these people still have not gone to work in the plants on the Burin Peninsula. We have a whole host of questions that we have not had answered by the government, by FPI or anyone else, and that is the reason we are calling for a public inquiry.

Let me just give you some of the concerns that I have with FPI. We have John Risley who is one of the chief competitors of FPI with his operation in Nova Scotia. This individual himself owns 15 per cent of the shares of FPI, he sits on the Board of Directors, the chief competitor, Nova Scotia. Just recently they bring in this individual called Mr. George Armoyan. Now, who is he? I did not know who he was. I got a little bio of him there a little while ago. His first job was manager of a boxer. That is who he was, manager of a boxer, but he quit that. Do you know why? He did not like people fighting and he could not stand the sight of blood. This is who this individual is. He does own Clark trucking, a big outfit that is based in Ontario. It is traded on the Toronto stock exchange as far as I know. He is a multi-millionaire just like Mr. Risley himself.

Now what interest, I say to the Member for Topsail, would an individual like George Armoyan have in FPI, Fishery Products International, a company whose shares were worth $12 three years ago and are now trading for $5 or $5.50? Why would an individual like George Armoyan, an ex-boxer, an owner of a trucking company, and on the Board of Directors of a whole host of companies with John Risley - the two of them sit on a whole host of companies that are publicly traded in this country - what interest would he have in FPI? What interest? When you have a share price dropping from $12 to $5 or $6, you have all kinds of problems in the fishing industry, stocks are depleting, competition from China, a rising Canadian dollar which is going to kick the you-know-what out of us in the market in the United States this year, why is he there? That is the question I want answered. Why is he there, a multimillionaire buying shares in FPI.

Now all of a sudden, yesterday we find out that this individual, not only is he on the Board of Directors of FPI but he is going to be the Director, the Chief Operator, for the American division of FPI in the United States. The first thing he says he is going to do is he is going to divide the American division, the most profitable division of FPI, he is going to divide it into four parts: the Canadian marketing division; the Canadian processing division; the American marketing division and the American processing division. Well, I say to the minister and I say to all those opposite, the Canadian manufacturing division of Ocean Cuisine is the Burin secondary plant. There is another secondary plant in Danvers, Massachusetts. He is splitting all of these up, just like the current Board of Directors did with the company two years ago when they said: We are going to have three divisions of FPI. Rather than operate it as one company like Vic Young did, we are going to have three divisions and they have to sink or swim on their own.

We are going to have the American division, which is very profitable, very lucrative. They are selling and buying fish from all over the world. That is going to be down there separate; nothing to do with this crowd up there in Newfoundland, nothing to do with them. We make money down here, we keep it down here.

You have the groundfish division. That is what we are talking about today, the groundfish division. That takes in all of the plants on the Burin Peninsula and the trawlers that are offshore, and Harbour Breton which they pretend they do not have anything to do with anymore.

Then we have the shellfish division. We have a crab plant in Bonavista, a shrimp plant in Port Union, a crab plant in Triton, and another shrimp plant up in Port aux Choix. On top of that, the federal government has given them 8,000 tons of shrimp, that even if they left in the water and passed the licence over to someone else they can make $8 million on this year. Very lucrative! I say, if you are going to make money in the fishery in this Province today you are going to make it on crab and shrimp. That is very lucrative. So, you are going to have that separated from groundfish on the Burin Peninsula. What they are saying is, these divisions have to sink or swim on their own.

Now they are going to appoint Mr. Armoyan to head up the American division, divide that into four parts and say all four parts have to sink or swim on their own. Why is he in there? What is he doing there? That is a question I would like answered. Why is an individual who owns millions of dollars be concerned about FPI when the share price is dropping? If you listen to the people in the industry, the fishery is a disaster; you are not going to make any money in it. Why is he involved?

Then you have to go back to his connection with Mr. Risley. Both of them are friends and business associates. There is a clause in the FPI legislation that is here on this floor that says no individual or group of individuals can own any more than 15 per cent. Well, today, John Risley owns 15 per cent and George Armoyan owns close to 15 per cent. Right? It is against the legislation in this House for one of them to own it, but it is also against the legislation of this House where it says no one individual or group of individuals who are colluding can own it. What is happening here? We do not know.

That is the kind of question I would like answered. That is the kind of question that the minister can answer. In fact, they appointed George Armoyan to the board and guess what? He didn't even know about it. They told him about it yesterday. The minister, by his own admission, came out last week and said FPI was shipping fish to China for processing, which breaks every rule and regulation in this Province. Guess what? He didn't know it! He did not know it! His department was supposed to give FPI the permission. He says they did not give their permission. He did not know it.

We have Mr. Armoyan taking over the most valued division of the U.S. and he did not know it. We have FPI shipping fish to China, and he did not know it. They are breaking the law; he just discovered that last week. Then he says yesterday, in answer to a question, he did not really know what FPI was doing because the sands keep shifting daily. You wonder why we want a public inquiry as to what this company is doing.

The minister stood today and said: We don't need a public inquiry; we can tighten the legislation in the House of Assembly. He said, number one, we can tighten the legislation so that no individual, or group of individuals, can own any more than 15 per cent of the company. Bring it back here! Bring it back here and let the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador decide who owns the 15 per cent, and if they are acting in collusion.

Number two, he says, we can change the FPI Act so that the American division, or any division in FPI, can cross-subsidize the other division. Well, right now, the American division that rests in Danvers, Massachusetts, is not doing anything to help the people on the Burin Peninsula.

I say to the minister, if he wants to bring the legislation before the House of Assembly right now, or 12:00 o'clock tonight, before the floor of this House of Assembly, and wants me to vote on that, I will vote for it right here and now. I beg him to bring it forward so that FPI can't run it as three separate divisions, close one down and sweep them under the table.

Mr. Speaker, he says we can do all of that with legislation, but I have to ask him: Why is he waiting? Why is he waiting? Why did he wait for Harbour Breton to close and 350 people lose their jobs? Why is he waiting while Fortune - by his own admission today, there is nothing in the cards for Fortune, according to FPI's plan. Nothing in the cards for them, they are closed, they are gone! They no longer exist in FPI's frame of mind. I ask the minister: Why is he waiting to change this legislation?

Now we hear that FPI is going to lay off 300 or 350 people in Marystown, in that operation, and employ the other 300 for fifteen weeks. Why are we waiting, I say to the minister? He talks about: We will use the legislation; we will change the legislation.

I say to the minister, bring it forward today while FPI is still debating, as you said by your own admission, what they are going to do with the people on the Burin Peninsula, what they are going to do with the people in Fortune and every other community on the Burin Peninsula. Why are you waiting? Put the legislation before the floor. Why are you denying the public, and especially those who work for FPI in the Province, the right to know the answers to the question that we have been posing on their behalf? Because every single day I get phone calls from the Burin Peninsula, from towns like Marystown, saying: Mr. Reid, why are they doing this? Why are they doing that? Why isn't the government acting? My answer to them is: I cannot get the answers.

Now, I never heard any sufficient answer today from either the Minister of Fisheries or the member who represents the Town of Marystown in the House of Assembly as to why they are so opposed to a public inquiry into the workings of FPI. All I hear from the Minister of Fisheries is: We can change the legislation.

Sure, we all know you can change the legislation. We wrote the legislation, and any piece of legislation in this House can be changed any day in the week, any time of the day. All you have to do is open the House and say we are going to do it, and if there is enough of us who vote for it then we will change it. So, why are you waiting to hold a public inquiry?

My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, mentioned the Chair of the FFAW saying it is a waste of time, basically; it will only muddy the water. Muddy the water, when you have 1,000 people on the Burin Peninsula today who are not working at plants belonging to FPI, and another 350 over in the Town of Fortune who have already been cast off like they were dirt by FPI in Harbour Breton. We have four other plants in this Province who are run by FPI, who know nothing of their future - know nothing of their future - and yet you deny a public inquiry.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to FPI is what I said here today: By the time this government acts, that company will be dismantled and stripped. The barn door is thrown wide open right now and one of these days we will close it, but guess what? We will close that door but there will be no one left, or nothing left in the barn to keep from getting out. That is my fear of what is happening with this Board of Directors of FPI and what they are doing to the people of this Province.

When the minister today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: A minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member that, according to our Standing Order 63, each member taking part in debate on Private Members' Day is allotted fifteen minutes. I say to the member that his time has lapsed.

MR. REID: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: It is up to members of the House, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the people of this Province, and especially those who work for FPI, have a right to know why and what that company is doing, because we govern that company. Unlike any other company in this Province, we govern that with a piece of legislation that is on that desk right there. We can change it.

When the current Minister of Fisheries was Minister of Fisheries back in the 1980s, I don't know if you brought in the original, Minister? Did you bring in the original FPI Act? You certainly did amend it in 1987, I believe, when you were the minister. You know what is in the act. I know what is in the act. Don't talk about: We could amend the act; we may amend the act. If you are not going to call a public inquiry into the company, let's amend the act right here and now. Let's not wait until FPI guts the rest of that company that was established for the benefit of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador as a flagship for the fishing industry and, I might add, established by the taxpayers' money, not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but that of the Canadian people as well, Mr. Speaker.

I beg the minister to reconsider. Call the public inquiry. Let's get to the bottom of that. Let's save the future for those who work and live on the Burin Peninsula, because it is already too late for the people of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this resolution here today regarding the suggestion that, by resolution of this House, there be established an independent inquiry into the operations of FPI.

We are here once again today debating the very important company, Fishery Products International Limited, which, as members will know, was established in 1983, going back a very long ways in this Province, over twenty-two, twenty-three years ago, established out of a mess that existed then in the Newfoundland fishery that required the restructuring of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery with the assistance of the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which put in some $177 million. The Bank of Nova Scotia, as well, was a participant, Mr. Speaker, as they had substantial debt that was owed to them by various companies who participated in the restructuring.

Mr. Speaker, that was the establishment of FPI. If one looks at the committee - and I believe Your Honour, you were on this committee in 2002, the All-Party Committee of the House of Assembly which conducted public consultations on the FPI Act. It clearly sets out the purpose of the act, and the restructuring act and agreements of 1983 included oversighted provisions with respect to the board of directors and the operation of the company, as well as restrictions on significant changes without government approval.

In 1987, there was the privatization act. Now, I should say, Mr. Speaker, that our party has been on record as opposing that because we were concerned, at that time, that the kind of thing that we are facing here today was also a possibility looking back even then.

When the 1987 act was created, there was still the continued intention of government and an objective in finding a just and lasting solution for the rebuilding of the fishery, which recognized the fundamental role the industry played in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here, again, I am quoting from the All-Party Committee in 2002.

The FPI Act was created to ensure long-term stability in the fishery sector by consolidating the assets of a number of offshore and inshore linked companies into one large profitable company that would be modern, competitive and able to withstand the cyclical nature of the fishery. At that time the 15 per cent shareholding was put in place and the intention was to give a level of insurance that the ownership would be widely held that no individual or company could take control of FPI for its own purposes. Now this is not unusual, Mr. Speaker, that there be a restriction of that nature.

The report goes on to say: This restriction is not unusual, where a particular public interest is at stake similar ownership restrictions are embodied in the bank act limiting individual holdings to 10 per cent. Also, Petro Canada, CN, Air Canada, when they were privatized ownership restrictions were placed on them.

Mr. Speaker, those notions of having control and stability within the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador remain important to this day. They were important in 2002 and they are just as important today, because something happened going back towards the end of the 1990s. It was realized, by certain individuals, that this company was worth more than its shares were worth; that there was a value to this company; that it was a profitable company that was making money but that the shares, if you bought them individually on the open market, were not reflecting that value. Always a danger, Mr. Speaker, when you have a company that is worth more than its shares are selling for, because it invites someone to take it over and have their way with the company, if they have the freedom to do so.

What we had in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, was a series of operations, a series of plans by groups of individuals. The first plan was NEOS. Remember NEOS? There was a group of individuals - one group from Newfoundland, the Barry Group, headed by Bill Barry, who is still around today; the Clearwater Group; the Icelandic Group. All these players wanted to form a consortium to take over FPI, and at that time there was a period during which this offer was entertained by the government. We opposed it from the very beginning. Eventually, the Opposition and the government - the now government, then Opposition and the government, now Opposition - also opposed this and told the proponents of the NEOS proposal that they could not do it. It was not on.

Then the group got together again and various other permutations and combinations, and decided: Well, we will have another go at it. We will just start buying up the shares. We will buy up enough shares and then we will have a little takeover. So they took over and ousted the board of directors of the company. At the time, Mr. Speaker, they were trying to give everybody the kind of insurances that they wanted to hear. Mr. Risley said - he is quoted in The Express on April 18, 2001: We understand our responsibilities to these communities, intimately. We understand that the government and the communities-at-large are not going to tolerate us coming in and slashing and burning. They may have understood it then, Mr. Speaker, and if they understood it then, they should understand it now, that the community-at-large in Newfoundland and Labrador is not going to tolerate them or anybody taking over FPI and slashing and burning because that is what we have happening.

What we have are these people now - and the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned an individual buying up big chunks of FPI, George Armoyan. He has a reputation, I am told, of being a player in companies; part of a group of people, I suppose, who would move in if there is a company there that could be worth more. Sometimes companies are worth more if you break them up and sell the pieces. Sell it for parts, Mr. Speaker. That is the phrase as the way it goes. Take over the company, sell it for parts because the parts, if you can get the chance to sell them, are worth more than the whole. Because in this case they are all concerned that the whole has restrictions, the 15 per cent share restrictions being one of them. The obligations to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, for taking over a company with the kind of quotas that it has in the fishery. These are the things that make FPI Limited valuable, not only to the shareholders, but, more importantly, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of discussions back in 2002. How do we maintain the kind of control over FPI that is necessary to protect the public interests? One of the things that we did was we made sure that the purpose of FPI was spelled out in the act, and it is there. It is there to protect and help make sure that anybody who is buying FPI shares understands that they are buying into yes, a private corporation at this stage, but it was always in the minds of the legislators of Newfoundland and Labrador, a special kind of public corporation, a public purpose private corporation with a public purpose that is now spelled out in the act. So, a public purpose private corporation it is, Mr. Speaker, and as long as this Legislature has control over it, it will have continue to have a public purpose.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happening over the last little while - and I am fearful, I have to say it. I am fearful, when I see the kind of manoeuvres that have been made in the past and are being made now; down in the U.S.A. where Mr Armoyan is now in charge of dividing up the company in little bits and pieces, perhaps to get under the radar; to get under the radar of section 7 of the act, which says: neither FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited shall sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its property or business which relates to the harvesting, processing or marketing of seafood.

What does that mean, all or substantially all? Well, if I have a company, a marketing arm down in the U.S. and I divide it up into two or three or four parts, which I understand they are doing. So, we are not going to sell all those parts. We are not even going to sell 40 per cent of them to an income trust, which we convinced the government that they should let us do last year. We are just going to sell 25 per cent. So now we are not selling all or substantially all, and we are doing this in the U.S. We do not even have a CEO in place in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, where the act says you have to have your headquarters and your operations office. You have to be in Newfoundland and Labrador, in St. John's, because the act says that the head office shall be located in the Province. In section 1, head office means the corporate and administrative head offices of FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited.

Down in Danvers, Massachusetts they do not have the head office, they just have the operations office. They are just running the operations out of Danvers, Massachusetts and Mr. Armoyan is down there running the company. We do not even need anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why they have not bothered to appoint a CEO. What do you need a CEO for if the act only says you have to have a head office? Well, we have the office here. They were not even concerned when it was closed last week. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland was asked to give an injunction because somebody had closed their operation. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland said: Well, boy, you closed them yourself. You did not even try to open them. You did not show up. Mr. Speaker, why do we have the company doing this? They are doing it because they are allowed to do it. They are doing it because they are permitted by the legislation and they are working their way around the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a long time to speak here today and I only have a few more minutes left, but I want to say that we are in another crisis with FPI because there is a significance loss of faith in the leadership of FPI. There is a significant loss of faith in their intentions within this Province.

One of the recommendations, actually it has not been discussed lately, but I remember on this committee we were concerned that there be a commitment from FPI, and we were going to legislate it, that all of their quota fish be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? All of their quotas should be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The committee recommends, number two. There was a suggestion: Well, no, we might not be able to do that but we will go to - the FPI company suggested an agreement. The committee went along with it and said okay. The committee recommends that FPI and the government attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas. In the event that the parties cannot reach an acceptable enforceable agreement within a reasonable period, the committee recommends that the FPI Act be amended to include a requirement that all current and future FPI quotas and allocations, in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, be harvested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and processed within the Province.

That was the recommendation of the committee, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there has been an enforceable agreement entered into between FPI and the government. We still do not have legislation requiring them to process the fish in Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been a significant loss of faith. The minister is conducting an investigation. The minister says if they have been exporting fish without permission they are going to be charged. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That is not good enough. We need to be assured that they are not going to catch any fish outside of the Province and do that without permission, and do that at all, as the minister has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do, we need to take the matter in hand and make it very clear to this company that, if any other end runs around this act are tried, the very next thing that is going to happen is that legislation is going to be brought to this House to bring about significant change to this act.

Mr. Speaker, if I had my druthers, we would be going back to 1984. We would take over this company. We would nationalize this company, even for a period of time. It does not have to be forever, but to go back to square one and say we have a public purpose company that is not behaving in the proper way and we ought to take it back over and ensure that it operates for the purposes that it was intended.

Mr. Speaker, there may well have been a subsidy of the operations in Newfoundland and Labrador during the period from 1992 on, in the groundfish industry. That may have been going on. If it was going on, that is a good thing, but if that is necessary to happen now to protect the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, well, maybe we should do it in an up front way because we have a very profitable company with $800 million of sales per year with room to make lots of profit to cross-subsidize, if necessary, the operations of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the company and the people who now control that company are not prepared to operate in accordance with the act, and in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, then perhaps the answer is for us to take it over ourselves, as a government, and make sure that it is run in accordance with the principles and the purposes that FPI was formed in the first place. That is what needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the resolution itself, an independent inquiry, I am not sure, and maybe someone can clarify it before it is all over, what that means. If that means having some judge - and I have nothing anything against judges, but if someone outside is going to sit down for a year and do consultations and do investigations, that kind of inquiry, I cannot support that. I do not think we need that kind of extensive long-tailed process. We do not need the kind of thing that we have seen with various other inquiries that take a long time. What we do need is a good, hard, quick look at what is going on here. Perhaps what the member means is independent from FPI. If the member means independent from FPI and was talking about a committee of this House to inquire into FPI and see what changes need to be made, then we can support it. But if it is going outside of this House and appointing some third party that may spend a year looking into things, that are going to be overtaken by events - because my suspicion is that we are going to be in this House, either in this session or an emergency session very quickly, trying to deal with what is going on down in the USA today. Maybe the government, instead of waiting for something to happen and then reacting, started taking proactive measures to ensure that the plans that seem to be very easily and very quickly on the horizon are not taking place. We do not want to be down fighting in the United States courts -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: If I may just have a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do not want, as a government, to be down in the United States of America fighting in their court system over a sale, a breakup or a takeover, or an operation that is performed by the people who are now in control of FPI, trying to pass legislation here after the fact, and have that legislation up for grabs in the U.S. court. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is some good legislation here and now to make that happen, and an inquiry by a committee of this House could perhaps bring that forward much more quickly than an independent inquiry that might be a judge who might sit for a year and make some recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been in this House now some seven years and there have been a lot of debates around the fishery. There is no issue in Newfoundland and Labrador that invokes such a passionate debate and a passionate discussion than the fishery.

Last year, you will recall, we came back to this House and spent some three or four days here talking about an amendment to the Fishery Products Act. There is no company that has been talked about any more in Newfoundland and Labrador than Fishery Products International.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at all of the debate, all of the discussion that has taken place in this House of Assembly on these two issues, only a portion of it deals in any substantive way on the issue before the House. A lot of it is political rhetoric. It gives us a chance to talk with some passion about something that is really important to Newfoundland and Labrador. Today is no real exception.

We have heard a lot of discussion today, a lot of criticism of Fishery Products International. I do not think it is any real secret that most Members in this House of Assembly will stand or, in a discussion, will not be very complimentary of Fishery Products International. All of us, I think, Mr. Speaker, in this House, and many throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, will be very highly critical of Fishery Products International for the manner in which they do business in this Province, the manner in which they have done business in recent years particularly.

We applauded their successes in their early years, but in recent years no one has really been happy about their performance; no one has really been happy about how they have treated their employees; no one has really been happy about how they treated the communities in which they operate.

Last year, for example, during the discussion around the amendments to the Fishery Products Act, Harbour Breton, the community of Harbour Breton and the surrounding communities, got drawn into the middle of that. For some reason or other, if someone supported the proposed amendments, they were not supporting the community of Harbour Breton and the regions, or vice versa. The debate and the discussion around the amendments to the act got rendered down to that kind of very personal, very emotional, but not very factual debate in a lot of cases, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We are here today looking at a private member's resolution. The resolution asks this House to call on government to establish an independent public inquiry into the operations of Fishery Products. What are we really asking for? Let's look at the substantive resolution here, the substantive piece of the resolution. We are not debating about and talking about the performance of Fishery Products International. We are not talking about whether they are a good corporate citizen or not. We are not talking about whether they have been fair to their employees, or fair to the communities in which they operate. That is not the question we have been asked to consider here today, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Grand Bank has asked this Assembly to endorse her belief that there should be an inquiry of some kind, a public inquiry, into the operation of Fishery Products International.

I simply ask the member if that is what she is asking this House to do, and asking me, as a legislator in this House - to consider her resolution? What is it she is asking? Do we want to put ourselves in a position where we are going to go in and ask ourselves whether or not Fishery Products is complying with the spirit of the legislation that created them? So, if you look at the provisions in the legislation, look at the purpose, look at the definitions, look at how they are functioning, and all the articles, the schedules that are attached, look at all of that, are we going to say to someone who is heading up the inquiry, are they in compliance with the legislation? I think that is a simple exercise that we can go through and ask ourselves that kind of question. Are we going to ask ourselves, or do we ask an inquiry to be held into how they conduct themselves within the corporate community, as a corporation doing business in the Province, complying with the laws of the land? Is that what we are going to ask them to do? Are we going to ask them whether or not they have been fair to their employees? Is that a reasonable thing to ask an inquiry to do?

The member suggested that, because the Minister of Fisheries has indicated that they have shipped product out, contrary to their licence to process, whether they have done that, and for that reason we should have an inquiry, that is a condition of their processing licence. There are regulations around the issuing of the licensing and the management of that, that actually we can bring them to task if they have not been in compliance, as the minister has indicated. If they are in non-compliance with the regulations governing the conditions of their licence to process, then that is a very simply process to investigate, to determine if there has been a breach, and there are regulations that allow you to actually police it, manage it, and impose penalties and fines if, in fact, there has been a noncompliance. There is a regulatory regime in place to ensure that companies like Fishery Products International and others, if they are not in compliance with the regulations that govern their licence, you can take an action; sanctions, penalties, fines, whatever the law will provide, and it is all laid out in Statute. If they are in noncompliance, then you can deal with it in that respect.

Clearly having an inquiry, you have to ask yourself what would you ask the panel to do, what would you ask that group of individuals or individual to look at. Clearly, there are only one or two thing; the nature of their operation and are they in compliance with their licence requirements. As I just said, there is a regulatory regime that lays that out. The second thing is the legislation and whether or not they are in compliance with the legislation. I guess, when we start asking the House to launch a public inquiry, public inquiries do a couple of things. Yes, they get at the root of a lot of questions sometimes and they give you some answers sometimes, but frequently my observation has been that a lot of these inquiries are just complete wastes of money. They give you answers to things you already know lots of times, and second, they take a tremendous amount of time. Once you have engaged in an inquiry process, as long as that inquiry is taking place you are stymied from taking any other more immediate action that you may want to take, and you might find yourself in that kind of situation.

These are questions I think, Mr. Speaker, that we need to ask ourselves. The Member for Grand Bank needs to ask herself that very question, as she comes to this House and asks us to endorse her resolution that calls upon this Assembly, a government, to launch an inquiry into the operation of Fishery Products.

I think, Mr. Speaker, more importantly than anything I just said, the minister has said in this House today and in previous days that government is prepared, if necessary, to take the necessary action to come to this Legislature to amend the current legislation. If there is a recognized need to take a more immediate action, the minister has already given this House that undertaking. I think, Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today and debate this resolution, we need to ask ourselves, as I just said, fundamentally, what is this Legislature being asked to do? We are being asked to launch an inquiry, and for what reason? I think the member has not yet provided me with any real sense of what the parameters of that inquiry might be, what is it we are going to ask a commission to do, what questions we would want posed and what answers are we looking for, those answers that are probably already available to us. We have the ability as I have said, as I understand it, to look at the terms and conditions associated with their license to process and the regulations governing their processing license, and if there is noncompliance there is a mechanism to deal with that.

An inquiry I say, Mr. Speaker, which is the question before the House today, an inquiry would in my mind not appear to give us any real benefit at this particular point. It is not going to give us answers to - it may give us a whole bunch of answers to questions but how relevant they might be and how might it improve our ability to change how Fishery Products are proposing to operate in Newfoundland, I am not sure the inquiry would give us any more information with respect to that issue then we already have today. If we had an inquiry, would it change their plans for Fortune? Would it change their plans for Marystown? Would it change their plans for any other community in this Province? I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that would be the case. It will not change their plans as a corporation. As a corporate entity it will not change their operational plans. If there is to be, as the minister has indicated, any kind of a direction given to Fishery Products to operate differently, there is an ability, if necessary, to do that through the legislation.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything compelling here today that would want me to endorse the resolution as put forward by the Member for Grand Bank, which is to call upon this House to ask government to initiate an inquiry, a public inquiry, into the operation of Fishery Products International.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make those few comments, but I will not be supporting the resolution as put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

I do understand that before I recognize the Member for Bay of Islands there has been an agreement reached with the Member for Grand Bank, that they will split the balance of the time remaining in the afternoon.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today to support this motion. We heard a lot of rhetoric here today and I just want to bring them back to the simple terms, the people who are effected. I had the privilege of sitting on the All-Party Committee that travelled around this Province when we were looking at the ownership, the 15 per cent ownership. I had the privilege of being in Marystown when you had 1,200 people in the room, proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who wanted to work. That is what they wanted to do. They asked us then, as a government and representatives from the opposite side who are government today - they were there also. They wanted work. They wanted to have dignity in their lives and they wanted to be able to stand up and say, we are making a contribution to society.

We went to Harbour Breton. The people down there were proud. They even shut down the fish plant so that the workers could come up and make a presentation. I remember that. I remember when we went to other places all around. We went to Bonavista. We even traveled the next day around Bonavista to meet with a few people in the area. They were proud people, very proud. Here we are today debating in this House of Assembly what we should do to help out those proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we are not sure.

Mr. Speaker, I was watching the Member for Burin-Placentia West and last week I was congratulating him on his Cabinet position, but I can tell you one thing, if there were 100,000 people laid off in my district and if I thought that I could - as the minister said, we can bring FPI back to this House of Assembly and strengthen it to put those people back to work. The minister and the member for the area - and I was amazed, I had to go out and check it - the Member for Burin-Placentia West does not want to move in the direction of strengthening the act.

MR. JACKMAN: Who said that?

MR. JOYCE: That is what you said, Sir. That is what you said. You said that and that is in Hansard, that the government does not want to move in that direction. You are a Cabinet Minister. You said that in your speech. That is what you said in your speech. You can check Hansard.

It boggles my mind, when I remember traveling around to all the FPI hearings and watching all the proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have Cabinet Ministers here in this government - and the minister himself, the Minister of Fisheries, said they can bring it back to the House but, yet, we are not bringing it back to the House. I remember, Mr. Speaker, and those proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can remember also, those who are affected by FPI, when the Premier was on this side of the House right here and the statements he made about John Risley, not to trust him. You cannot let him in here because you cannot trust that man. He made those statements. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador made those statements. He made those statements. Now, all of a sudden, here it is, the Premier over there now can bring the House of Assembly back and will not do it. He made the statement, that you cannot trust John Risley. Here are the members opposite now saying, we cannot do anything about it, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West saying that the government does not want to go down that road. Sir, I would not want to go down in your district.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order raised by the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Chair recognizes the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I should clarify, Mr. Speaker, we are having a play for the media here. I am very clear on what I say in terms of this. One of the things is, we want FPI to come forward. My point on this is, if they do not and if we need to strengthen the act, then we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we want to give FPI the opportunity to come back with an alternative before we go down that route, but very clearly, if we need to we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The member would know that you cannot use a point of order to further the debate and to re-engage in an argument already made.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member over there, I am not playing to the cameras. I am playing for the 1,000 people that were laid off down in your district. I would stand up for the 1,000 people that were laid off, I would not be up here like a puppet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: That is the difference between me and you.

Mr. Speaker, if that government over opposite are going to wait and see what they come back with - what happened to Harbour Breton? You waited a full year. Is that long enough, I wonder, to realize? How about Fortune? How long are we going to have to wait for Fortune? We waited a year for Harbour Breton, and Fortune now is gone; 350 gone in Fortune, but, no, we have to wait some more.

I say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, you should stand up for the people that put you where you are, sir. You should stand up. That is what you should do. You just go ask the people in Fortune, Burin and Marystown how long do they have to wait. That is all I have to say. Ask the people in Triton. When the Member for Windsor-Springdale was down there when we had an All-Party Committee, when he stood up at the front of the stage and said to all the people, we cannot let FPI close down plants - where is he to today? When the former Minister of Fisheries, when we were down in Marystown with John Crosbie who was on the board and made all the big promises and all of that, we all stood up to John Crosbie. He was there: Yes, we have to keep the plants open, we have to make sure the plants stay open. Where is he today? Where is the Member for Bonavista South? He was on that committee.

We are not dealing with some big company up in Toronto that does not affect Newfoundland. This is affecting individuals. The largest employer in Newfoundland and Labrador is FPI. When we went around to those hearings we heard true stories. We heard cases where people were going to have to move if they closed. We heard cases where people's families were going to be split up. We heard cases where people were going to have to just get up, pack, leave everything they had, everything they ever made in their life, all of their savings, all the wealth that they had, their homes, they were going to have to leave. Look what happened. It is true.

This government here has the ability to bring it back, so I implore upon the government - not for politics because I am not going to get any votes out of Burin-Placentia West. FPI has no plants in the Bay of Islands, but I have seen the individuals in those affected areas. I met with them. I have seen the anguish on their faces. I have seen the respect that they are going to lose if they are not able to work. This is not something that we are going to say: Oh, we will give them this. This is our natural resource. This is something that is going to be here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember the former Minister of Fisheries - I said it in the House of Assembly and I was laughed at, but he said it publicly. He said: If they do not catch the fish, the fish is going to stay in the water. If the fish stays in the water and some other plant from Newfoundland and Labrador moves into Fortune, the first thing that they do not have to do, Mr. Speaker - and this is forgotten - the first thing they do not have to do is make a 15 per cent return on their investments for the people on Bay Street. That is the first thing. When you talk about an industry that is not profitable, are talking about keeping 300 people employed, building up collateral, making a modest living, or are you talking about the first thing that you have to do is make 15 per cent for your shareholders in Toronto? That is the bottom line that they have to make, so if they do not make the 15 per cent, gone, shut her down. It is not profitable.

All during the debate that we had on FPI, we always hear that FPI cannot get rid of some major portion or substantial portion. When I heard the Minister of Fisheries say that he did not know they were splitting up FPI, it is so obvious that if you have two portions of FPI, one in Canada and one in the U.S., if you split up the one in the U.S. into six pieces and the one in Canada into six pieces, if you take one of the twelve pieces, that is not substantial. Over three or four years you have six pieces gone. Each time you come back to this Legislature and say, there is nothing substantial about this, this is only one piece. This is what they are doing. They are gradually eroding, bit by bit by bit by bit, and all they are going to have here in Newfoundland and Labrador is possibly shellfish if it is still profitable. It not, who knows what they are going to do with the quota.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I am actually astonished that she never got up to speak today. Here is the minister responsible for rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Harbour Breton gone, Fortune gone, Stephenville gone, all the big industry out in Stephenville gone. Please God, they will find something. Let's hope. Here is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development not standing up and speaking and saying: Here is what we are going to do. Here is how we are going to stand up for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am amazed that she never got up to speak and I am amazed by what the Member for Burin-Placentia West said, a member of the Cabinet, with over 1,000 people down his way, saying that government is not going to move in that direction.

The question has to be asked - and, of course, I am not the smartest man going and I will be the first to admit it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am smart enough to realize, I say to government members, if you could bring this Legislature back in June for Income Trust because they need to raise more money, why can't you bring it back to strengthen the act? I am not the smartest guy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, before you stand up putting your hands up to me, you should try to find out what is going on with FPI, because you are the one who stood in this House, Mr. Minister, and said: I did not know they were breaking up the company. You should go check out the facts before you come up here holding your hands up to me, I say to the minister. Down there on the truck playing to the union - are there any charges laid yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: There you go. I say to the minister, you can stand up and give all the bravo you want, but there are still 1,000 people without work down there. Harbour Breton is still without work. You can put your hands up, you can heave it out of you, but there are still people without work. That is what I say to the minister. I say to the minister, you start doing your job and bring the Legislature back in place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: - strengthen the FPI Act, give those people who we met around this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, give them back the dignity of being hon. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not take the fish and ship it off to China, not take the Province and bring up the shareholders in Toronto. Give dignity back to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, stand up and vote for this inquiry and stand up for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank district now making her closing comments.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My closing remarks -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious matter, and as I listen to the heckling across the way, I have to ask if they really realize how serious this issue is. I can tell you that when I go to my district and I have people coming up to me crying, not knowing how they are going to feed their families, having to leave their families behind and go out west, boy, I tell you, you need to break your bubble and get out in rural Newfoundland and acknowledge that this is a serious issue.

We have a company called FPI, Fishery Products International, and what we are asking here is for the government to acknowledge that there is a very real problem here. Let's take it a step further. What happens if we don't have this inquiry? Because I understand from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that he is suggesting to the members of government that they not vote in favour of this inquiry. So much for a free vote. We would like to think there is a free vote in this House of Assembly.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is no free vote.

MS FOOTE: Okay, so the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has stated there is no free vote by the government. There is no free vote on this inquiry. So the government has decided, as a group, that the individual members cannot vote, no matter what they think. So this is why the Member for Burin-Placentia West will get up and speak against this motion. Instead of standing up for the people he represents, and their concerns, like a former colleague did, who is now sitting as an MP in Ottawa, he is going decide to toe the government line and vote against a motion that would see something happen to protect the interests of the people who elected him to represent them. That is precisely what is happening here today.

What about the quotas that FPI has? Is it okay for FPI to just float off with their quotas? Isn't it important for those quotas to be utilized for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Isn't that important? I didn't hear anybody talk about that.

We heard the Member for Trinity North get up and talk about: Well, what is the purpose of having a public inquiry? Besides, if you are having a public inquiry, you cannot have operations going on at the same time.

Excuse me? When can't you do two things at one time? Maybe the Member for Trinity North can't, but the reality of this is that you can. The issue here, for anyone who wants to listen, is that if the government wants to wait until time immemorial to do something about FPI, when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has already admitted we can strengthen the act - we can do it, we can do it; it sounds like the little train that could - well, if you can do it, do it. Don't wait until Bonavista and Triton and Port au Choix and Port Union have gone by the wayside, like Harbour Breton and Fortune and half the workforce in Marystown. You are waiting until it is going to be too late. It is already too late for some people in this Province - but, no, we are going to wait; or, as the Member for Burin-Placentia West says, you know, we can do it but we really don't want to go down that path. We do not want to have to strengthen the act. Why? Why would you not want to strengthen a piece of legislation that you have the authority to take and strengthen so that FPI will not ride roughshod over Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I will never understand the thinking on that particular aspect of what we are debating here today.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development did not even get on her feet today to address this most important issue for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know she has had meeting with the Concerned Citizens Committee of Fortune, which I appreciate, but I can tell you that they are no further ahead today than they were when they met with her. They do not know whether or not there will be any kind of income for them in the interim, while we are waiting for Cooke Aquaculture to establish in Fortune, because we all know that without some kind of a quota for Cooke Aquaculture there will be nothing happening in Fortune in under two or three years maybe. So, people are wondering what the future holds for them, particularly people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development did not even get to her feet today to give them any level of comfort or to acknowledge that this is a serious issue. I think that is shameful.

I do not know what bubble they are living in, I do not know what world they are in, but when I look across the floor here and I see members who represent communities where FPI plants exist, or existed, and they have not stood on their feet to speak to this motion, they have not even acknowledged, even stood to acknowledge, that there is an issue here. Whether or not you want to support the motion - the Member for Windsor-Springdale did not even get to his feet to acknowledge that this is a serious issue. The Member for St. Barbe, the Member for Bonavista, did not hear from any of them any acknowledgment that this is a serious issue in our Province today, a serious issue that will see thousands of people without employment, thousands of people having to leave our Province.

By the way, we have seen out-migration. We have seen significant out-migration, contrary to the numbers that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development used in this House earlier this week. I can tell the minister that she can talk about the in-migration, but when you do the math we have seen over 3,000 people leave this Province last year. The fact of the matter is that you are going to see many more leave if this government does not acknowledge the fact that we have a company that really should be taken to task for what it is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible) Harbour Breton, millions of dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Grand Bank. I ask that members co-operate.

I would like to invite the member now to conclude her comments.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is shouting out across the floor, you had your opportunity to get to your feet and speak to this motion. Whatever you want to say to me, you had every opportunity to stand and be heard, and to represent the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: It is one thing to sit in your seat and yell out across the floor. If you want to have credibility, stand on your feet when the opportunity presents itself and speak up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador in this instance.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are finding themselves in a situation today that they really are having difficulty understanding. They know that there is an international company who is riding roughshod over them, and they know they have a government who is refusing to stand up and represent them, and take an interest in what is happening to them. They have a piece of legislation that can be strengthened, that we can tell a company what it can and cannot do - the only company we can do it with, because this company was created to have a social conscience. This company was created to ensure stability of employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not talking about St. John's. We are not talking about Corner Brook. I understand that Corner Brook is having its share of difficulties these days. I will tell you that there is an opportunity here for rural Newfoundland and Labrador when no other opportunity may present itself, because it is not St. John's and it is not Corner Brook and it is not even Gander. We are talking small communities that, in fact, make up the very backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador, just as the fishery is the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I understand, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has said. It is not a free vote. The government has determined that this is not a free vote. So, even if any of them over there across the way wanted to support this inquiry, they would not be able to unless they wanted to stand up for the people who elected them, and that is what I am asking them to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - just as a former colleague of theirs stood up and was counted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Because the reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a serious issue and it is one that every member of this House should take seriously and support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House is ready for the vote.

All those in favour of the resolution put forward by the Member for Grand Bank say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion fails.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called. Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Reid; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Ms Thistle; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Randy Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Osborne; Mr. Harding; Mr. O'Brien; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Hickey; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. French; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Skinner; Ms Johnson; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Ridgley; Mr. Oram; Mr. Forsey; Mr. Felix Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, 12 ayes and 27 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

I do believe that the Acting Government House Leader wishes to have a comment before we adjourn the House.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Wednesday it is normal that a motion to adjourn is deemed before the House, but before we do, I just want to remind all hon. members and anybody who might be listening, that normally we would return at 1:30 tomorrow, but because it is Budget Day, we will be returning at 2:00 p.m.

With that, I think we are ready for the question to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, and according with our Standing Orders, the Speaker adjourns the House.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 30 at 2:00 in the afternoon when we shall hear the Budget presentation.