MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are pleased to welcome several groups of students to the public galleries. First, we would like to welcome fifteen Level I, Level II and Level III students from St. Lewis Academy in St. Lewis, Labrador, located in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Ms April Sampson.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The second group consists of eight high school students from A. R. Scammell Academy in Change Islands, in the District of Twillingate & Fogo. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Roy Morgan, the school principal, and by Ms Christa Marshfield.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The third group consists of three participants in the Skills Links Program, Evan Brinson, Todd Hoffe and Patrick White, in the District of Twillingate & Fogo, together with their chaperone, Ms Gail Morgan, and their bus driver, Mr. Junior Brinson.

Again, welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have several special guests.

We have Mrs. Diane Tobin, the mother of one of our Pages, Shannon Tobin. We are pleased to have you in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the public gallery, as well, I would like to welcome Ms Vi Parsons, a long-time member of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association and the former president of that association.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Indeed, a very special welcome to Ms Ann Martin, the wife of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. This is a very special day for both the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and for his family, and indeed for the entire House of Assembly.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, by agreement, I call upon the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who wishes to make a statement.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of us in this House are very honoured to be here, and privileged to be sent by our constituents to represent them in our Parliament. I have been very fortunate to be able to be here for, I suppose, fifteen-and-a-half years, maybe sixteen years coming up.

I just want to say, first of all, this is my last day as Leader of the New Democratic Party in this House of Assembly. Unless we have some emergency session of the House to deal with, perhaps further amendments to the FPI Act over the summer, this may well be my last day in the House of Assembly, so I did want to say a few words to acknowledge my time here and to thank those of you who are here and who have been very kind to me over the years in allowing me to carry out my duties.

I should mention my mother and my father. My father died before I was elected to Parliament in 1987, but his talks, when I was a young boy, of campaigning for Billy Brown and Rex Renouf are things that I remember very fondly. My mother was somewhat cynical about politics, and thought that politicians and politics were sort of a dirty game, so I had to overcome that myself to decide to go into politics, but I think to remember their feelings about that is important to me today.

I do want to thank, of course, my wife, Ann Martin, who is here today, and my children, Amelia, Sarah and John, who have been very interested in politics and very supportive of me over the years. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I also want to say to the young people who are here in the gallery from St. Lewis, Labrador, and from Change Islands here in the Province, that politics, despite all you hear, is an honourable profession, and those of us who come to a Legislature like this, or the Parliament of Canada, do it for the best of motivations. We want to think that we can somehow change the world or our Province or our country for the better. Some of us have some influence. Some of us succeed, some of us do not, but it is a very honourable profession.

In fact, I remember, when I first announced that I was going into politics, a very respected individual using these words, saying that politics is a noble calling. I want young people who are here in the gallery, or those watching, to see that it can be and that it should be for the best of those who are involved in politics for the purpose of representing their constituents and trying to make their society better.

I have had great success in the sense of being able to be elected five times, and I want to thank the people of St. John's East and the new district renamed Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Without them, of course, I would not be able to be here. It was to represent them that I came here, so I thank them very much for their support and continued support over the years. It has been a great pleasure of mine to meet so many of them, to serve so many of them and, in fact, to help them as individuals from time to time over the years.

Of course, politics, as you know, as everyone knows, I have been here for - if someone said to me, when they were trying to talk me into running for St. John's East back in 1990, I got good news and bad news; the good news is that you are going to be there for sixteen years and the bad news is that for the first nine you are going to be there by yourself, without a party, without a colleague, the Member for Labrador West, I am not sure I would have said yes. It has not been easy all of the time, but I have to say that it has been a terrific pleasure and lots of memories.

I am looking at the Member for Kilbride here today and I remember, prior to his coming here, the previous Member for Humber East and I keeping the House going all night - ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes - on a debate in this Legislature, assisted by the previous Member for Kilbride who came in at 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning when he heard the House was still on the go, and we kept the House going until 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock the next day.

I remember the current Member for Kilbride who kept the House at bay, I guess, with a bit of a sit-down strike of his own for a day or so, protesting a matter which I think is lost in the annals of time, but these are all very positive memories of the House, memorable events.

I can remember the Catholic Women's League of MHAs that we debated one day on a petition here in the House, but there were also very serious things, too. I am pleased to say that I have been able, over the years, to get recognized the Day of Mourning for workers who were injured or killed on the job, to get it recognized through a private member's resolution. I remember the Newfoundland pony resolution, which later became the Heritage Animals Act, and of course, other resolutions on public auto insurance, and prescription drugs just the other day, that I hope will contribute to the debate about these important issues in the future.

Being in Opposition, sometimes people do not think you have any influence or say, and I hope to think that I have had some influence. I remember one Cabinet minister in the previous Administration coming to me afterwards - I was trying to be as rough as I could on him and his department for not doing the things that I thought he should be doing, and he came over afterwards, I thought he was going to come over after me and attack me, but he came over to thank me. I said: Why are you thanking me? He said: Well, the more you give me grief in the House of Assembly, the better a chance I have in Cabinet of getting the things I want done accomplished. So that is an important object lesson for anybody who is in the Opposition.

I hope, as well, that my recent - in the last few months - comments and exhortations about the value of FPI to the Province, and particularly, the marketing arm that has been acknowledged recently as being most important to the Province, that my exhortations in that regard have played some role in assisting and convincing government that something dramatic and substantial ought to be done in that regard.

I have been very lucky to be able to serve here, and I am very thankful to all of those who, in the House over the years, we have had our debates and our differences of opinion, but that is what the political process is all about. I hope that I have been able to contribute to the democratic process over the years.

I want to thank my party, the New Democratic Party, because they are the ones who made it possible for me to be here, and of course, my colleague for Labrador West, who joined me in 1999 to make a caucus of our Party and enable us to do a much better job in representing our Party and our point of view here in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, all of you, to the Speaker, to the Clerk, and the Officers at the Table, Ms Murphy and all of those who have served this House. I am very grateful for my life here in the Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will miss it, I will guarantee you that, but I can assure you that I will have a continued interest in the public life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I had a prepared statement which I intended to read to the House tonight. I would like to deal with that first and, perhaps, digress for a moment at the end. I think my colleague summed it up best, the Minister of Natural Resources - and it was a compliment in the biggest kind of a way - when he said: With Jack no longer debating in the House, we can either cut our time in half or double the output of legislation. So, it is the best compliment, I think, you can give to a parliamentarian. He is so articulate and eloquoent.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and honour to rise in this House and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi as he prepares to step down as the Leader of the Province's New Democratic Party, a post he has held since November of 1992. I have a bit of a lump in my throat here today, Jack. This is not easy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harris started out his political life very early, being elected as the President of the Council of the Students Union at Memorial University.

He then went on to become the NDP Member of Parliament for St. John's East in 1987 and served in the House of Commons in Ottawa until the federal general election of November, 1988.

The hon. gentleman opposite has been a member of this House for fifteen consecutive years since he was elected in a by-election in 1990, making him among the longest-serving members of the current General Assembly.

As the NDP Leader, he has led his party in four successive general election campaigns - 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2003 - and he has faced five Premiers across the floor of the Legislature. During much of that time, the member stood alone as a caucus of one, with shadow Cabinet responsibilities for every portfolio and the natural expectation that, as leader, he would be on top of all of the issues, and he was.

Surely this was not an easy burden to bear alone, but bear this burden he did. And he did so with dedication and commitment that each and every member in this House should aspire to. He bore the mantle of leadership with dignity and distinction and persevered to do tremendous work for the people of our great Province. He was, at all times, a tireless champion for the vulnerable and a vocal advocate for the values that define his party and that will mark his legacy as a leader.

He has applied his extensive legal background and the parliamentary experience he gained, both in the House of Assembly and in the House of Commons, to improve legislation and initiate legislation, and to do his part to help shape public policy in ways that would benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He has earned an enduring reputation for his insight, his tenacity, his integrity, his exceptional debating skills, his love for Newfoundland and Labrador and, above all, his compassion for the people.

Mr. Speaker, if I can refer to him as Jack today. We go a long way back. We go back to the 1950s, back to St. Bon's where we were in school together. Jack, of course, was much older than I was. He was a father figure to me, Anne - (inaudible) himself a young bride - and a mentor in a lot of ways. Then we went our separate ways. Jack went to Brother Rice and I went to Gonzaga. Then we came together again at Memorial University, of course, where Jack was President of CSU. Then we didn't see each other for a period of time. I got married - actually, we did things in reverse. I had the family first and then afterwards went into politics, and Jack was in politics and then had the family after, late in life, and I am delighted that you are now going to take the time to enjoy your wonderful family.

The next time we bumped into each other, myself and Maureen were on the way to Dalhousie to go to law school and I think Jack was actually on his way to law school in Alberta at the time. Is that correct? You were heading out West.

MR. HARRIS: I was hitchhiking to Toronto.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You were hitchhiking anyways. So, we get off the ferry in Sydney - of course, we were just married, so everything we own is in this 1962 Valiant station wagon - blocked to the rafters, blocked solid. Even the passenger seat was blocked up right to the roof, and the two of us were in the car. So we are driving along just after we got off in Sydney and we drive by and I go: Oh, my God, that's Jack Harris. I have to stop. I can't drive past Jack. Jack is on the side of the road and he is hitchhiking.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) in my knapsack.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What did he say?

MR. E. BYRNE: He had everything he owned in his knapsack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was going there. I'm coming to that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He had it all in his little knapsack, and his (inaudible) as we would have called it in those days. So, there was no room. We had to get Jack in but we couldn't get his belongings, all his life possessions and his knapsack in. So what we did was we strapped it to the top of the wagon. We put it on a small rack that we had on top of the wagon because that was the only place we could put it. So, we get in, and first of all, if I remember correctly, I tried driving the vehicle. It was so tight that I put Maureen on the lefthand side of me. I am driving now, and this is in a Valiant station wagon. She is here, I'm here, and then Jack is there and everything else is that way. We go along for five or ten miles, the next thing we hear this snap, snap off the side of the roof. What's that? We look around. Anyway, we go another couple of miles and we hear it again. We have to stop. We get out, Jack's knapsack is gone. There is nothing. There is only the strap on the side of the roof. So we turn around, because everything that he owns is there. We turn around on the Cape Breton Highway. We go back the road five or eight minutes, five or ten miles and there it is all over the road, socks, drawers, underwear, shirts, t-shirts, everything is there. But, do you know what the most impressive thing was? Most of it was books. Remember? It was all books, and the underwear were not Guccis or Armani, they were Stanfields but they were clean, Jack. They were good and they were clean.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: All his life's reading and possessions were all over the road. We had to get out on the highway and we had to pick it all up, and then we proceeded on from there. Did you actually go into Halifax with us after, because we dropped you off? Anyway, when we got into Halifax the old wagon caught on fire. We ended up having to put that out when we got into Halifax.

I will not be too long, but we go a long way back. Then we hooked up again afterwards. We articled together, we worked together, we had a law firm together. I have seen this man in action professionally. It was interesting, that the people who were coming across the door in those days were Ricky Cashin and all of the people from the union. I remember - I can never get the name right - the Labrador Fishermen's Shrimp Company. I have never, ever gotten it right, but that was incorporated in our firm. It was interesting to hear Hubert Linstead speak yesterday.

We did a lot of wonderful things together. Jack, of course, led the way in the Hughes Inquiry. He represented the victims in Mount Cashel and, ultimately, closed it and ended up with a solution that was a good settlement for the victims of Mount Cashel. I also saw him in criminal court representing his clients to the best of his ability. He was an extremely good lawyer and a good advocate.

So, I had that opportunity to work with him in the profession, valued his opinions, saw how intelligent and articulate he was. We did then make a joint mistake together. We had a lot of successes but we made a joint mistake, and I accept some responsibility for that. I think Jack in Twenty Questions, indicated that might have been the low point of his political career. That was when an all-party, self-constructed committee talked him into running for the Mayor of St. John's. There were representatives from the Liberals and from the Tories and from the New Democratic Party. We really felt that there was a need for new leadership at City Hall. Basically, we went to Jack with a plea that he offer himself in municipal politics. At that particular point in time we basically had to really talk him into it because he was committed, obviously, to what he was doing in the House, but we convinced him that there was a need for a change in direction at that time in City Hall. And, unfortunately, we lost it by just under 100 votes. I have to accept some responsibility for that because over time, people have blamed Jack for his cellular telephone comments down on the deck of Green Sleeves, but I think it all started Jack when I saw Andy going down the road and I said: We got you now, we are going to take you out. That is when the slippery slope started for this all-party committee and our candidate.

So, we have shared some absolutely, wonderful times together. We have talked politics over the years. I have often said to Jack that at times we are very close on the political spectrum. I may be perceived by the party I am in as being to the right and Jack very much to the left, but I don't think, Jack, over the years we have had very many disagreements on political issues; very few if any to be quite frank with you.

It has been a wonderful experience. It is ironic that here today you are finishing and spending the time with your wonderful family which I think is the right thing to do. You have selflessly dedicated yourself. It is not lost on people that at times when, I guess, your chance of becoming Premier of the Province or your party winning the Province wasn't within your grasp, you stepped up, and you were there alone. It wasn't for the prize, it wasn't for the crown, it wasn't for the title, you were there for the people, and I think you will always be respected and revered in this Province for having done that. You have really handled yourself very eloquently.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it has truly been a privilege to see him work, especially having seen him work in the House over the last four years, and to work with him in the office and in the private sector.

On behalf, Jack, of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I want to thank you personally on behalf of our caucus, on behalf of our government, for giving so many years of your life to the Province as Leader of the New Democratic Party and for striving at all times to make a lasting and meaningful difference in people's lives.

I wish yourself and Ann, and Amelia and Sarah and John as well, all the best as you pursue new challenges and opportunities, and a great life ahead.

Thank you, Jack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Listening to the Leader of the NDP and the Premier argue about who was the poorest growing up reminds me of a Monty Python skit, and all I can say to both of us is, don't get me started, because I know I can outdo you. I say to the Leader of the NDP, I hope you learned one important lesson in your race for the mayor's job, and if you try it again don't get the Premier to be your campaign manager.

[Laughter]

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I would like to echo the sentiments expressed by the Premier on behalf of my colleagues in the official Opposition. We would like to thank Jack for the tremendous amount of work that he has done, not only on behalf of his constituents but on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You have always been out there on issues of great importance to everybody in this Province, and we thank you for that. I have always had a great deal of respect, and I have said it to you in the House many times, for your opinions and your stand on certain issues, even though sometimes I think you stray a little bit to the right of center too far for me, especially when you stand sometimes and agree with the Premier.

I think my opinion of you was somewhat confirmed, I say to the Leader of the NDP, when some very good friends of mine, Dr. Barry Martin and his wife Lois, agreed to let you marry their daughter. I figured, Barry and Lois being very knowledgeable and very wise people, if you were good enough for them then you were good enough for me.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have a great deal of respect for Jack. He has a done a tremendous job. We would like to thank you on behalf of our caucus and I am sure on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I close, I would just like to say that all politicians enter this House with some degree of dignity and respect, but we cannot say that we all go out that way. With regard to you, Jack, I say that you have kept your dignity and you have increased that respect in this House and around the Province. I would like to congratulate you on the work you have done and I would like to wish you and Ann all the best in whatever endeavors you choose to go into.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Seeing as I represent half of the caucus, and soon to represent 100 per cent, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words as well.

First of all, I would like to say, back in 1999, on February 9, during the election - I have to tell you this - I was declared elected, and the results were not in from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The minute I found out I was elected I got on the phone and managed to get hold of Jack. I said: What is going on? Is the count in yet? No, he said, it is close but the count is not in. I said: Well, boy, you let me know fast because if you do not make it I am out of here.

[Laughter]

MR. R. COLLINS: There was no way I was going in there to face all of these people by myself. Fortunately for us, fortunately for the Province, Jack did get re-elected and he has remained here up until today.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that coming into the House of Assembly brand new, unlike other caucuses where you had many people who you could surround yourself with, talk to and everything else, it was great to be here with Jack because Jack was an amazing teacher. I think the Premier mentioned his ability to remain on top of all the issues. That has never ceased to amaze me, Mr. Speaker. No matter what subject came up for debate in this House I could always take a great deal of comfort in knowing that if I did not have a clue about it Jack did. That was a source of comfort for me, believe you and me. It is amazing, his ability to grasp the issues and to be able to debate them intelligently and knowledgeably.

His has taught me a great deal. I will never forget it. I owe him a deep appreciation for what he has been able to pass on to me, his ability, particularly, on how to conduct yourself in the House of Assembly, because I have been known in other circles to have a short fuse. It has gotten longer since I have been here and a lot of that is due to Jack and his diligence in passing on his expertise and the way that he carries himself and conducts himself. It has been a great, great experience.

I would like to say one thing to all of the young people who are present in the gallery today, and I think it is important and I do not think it should be lost: If you look, during the Premier's remarks on Jack, when he talked about going back so long and friendships and everything else, I think it is important for people to realize that you can be on different sides of this House, that you can be on different sides of any issue, it does not mean that when you walk out these doors you still cannot be civil and be friends. I think that is a very important lesson to everybody in the Province and I would like to acknowledge that to the young people here today, that you do not have to be enemies to be in different parties and debate the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to wish Jack and Ann and their family the best in the future. Because Jack is leaving this Legislature, I think anybody would be dreaming very vividly and in technicolor if they thought that we have heard the last of him in the Province and his professional opinions on whatever maybe happening and on current events. I am sure he will always be valuable for that, and I am sure that other people will be seeking him out for advice as we go into the future and raise new issues and debate new things.

On behalf of myself, my family and the constituents of Labrador West, I just want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with Jack for the past seven-and-a-half years. On behalf of all the people of Labrador West in particular, and the Province in general, I certainly want to wish him the best in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to thank the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Labrador West for their very kind words.

I should say to Randy, and others who may be able to see the mess of my desk, the reason I have all these papers on my desk is so that I can keep on top of all of the various issues. I got into that habit and I cannot break it even today. Even today I cannot break it, Mr. Speaker, so I have a lot here.

I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, I am hoping that one day you will create a list of those things on which you are to the left of me, because I would really like to look at it. I know you say it from time to time. I just want to underscore one thing, and Randy actually made the comment that I was going to make in thanking both the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier for their kinds remarks, that for young people and for those watching, politics involves people having different political parties, different political views and very strenuous views about the issues. I have always tried to stick to the issues, and as a result I think I have not only maintained friends, such as that with the Premier, but also made friends on both sides of the House.

Thank you very much for your friendship and for the years that we have spent together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all members for their presentations.

On behalf of the Table Officers, I would say thank you to the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi and our staff, the people who work in Hansard and the broadcast centre and others, who certainly appreciate the contributions that the hon. member has made to parliamentary life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The Members' Statements this afternoon are as follows: the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to attend the Annual General Awards Ceremony for Hockey Canada this past Monday evening. This event attracted over 350 hockey officials, executives and organizers from all regions of Canada to our Province.

During this event, Mr. Speaker, a number of awards were presented by Hockey Canada to deserving individuals for their contribution to the development and promotion of hockey across this country. Two of these award winners were from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I wish to publicly recognized their significant achievement and recognition by their hockey peers.

The Hockey Canada Order of Merit award was presented to Gerry Taylor, President of the St. John's Junior Hockey League. For over fifty years, Mr. Taylor has been involved as a player, a coach, an organizer and an educator of the game of hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has been involved with three different hockey associations in the Province and has served as the Chairman of the NAHA Hockey Hall of Fame.

The Hockey Canada Official of the Year Award was presented to Ray Bowe of St. John's. Mr. Bowe has been officiating since 1954 and has officiated in many leagues across Canada, including the Armed Forces, the Senior, Junior, Major Junior and Minor Hockey leagues. Ray is a Hockey Canada Level VI certified official which is the top level within the Hockey Canada officiating program. He is a member of the Armed Forces Sports Hall of Fame and the Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador Hall of Fame.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Mr. Gerry Taylor and Mr. Ray Bowe, two exceptional community leaders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sunnyside Lions Club who are celebrating their 40^th Anniversary.

In 1966, Chesley Mercer of Sunnyside decided to start the first Lions Club. The charter night was on April 15, 1966, with Clarenville being the sponsoring club. At that time, the charter members probably did not realize they were starting what would be the most influential organization in the history of Sunnyside, and that several of its members would remain volunteers for the next forty years.

Mr. Speaker, the Sunnyside Lions Club celebrated its 40^th Chapter Anniversary on April 29. It was an evening of reflection, remembrance and honour.

Phil Temple and Will Temple, both charter members, who are still active with the Sunnyside Lions Club, were honoured for their many years of commitment. They were presented with the Melvin Jones Fellowship award. This award is the highest possible honour in the Lions Clubs International Foundation and it recognizes a person's commitment to humanitarian service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Sunnyside Lions Club on their 40^th Anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Danita Burke, a graduate of Leo Burke Academy this year, on receiving the Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award.

Although Danita volunteered at the public library, performed tutoring at her school and was a member of the Bishop's Falls Minor Hockey league until bantam age, her dedication to the 512 Air Cadet Squadron did not go unnoticed.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of emceeing the 512 Squadron Annual Ceremonial Review on Saturday, May 13, at which time Warrant Officer 1^st Class Burke was awarded the 100 per cent attendance, six-year Service Medal, $1,000 Cadet Scholarship, the Lord Strathcona Medal, and the Most Advanced Cadet Award.

Danita has met the prescribed areas of self-development, which include community service, adventurous journeys, physical fitness and skill development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Danita Burke on receiving the Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate D.C. Young Tigers from Port Hope Simpson who earned a silver medal at the boys' 3A Provincial High School Ball Hockey Championships which was played at St. Bride's on May 12.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to make this statement today, because very seldom do these young people get to compete at a provincial level in any sport.

Members of the D.C. Young Tigers are; Tristen Parr, Trent Penney, Justin Ward, Loren Russell, Terry Clarke, Bernie Russell, Brent Russell, Charlie Curl, David Burden, Dustie Russell, Andy Ward and Anthony Derrah, who is their coach.

Following the boys' 3A Provincial Ball Hockey Championships, Tristan Parr from D.C. Young Tigers was also named the most sportsman like player for the competition.

Mr. Speaker, in the round robin play, the Tigers won two of three games and advanced to the semi-finals defeating St. Joseph's 4-3 in overtime. The Tigers lost a close 2-1 decision to Mobile in the championship game.

The ball hockey teams were welcomed home with a motorcade and barbecue to celebrate their achievement. Both the school and the community joined in congratulating them and their team.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues in the House today to join me in congratulating these young ball hockey players, the D.C. Young Tigers from Port Hope Simpson, who won the silver medal at the boys' 3A Provincial High School Ball Hockey Championships.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, on May 19, I had the pleasure of attending the official opening and re-dedication of Templeton Academy in Meadows.

Templeton Academy is a new K-12 school which serves all students on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands. The former Northshore Elementary and Templeton Collegiate were combined and now has a student population of 555 students making it the largest K-12 school in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the opening was an opportunity to showcase the new school and what is has to offer. The new school colors and crest were unveiled as well as the new school theme, "Aim and Achieve".

A couple of special guests present for the opening were Mrs. Joyce Gillett and Mrs. Dorothy Rockwood, daughters of the late Reverend Gordon Templeton. The sisters presented a portrait of Rev. Templeton, done by his grandson, to the school. This was the first time the two sisters had been together in the area in which they grow up since 1948.

Mr. Speaker, the former school councils of Templeton Collegiate and Northshore Elementary are to be commended for their unwavering determination and commitment to ensure that a state of the art facility was provided to the students on the North Shore. As was pointed out at the opening, the work has yet to be finished. The Northshore Recreational Outdoor Committee was formed to develop the outdoor resources. The committee is currently working on a sodded soccer field, a one-quarter mile asphalt track, ski and hiking trails, and an outdoor classroom.

It was a pleasure to take part in the opening and join with a kindergarten student and a Grade 12 student in cutting the ribbon and cake. I was also pleased that the Member for Mount Pearl, who was representing the Department of Education, made a commitment to the school to replace their stage curtain as I requested and I thank the member for that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year of transition for all students and teachers as Lenna Ferrie, a student of the first graduating class of Templeton Academy said at the opening, it was not always smooth but it was a great road and soon both elementary and senior students learned to appreciate what the other has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to the students, teachers and parents on the north shore for their support, patience and commitment and wish them every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the work of the well-known nurse, midwife and nursing professor, Kay Matthews, who was awarded an honorary doctorate at Memorial University today for her service to maternity and to the provincial, national and international community.

Mary Kathleen, known as Kay Matthews, has had a career in health spanning more than forty-five years. She trained first as a nurse-midwife in England and later obtained two nursing degrees from Memorial after arriving here in the late 1960s.

She was a prenatal instructor, a labour and delivery nurse, the coordinator of the Maternal Child Health Program at the Grace General Hospital and became a professor of nursing at Memorial University. Throughout her career she did much to encourage the maintenance of midwifery as an option in this Province.

She also introduced the LaMaze method of childbirth to the Province and started the Province's first breastfeeding clinic at the Grace General Hospital in 1978. Although a full-time educator, Kay Matthews also had an active clinical practice in prenatal education and childbirth support to women and their partners.

Ms Matthews also worked as a nurse-midwife consultant on a Memorial medical team which set up prevention programs for pregnant women in West Africa with MaterCare International, founded Dr. Bob Walley of St. John's.

Ms Matthews helped to develop the teaching program that trains birth attendants in villages to recognize and assist high-risk mothers. In 1997, Kay received the Cross of Merit, Nursing, from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta for her contribution to this project.

In addition, Ms Matthews was project director for a partnership between Memorial's School of Nursing and the University of Indonesia, developing a masters program in community and women's health and a demonstration centre for community health nursing education, research and practice in rural Indonesia.

She has received the Provincial Award for Excellence in Nursing Practice from the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Leadership Award for Women's Health in Atlantic Canada from the Maritime Centre for Excellence in Women's Health at Dalhousie University.

Kay Matthews was named an honorary research professor at Memorial University in 2003 and is an honorary member of the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing the achievements of Dr. Kay Matthews and her contribution to nursing and women's health in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible) the Buchans Highway?

MR. TAYLOR: No, not the Buchans Highway, I tell the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. No.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that two companies have been granted Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises status, or EDGE, by the provincial government. These companies are making their mark on their respective industries, as well as the business world in general.

Dynamic Air Shelters Limited of Grand Bank designs and manufactures inflatable shelters for promotional and utility purposes. Their products are extremely versatile, and have many uses such as custom-shaped shelters for trade shows, shelters to protect industrial work sites, emergency response and crime scenes, as well as larger shelters for outdoor events and activities.

Under its EDGE status, and to help facilitate its economic development initiatives in the Province, Dynamic Air Shelters plans to establish a new production facility in Grand Bank and manufacture and export its product for many years to come. The company expects to create twenty-five full-time, permanent positions in the short term, while long-term projections include upwards of 100 employees at the Grand Bank facility.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association undertook the initiative to expand the fur breeding industry in this Province. This initiative, supported by the provincial government, examined the potential to attract well-established and successful breeders from leading fur producing countries to establish mink farming businesses in this Province.

After operating successful mink farms in Denmark for many years, Viking Fur Incorporated established an operation in Cavendish, Trinity Bay. Viking Fur is expanding its operations, which will lead to the creation of at least ten positions, and possibly more during the breeding, weaning and pelting seasons. Denmark is the largest mink producing country in the world, producing over 12 million pelts or close to 40 per cent of the world production per year. We are fortunate to have attracted such a high level of expertise from such an established breeder.

Mr. Speaker, by continuing to diversify our Province's regional economies by supporting enterprises such as Dynamic Air Shelters and Viking Fur, this Administration is demonstrating its solid commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today. I am so pleased to see that the government has continued with the EDGE program, a wonderful initiative of the previous Liberal government, of course, and one that we are glad that they see the benefits of continuing with that program. Of course, the program was meant to attract companies to Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it was even made that much more attractive for those companies who would look to invest in rural parts of our Province.

I am delighted that today we are recognizing a company that is setting up shop in Grand Bank. In fact, I worked very closely with that company when they were looking to relocate from Western Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador. They did a trial run of their products in Grand Bank. The owner of the company, in fact, spoke very highly of the quality of work that was produced by the workforce at their plant in Grand Bank. So it is only fitting, I think, that they certainly be recognized and receive EDGE status. When you are talking about twenty-five, full-time jobs that could possibly lead to 100 jobs, then that is very significant indeed in a community the size of Grand Bank.

I am not as familiar with the Viking Fur Incorporated, but the fact that they are looking at establishing a company that will have ten positions starting out and looking for further expansion, again speaks to the importance of those types of companies establishing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we would all agree that the creation of ten jobs in a rural community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

I think the idea of ten jobs being established in a rural community, I think we would all agree, would probably equate to 100 or 1,000 jobs in some of our more urban centres. So, it is good news and I congratulate the government for continuing with the EDGE program because I hope it will continue to attract many more companies like this.

Thank you.

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

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

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. We, too, would like to acknowledge that this is good news for the Province, particularly as it creates jobs in rural parts of the Province. Twenty-five, full-time jobs with the potential of 100, as the previous speaker said, is not insignificant. It is very important to rural areas of this Province and we look forward to seeing more industries coming to rural parts of the Province to create a balance so that people can remain in our rural areas.

The Viking Fur, Mr. Speaker, is an important venture because this type of industry also leads to the potential of creating other industries, such as the need for feed and other potential things that they will need to work in a business like this.

I would like to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that more needs to be done in this area. For every opportunity that is created in rural parts of the Province means that there are other opportunities that will spinoff from that, which will lead to a further development and enhancement of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Question.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Premier, yesterday at the fisheries summit there appeared to be a consensus among everybody there that there was an overcapacity, not only in the processing sector but in the harvesting sector of our fishing industry. While there was a consensus, I did not see anybody stand yesterday and say that: my plant should close or my communities plant should close.

Mr. Speaker, if there is not a consensus as to which plant should close and which community should die, who will make the decision? Will it be the government? How do you plan to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, I would like to deal with the deliberate misleading of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the hon. gentleman opposite has done on Open Line this morning.

He sat in that room yesterday for part of it. I counted four time that he just got up and left. I, myself, took thirty-seven pages of notes yesterday, thirty-seven pages of notes of what people said. I saw you pick up a pen at 2:30 for the first time, for about fifteen minutes, then you put it down and you left the room again. So to get on and make comments about what went on in that room and talk about who was saying what and who offered solutions is absolutely shameful. Let's deal with that first.

With regard to what was said in the room, I have notes of what was said in the room. There were comments made by the FFAW, but the other unions, by the Federation of Municipalities, by the processors, by people who took time to prepare documents to offer solutions. The hon. gentleman opposite spent five to seven minutes, acknowledged that he had no presentation, said the problem should be spread around between the governments and the harvesters and the processors, and that was it.

Here he is now looking to us for solutions. He had an opportunity to make a presentation. The hon. gentleman from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a presentation. What did he do this morning on the radio? Accused me and the gentleman for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and Earl McCurdy of conspiring to buy the marketing arm of FPI. Absolute utter nonsense and untruth, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, again he attacks me rather than the question. I say to the Premier, he just went through a pile of rhetoric, but maybe if he had allowed the media in there yesterday the people then would know the truth about what the Premier just said.

Mr. Speaker, everyone at the summit agreed that if there is going to be a rationalization of the fishing industry it has to be accompanied by an early retirement and a license buyout program sponsored by the federal government.

In light of comments made by Minister Hearn after the meeting in which he said that the Province should not hang it's hat on the federal government, do you have confidence that we will see an early retirement package and a license buyout from the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I could not have been more pleased and more thrilled with what went on in that room yesterday, with the outcomes, with the fact that there was general consensus around the table that status quo is not an option, that we had huge problems in the fishery, which has been acknowledged. The hon. gentleman opposite has termed it a crisis. We had the federal government at the table as our partner for probably one of the very first times, when a Premier, the provincial Minister of Fisheries and the federal Minister of Fisheries sat there.

The hon. gentleman opposite indicated on Open Line this morning that the federal Minister of Fisheries was dodging answers. Nothing is further from the truth. We are working collectively together to find solutions. There were open, honest admissions by all of the stakeholders in that room yesterday that we had huge problems and they offered solutions.

The hon. gentleman - I knew the meeting was successful because I looked at you about fifteen minutes in and you had a face on you like a can of worms. That was my signal that this was going well today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again he will pass, but that is okay, Premier. I am still going to stand on behalf of the residents of this Province and ask the questions that people are asking me to ask him. You know, as well as I do, the issue of early retirement came up and the minister did not directly address that issue, I say to the Premier, he did not. In fact, the only mention he made of an early retirement package yesterday was something about, it would have to part of a larger national adjustment program.

I ask the Premier: What discussions have you had with Minister Hearn regarding that larger national program, what time frames are being examined, and do you think this program will be of any significance to the fishery and to the people employed therein?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our government, our minister and our former minister are clearly on the record as to where we stand on early retirement. We have been out front and centre, we have put our money where our mouth was, we allocated $30 million and we will do whatever is necessary in order to make it happen. We consider it to be a key part of anything we are going to be doing with the fishing industry. We are very clearly on the record.

When I wrote the Prime Minister, when I wrote all party leaders, and put the top five fishery items, we clearly asked for a retirement program. The Prime Minister came back and indicated that he's first leaning was towards retraining. I have taken it up with him since, at the very first available opportunity that I had. I discussed it when I traveled with him during the meeting well over a month a go, the minister has discussed it with the federal minister, it is very much in the forefront, and we will continue to press it as hard as we can to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know where the Province stands on it. The question was: Where do you think the federal minister stands on it? I think we know where the Prime Minister stands on it. He is not doing - that is what he said in the letter that he sent back to you - an early retirement package. I asked you where the federal minister stood on it in all of those discussions you have had with him.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier said that such towns as Marystown, Anchor Point and Fortune, that have been devastated by the closure of their plants, will need short and long-term solutions to their problems. When discussing the short-term solution, the Premier stated that there would have to be income support programs put in place.

I ask the Premier: What kind of income support are you talking about? Is this welfare or make-work programs or what? Would you care to explain that, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed this morning at Cabinet. I cannot go into the details because of the confidentiality. It will be discussed again next week at Cabinet. It is something that we are very much on top of.

As well, from a federal-provincial perspective, the federal minister and the provincial minister have a joint ministers' working committee which has been in place for a couple of months, anticipating problems that were going to occur in the industry.

The hon. gentleman opposite was on Open Line this morning saying a knee-jerk reaction, just because Daley's closed we decided we were going to have a summit. The federal minister indicated in that room yesterday - and he probably wasn't there because he probably stepped out like he stepped out at least four or five times yesterday and stayed out for extended periods. He does not know exactly what was said in that room. I was there for the full time, the minister was there for the full time, and a lot of other people were there for the full time.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You may clap, but I did take the time to take thirty-five or thirty-six pages of notes, because I valued every single word that was said in that room yesterday. But, not for you, you were going to go outside and walk around for awhile and maybe talk to the media. Well, the media know what is going on because they know you are not telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, he is awfully cantankerous today, and he is still on the attack. That is all he has done in this House since it opened in March. He will not answer the questions that the people in communities like Harbour Breton and Fortune want to hear. The Premier said he is on top of the issue, he is all over it, he is on top of this file. I remember him saying that about the Stephenville mill. I remember him saying that about Harbour Breton. Where are the people who lived in those communities? Where have they gone, Premier?

Mr. Speaker, it is almost a year ago today, I think it was June 5th last year, when this government amended the FPI Act to allow the board of directors to basically sell off the American marketing division of FPI. Today, this government has amendments on the floor of the House of Assembly, and the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are on record as saying: It would make it very difficult if these amendments go through today. It would be very difficult for FPI to sell their marketing division.

I ask the Premier: Why the change of heart, and do you see the irony in your own words and your own actions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. You know, a year has transpired. Significant things have happened in this particular industry. The dollar has gone up. We know what is happening with the Chinese labour market. We know that crab has gone from $2.45 down to $.92. There are a lot of things that are happening in this industry. Self-admitted, the industry is in crises.

The last time around, when we looked at this company and it looked like it was headed towards very difficult times and perhaps bankruptcy, we shored up Fortune to make sure - the hon. member who is making some comments over there now - that there was security there. We shored up Bonavista to make sure there was security there. It was all about shoring up the Newfoundland and Labrador assets to make sure that the Newfoundland and Labrador assets, the communities, the people, the towns, the plants, were secure. That is why it was put before this House. It was a free vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I voted against it because, like the House Leader opposite, I was not comfortable with the security that was in it. That is probably more from a legal perspective, but the basic principle - the people in this House passed it, the government passed it - it was done to protect our communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it was done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, had Ralph Goodale not interfered and put a hold on Income Trust last July or August, we would not even be discussing the American division of FPI today in this House of Assembly because they would have permitted them to sell it, I say to the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said at yesterday's summit that he would like to see the industry come together and take over FPI's marketing division in the United States. The Premier said that he believes that this could be the saviour for our marketing woes in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If that is the case, why are we amending the FPI Act today, and when do you expect to come back into the House of Assembly to amend or to scrap the FPI Act? Because, you did say at the conference yesterday that if that were to go ahead we probably would have to scrap the FPI Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What is most interesting is, we got a chuckle out of that from the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Port de Grave.

Have you had a call, Minister of Fisheries, from the Member for Port de Grave with regard to the problems out in his district? Has he bothered to contact you? Did the Member for Bellevue contact the former Minister of Fisheries when he had a problem out in Arnold's Cove? Never heard from them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They will get up in the House of Assembly and they will wax eloquent and they will play politics, and they will do it all. You never phoned, you never did anything, you never made any contact.

Now, to get to your question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we are trying to do is to prevent the directors of FPI, who we don't think are acting in the best interests of the people of the Province, with these amendments, to stop them from doing something untoward that would not be in the best interests of the Province.

If a co-operative of all of the stakeholders in the Province in the fishery decide that they want to participate with government and we will passably invest and help them in taking over the marketing arm of FPI, then we will do what is necessary to give effect to the intent so that will be a good result for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is passing. I ask all hon. members for their co-operation. Colleagues, there is a limited time. We have many questions to be asked.

I recognize the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Paramedics in rural areas are working long hours, on call, some of them, twenty-four hours a day, and most of them have no health benefits or other benefits that are often afforded to other medical personnel in our Province. Many of them, Mr. Speaker, feel they are inadequately paid.

Government permits these operators to run ambulance services with two point three people while the provincial government requires eight point five people to operate ambulances in their own service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he is prepared to look at a complete overhaul of rural paramedic services in this Province and put them on an even keel with all other medical personnel that operate in our medical system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Health and Community Services fully understands the role that these people play, as well as the member who asked the question who sat in the department there as minister, actually, when they were performing the same service and maybe at a lower rate of pay than they are getting now, I say to the hon. member who is raising the question. She sat as a minister there.

What we will do, Mr. Speaker - government is not the employer of these people. We do deal with the association, or deal with the owners who represent these people out there. We are very cognizant of the issues and any concerns out there. The contract was in place, expired March 31 of the year. Certainly, as the Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat here, I am very much aware that, I guess, in the near future we will be sitting down with those operators and the employers of these individual people to look at reaching an agreement over the next number of months, hopefully, and that they will know the direction they are heading.

That is the role. The member knows full well that these are employed by individual operators around the Province here, and that is who they deal with. She knows full well that particular question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister of Finance is wrong again. I was never the Minister of Health, I would like to inform him, never in the ten years I have been in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, a young woman paramedic told me that she had worked all day responding to emergencies. She gets home; she is on call for twenty-four hours. She leaves her home in Conception Bay, drives to St. John's, picks up a patient, takes him to St. Anthony, and returns home to Conception Bay with no overnight accommodations from her employee, no additional benefits, Mr. Speaker. Do you mean to tell me that this is an acceptable standard for paramedics?

Many of them that are rural based have no medical control. I think the minister already knows that. Quite often, when they are responding to emergencies where a patient requires an IV or a defibrillator, they are not equipped to be able to provide that service without calling in for on-line medical control.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that not all rural areas have cellular services, and sometimes there is miscommunication with radios. I ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if she could get to her question quickly.

MS JONES: I ask the minister: Is he prepared to establish a position in the Province to regulate and authorize paramedics for medical control instead of these companies and these paramedics going out and trying to find a doctor who might be willing to give them medical control so they may do the jobs they are trained for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is very much aware, and the department, of the role that they play. Certainly, we are very sympatric with the people, and the role they play. They are providing a very valuable service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like the opportunity to answer, Mr. Speaker, if I could. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans seems to want to interrupt me.

We have worked to try to enhance the levels. That has happened under the previous Administration and it has carried into this Administration, trying to enhance the level and qualification of people working there.

I feel confident that it will probably come up on the table in negotiations. I cannot predict, nor will I prejudge, what is going to be brought to the table by independent operators out there who come to sit down with us and negotiate prices and contracts there. That would be presumptuous. It would be none of my personal business, or none of government's business, what they bring to the table, but I would assume that the people out there have those interests. We are aware of the issues. The department is very much aware of those issues there. I am sure, in due course, the opportunity to discuss that will occur. We have not sat down to the table (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going to be starting soon, I understand, between these operators and the government. When members opposite, a number of them, were in Opposition, they met with these paramedics, sympathized and empathized with them and the situation they were in. Now, I say to the Minister of Finance, you are in a fiscal position to be able to deal with the extreme problems that are affecting these workers in our Province who are not getting medical benefits, who are not getting proper wage compensation and not working under proper conditions.

I say to you, Minister: Are you prepared to make the investment and address the issues that are being brought forward by these paramedics?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is always prepared to look at all issues that concern peoples health and providing the best possible service. Certainly, there is a process to follow, and the member knows quite well there is a process to follow. We will sit at the table in the negotiation process and we will discuss issues and look at the availability of funding to address issues that are brought forward. I will not go out and predict what people coming to the table are going to bring forward. The member knows that fully well. There is a process to follow here, the same as we deal with any other group out there that employ people who are not employees of government. There is a procedure and a proper process to follow. We advanced money last year to get an agreement with those operators there and we are hopeful that in the future, over the next while as we sit down to the table, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will get an agreement with the various representatives and associations that represent these people out there. I am not going to stand here weeks or months before that happens until there is an opportunity to sit down and discuss issues there. It is not the place to predict what someone is going to bring to a negotiating table. The member knows that fully well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Another question, Mr. Speaker, for the minister. Maybe he will be able to deal with this one.

Home care services provided by the government and subsidized by taxpayers are not taxable, but private essential home care services paid for by individual families in this Province is subject to HST. Why is government demanding that these people pay taxes on this important service when all others are HST exempt?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The answer to that, quite simply, is that when the former government were in they made a subject to taxes on all those transactions when we harmonized the tax here, and she was a part of the government that brought that in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has been here for almost three years now so we will see if he is going to tackle it. All other medical services, such as physiotherapy, chiropractic, podiatry, dentistry and so on are HST exempt. Are home care services not considered a medical service, and if so, why is it that your government is not prepared to look at exempting them from HST taxation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a whole list of services out there. Some services provided come under the Canada Health Act, some services do not. There are all varieties of services under the whole spectrum. What is in this Province might be done normally, is not necessarily done in other provinces. There are numerous standards all over the place. Probably the same reason why the member, when they sat in government, did not do anything about it. We are prepared to look at all aspects of medical services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we will take the appropriate action when we look at things. The former member is asking us to do - they get on that side of the House and they are after asking about 500 things over the last number of weeks to do, something they were not prepared to do.

We have an advanced agenda to reduce the burden to people on $32.8 million this year, we announced on a drug care plan. We increased for low-income people. We eliminated taxes for people who make less than $11,500; a family of two, $19,000. We have implemented tens of millions of dollars to have low-income people here to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a lady recently who contracts home care services for her husband. Maybe this will help the minister understand the impact that this is having. Because she pays for her own home care service, she has to pay HST. If she was getting one hour a week from the government, and the other thirty-nine hours a week she was paying out of her own pocket, she would be HST exempt because of that one hour, but that is not the case. Because she pays for the full forty hours, she pays $350 for her care. She pays another $50 for HST in the Province. I think that this is unreasonable and unfair and I am asking you, minister, are you prepared to look at changing this policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are prepared to look at any possible thing. In fact, consideration has been looked at for the provision of private services, what is subject to tax under a private service and what is under public services, and there is a distinction. There are implications for a whole variety of services that are private versus public in adding a specific tax on a particular item, and the member knows that very well. She sat in government. Those same issues came up to them when they were in government and they decided that they could not do that. I am not saying yes, I am not saying no. I am saying we are knowledgeable about the issues there and we look at things. There may be effective ways to deliver programs that we have already indicated and I was starting to mention some of these. We have put into place here in this Province, Mr. Speaker, at least a dozen different implications of aspects that have been brought in here in the Province to help low-income people; from every single thing, from increasing child supplements to indexing low-income people. We have done it on removing income tax from levels. We have done it on a drug plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just one question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Max Ruelokke was chosen as the successful candidate to be the new Chair and CEO of the C-NLOPB but has been waiting for his appointment for several months.

I ask the Premier: When will Mr. Ruelokke be appointed to this position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been crystal clear with the federal government. We have said that the recommendations that came from the board was that Mr. Ruelokke be appointed and that the position of Chair and CEO be split. I have discussed that option with Mr. Ruelokke himself. I have said to him that government is prepared to appoint him as CEO immediately, but for the sake of good governance practices, we wanted to separate the Chair's position. We have outlined that position in no uncertain terms to the federal government and, Mr. Speaker, that is where it is. Until we can reach a resolution on how that will be resolved, right now the Acting Chair, Mr. Fred Way, is still acting in that capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Grave concerns have been raised about the charging of an eighteen-year-old girl in Blaketown with trafficking in drugs based on a zero tolerance policy at high school in relation to what one defence lawyer has called overkill. As a parent, Mr. Speaker, I worry about the proliferation of drugs in both high school and junior high but also as a parent I would worry that if one of my children or any other child passed on a marijuana cigarette to another child, that she or he might be charged with trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, can we expect that every child who passes on a marijuana cigarette to another child at a school can be convicted of trafficking and face a lifetime of being treated in the same category as the mafia or Hell's Angels biker gangs which they would be by boarder guards and police forces across the country? Can we expect some police discretion or prosecutorial discretion in these matters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is well aware, I am sure, that the decision as to whether or not charges are going to be laid is the decision that the police will make. That is entirely within their discretion to determine whether there are justifiable grounds, reasonable cause to lay a charge. After the charge is laid, of course, it is the job of the independent prosecutorial branch of government, the Crown Attorney's Office, to determine whether they will exercise their discretion to lay a charge. Of course, it would be entirely improper for the Attorney General to interfere in that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is yes, if the police are prepared to lay a charge.

A follow-up to the Minister of Education. Is the Minister of Education prepared to lay down some guidelines for the Province's schools in terms of their relationship with the police forces? This individual who is charged based on the so-called zero tolerance policy at a school and what was called by the RCMP, I do not think they used the word cozy, but a very friendly relationship with the school. Is the minister prepared to establish a proper relationship with the schools so these problems can be dealt with, based on zero tolerance but not subjecting children to be treated as if they were the same as mafioso or biker gangs when it comes to relations and very minor involvement with the use of illegal drugs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very serious question and scenario that is playing out in our schools today. It comes down to the fact that we need to have very safe and caring schools and that, as students, they need to be able to understand the consequences of their behaviour. In saying that, we often deal with students who probably break the rules or do something they should not do, and we have to be able to deal with that.

When we set up, or when schools set up, a zero tolerance for drugs, it gives the message to the students as it would give to a young person who is going on the job who has to operate equipment, who has to work in an office environment, who has to work in a grocery store, that it is completely inappropriate to light up a joint and pass that around. That is a message that needs to be there.

There are young children who go to school and there are parents who really do not want somebody lighting up a joint and passing that around the schoolyard, or the classroom, or wherever they do it, and it can set up a very serious situation.

The very basic definition of trafficking is when you pass the drug from one person to another, whether it is the sale or whether it is something that is lit and you are going to smoke it and pass it on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for the hon. member has expired.

There is still time left in the time allocation for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to put a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that drugs are a problem, but we also know that treating children as drug traffickers for simply passing around a marijuana cigarette, which the minister just acknowledged, is, in fact, an overkill, and that those children will be treated, when they are adults, the very same as trying to cross a border into the United States or any other country. This is overkill. Something needs to be done to have zero tolerance but also treat children properly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't remember the last point I was trying to make, but I do want to continue on with that.

The hon. member made an important observation when he said, when the criminal record is there, providing the person is convicted, until there is a pardon, that record will carry with the young person.

We do need zero tolerance, but we also need to be able to work with the police force, work with the schools, work with the parents and the students, to make sure that there is a safe environment where the other students can go without the influence of drugs, or having to watch that type of behaviour on the schoolyard.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly committed to work with the young people to do it, but we also have to understand the reality that if there is criminal or illegal behaviour going on and teachers do not report it to the appropriate authorities, or they do not take necessary action, and as a result there is an accident or somebody gets killed because of drug use or because somebody was impaired or intoxicated and unable to perform their duties, at what point, then, do we go back to the parents of the victim and say we knew there were intoxicating substances, or there was something going on, but we chose not to deal with it, we are trying not to deal with it, we are trying not to involve the police or bring it to court?

Mr. Speaker, it is a very -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

This afternoon, in Question Period, we did have an expression used in the Assembly which, according to all parliamentary records, would be deemed to be unparliamentary.

In answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier used the words deliberately misleading. I ask the Premier if he would withdraw that statement.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The statement is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is a pleasure to table the Bull Arm Site Corporation Activity Report for the period of April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with government's commitment to accountability, I would now like to submit the 2005 Annual Report for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am pleased to table the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April, 2006.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that our House of Assembly will be closing today, so this is basically my last chance, before this construction season ends or begins, whatever the case might be, to give this petition on behalf of the people of the Buchans area.

It was interesting today when the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose and said how important it was to impress upon the government the needs of the people in different areas, because it made it easier for Cabinet ministers to get their message to the Premier and for the Premier to okay it. Well, I have been giving this same message now all spring, and this particular Cabinet minister has not had any luck in convincing either the Premier or the Minister of Finance to free up some money to look after the Buchans Highway.

I would suggest that, before this House reconvenes in the fall, we are going to have a shuffle here and the first person to be shuffled is going to be the Minister of Transportation and Works. That is my prediction.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it has been said today and, in fact, the minister who is acting today on behalf of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, stood up in this House and said how important it was to give EDGE status to businesses that are now in rural communities, and how important it was for ten jobs to be in Grand Bank, and how important it was for another twenty-five jobs to be there.

I would say it is very important for 200 full-time jobs to be in Duck Pond mine, near Millertown, and I think it is very important for twenty-five full-time and expanding to forty-five jobs to be at the barite plant in Buchans. It is almost an insult that the Premier of this Province, who has been out yesterday in the summit touting how important rural communities are to this Province, how he can neglect and overlook how important it is to get the Buchans Highway recapped. He pays zero attention to rural communities in this Province; yet, when he wants to stand up on a soapbox and say how important rural communities are, he has a different speech.

I would impress, Mr. Speaker, on this government, that this is probably the last day that this House will be in session and government now has an opportunity to come forward and make an announcement, and let the people of the Buchans, Millertown, Badger and Buchans Junction area know how important their economy is to the running of this Province, and how important it is to make sure that people who travel over that highway have a safe highway to go over.

I have tried, ever since the spring when this House opened, to impress upon the Premier and he has turned a deaf ear. In fact, he has turned a blind eye, and all of his Cabinet ministers have done the same, but they won't be turning a deaf ear or having a blind eye when they are counting the money in the public Treasury that is coming from that area from permanent jobs.

Once again, Mr. Premier - Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just thirty seconds, Mr. Premier - Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something? I am so intent on giving the Premier the message that I mistakenly called you the Premier twice.

We do have the Premier in our midst and, Premier, if you can hear me, bring out the cheque book!

Thank you.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the District of Grand Bank and I guess on behalf of the entire Burin Peninsula because the impact that is being felt because of the closure of the fish plant in Fortune is in fact being felt throughout the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, as I read the names on this petition, and it struck me while I waiting to stand here, that over a dozen of the names on this petition are names of people who have already left the community of Fortune or some other community that has been impacted by the closure of the plant in Fortune. That is what is so sad about what is transpiring in our Province today with respect to the fishery. Whether we want to admit it or not, I think the fishery is indeed in a crisis situation. When we see people who have worked for years and years at a fish plant, we see fisherpeople who have been harvesting the resource for years and years and now are finding themselves with no income, no employment and not knowing where to turn, then I think we are indeed in a crisis situation. It certainly is a crisis situation for those people who have to move their families lock, stock and barrel out of this Province to another part of the country to try and feed their families, just to put food on the table and provide them with the necessities of life.

The prayer of the petition is, in fact, calling on this government to do whatever they can to ensure that the quota that is attached to the fish plant in Fortune will remain there, no matter what happens to FPI. I am hoping, in fact, that will be an amendment which will be accepted by the government, because it is an amendment that we have introduced, that FPI should not only be expected to maintain or allow the government to be responsible for plants if they should go under but for quotas as well. So, I am hoping that amendment will be accepted because I think it is really important that quotas be attached to communities and not to companies. It has been said time and time again by the federal Minister of Fisheries and others that fish is in fact a common resource owned by the people, not by the company. They are given to the company to be utilized for the benefit of the people who are employed in those plants or who provide product to the plants.

So, the prayer of the petition is, again, that the government do everything it can to ensure that the quota attached to the fish plant in Fortune continues to be utilized for the benefit of the people who have, over the years, been able to work there and benefit from that quota. I know that with FPI and the decision to close Fortune, that is a very serious concern on behalf of not only the people who have signed this petition but the other petitions that I have presented in the House since the House resumed for this sitting.

The hundreds of people who have signed this petition not only are people who have worked at the plant or harvested fish or worked in management at the plant but, as well, the businesses in the area are feeling the effects now of a fish plant that has been closed, meaning that there has been no income for hundreds of people who would traditionally have been able to purchase products at local businesses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is requested, leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

I thank the government for leave because I think it is such an important petition, important issue, not only in my district but throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that if we are going to see rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive, this has to be a crucial element of it and that is to ensure that quotas which have been traditionally processed by fish plants in rural Newfoundland remain with that plant so that they can continue to be utilized and not be given to some company who can take them and process their product anywhere else in the world.

I think it is crucial that the prayer of this petition be acknowledged by the government and that government do everything it can, and today would be a golden opportunity for them to accept an amendment that we put forward as a government that would in fact see quotas being looked at in the same light that vessels and plants are being looked at, and that the company just cannot ride roughshod over the people and take their marbles and go home without bearing some responsibility for the impact that it will have on the people who have worked for them for years and years and years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

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

Order 3, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, by agreement, I know it is agreement with the Official Opposition, I assume the third party agrees as well. There are a number of amendments that the Opposition proposed. The government has informed the Opposition that we are prepared to accept two of the nine amendments, and the government has an amendment that it is proposing as well. So, a great victory for the Opposition.

I think, by agreement, what we are proposing is that I will move all three amendments, we will second them and we will put them on the table. Then the Opposition and ourselves can debate them as a package rather than moving them one at a time, as would normally be the case. That being the case, Mr. Chairman - the Chairman has a copy of the amendments, I take it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he does.

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that clause 1 of Bill 32 is amended by striking out the proposed subsection 7.(2) and (3) and substituting the following. The new subsection 7.(2) will read as follows: "Not withstanding subsection (1), except with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, neither FPI Limited nor Fishery Products International Limited shall sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest on, or otherwise dispose of, or allow or direct a subsidiary of it to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest on, or otherwise dispose of, a plant or other processing facility wherever located." That is the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I believe they used different words, but the legal drafters have provided this wording. It means exactly the same thing that the Opposition proposed. I believe the Opposition proposed: wherever located, and machinery and equipment located in the plant or processing facility. So, that is the first amendment as proposed by the Official Opposition.

The second amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to clause 7.(3), and clause 7.(3) will read now as follows: In subsection (1), property and assets include all property, whether tangible or intangible, wherever located, and include: (a) vessels, (b) quotas, and (c) shares or interests in a subsidiary corporation, but do not include inventory and inventory means, inventory as defined in the Personal Property Act.

That is the second amendment proposed by the Opposition, that the government is accepting. The wording, again, may be a little bit different than that drafted by the Opposition, but it is in the context of tying up, making it in language that is more acceptable, and in that spirit that it was done.

The third and final amendment is one that has been proposed by the government. Clause 2 of the bill is amended by adding to the proposed section 9, immediately after subsection (6), the following, and I will read it, Mr. Chairman. It is as follows: A majority of the members of the committee of directors of each of FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited shall be independent of a significant shareholder, or an associate of a significant shareholder, of either corporation.

That, Mr. Chairman, simply makes the definition of shareholders that are on committees exactly the same as the definition and restrictions on the board of directors in general. We had those definitions applied to the board but we did not have it spelled out in the act that the same restrictions and qualifications apply to committees of the board. This makes the committees of the board consistent and therefore the act consistent.

Mr. Chairman, if there are any further questions on those proposed amendments as we go through the afternoon I will certainly be prepared to deal with them but, in the spirit of an agreement between both sides, we put down all three amendments and therefore they can be debated all at the same time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the Opposition House Leader standing to put forward an amendment, or is he standing to speak to the amendment as put forward by the Deputy Premier?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I think (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I think my colleague, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, put it out, we put the amendments down and the debate is going to be sort of free ranging as opposed to clause by clause this afternoon on it. There is going to be some latitude allowed on both sides to deal with it. That is done by consensus and we will do it with leave, as opposed to saying the title of the bill, clause 1, clause 2, clause 3. We have laid down the amendments and we will speak to it as a package, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which has been done from time to time on many occasions, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would concur with the comments of the Government House Leader and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is the intent, by leave, and I would also like to move the amendments that we have. There are nine in total, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The idea, as I understand it, is to have a free-ranging debate. Our amendments and the government's amendments will be all on the table and there will be speakers back and forth.

I understand we also have an agreement, the Government House Leader and myself, with respect to, if the Premier wants to have comments, for example, that exceed the usual fifteen minute rule by him, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the NDP, that is going to be acceptable and fine by all sides as well.

I would just like to table these and we will be ready for the debate whenever.

CHAIR: I think the Chair understands where the agreement is going.

The Chair is looking for directions to clearly understand, to make sure there is no confusion at the end, that we will not vote on any of the amendments. We will allow the debate to take place and, at the end, in passing the bill, we will recognize the amendments as put forward by each clause and vote on the amendments individually at that time.

MR. E. BYRNE: Without any debate.

CHAIR: Without any debate.

Is that where the Committee wants to go, or intends to go? If it is, then that is fine.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: For the record, Mr. Chair, that is exactly the agreement.

CHAIR: Well, if that is the agreement, the Committee is ready to hear debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is the understanding that I do not have to live within the ten minutes. Normally we get ten minutes each in this particular section of the bill, but it is my understanding that, thanks to the Government House Leader, who happens to be, I think, a far greater person than the Premier, he is giving me leave to speak beyond that.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader.

We are talking about FPI. We have been talking about FPI for a number of years now, but since FPI announced the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton back in November of 2004 it has come more to the forefront and it has been kept alive in the Province as a result of what has been going on with regard to the plight of the people who live in Harbour Breton, and those who had worked in the plant in Harbour Breton, the FPI plant in Harbour Breton, some of them as much as forty years.

Over the period of time, in the last couple of years, we have been asking the government to amend the FPI Act again, to strengthen it, so that we have more control over the company that was established in this Legislature back in 1985, at which time the government appointed the Board of Directors of FPI. That later changed, obviously, as it became somewhat of a more quasi-private company.

As a result of the actions of the current board of directors, we have been asking the government to strengthen the act so that we could deal more appropriately with the current board of directors who had given the government, especially when we were in government, commitments back in 2001 about what they were going to do for the Province, what they were going to do for the communities in which they operated but, more importantly, what they were going to do for their employees in those communities.

I remember vividly Mr. Risley, at the time, and Mr. Crosbie made a number of commitments to the people of the Province about growing FPI rather than shrinking it, about employing more people rather than decreasing the number of employees that they had, and that they were going to have a greater return for their shareholders. They could do that because, they said, the previous board of directors, led by Mr. Vic Young, were not doing an adequate job and that they were not making the money that they could have been making on the resources that they had and the plants that they had. More importantly, they thought, by growing the company not only could they make more money but they could also employ more people and, as a result, they took over the board in 2001. They made the commitments to government, and I was minister at the time, and a number of my colleagues who still sit on this side of the floor were actively involved at the time and we told the Board of Directors of FPI we were going to hold them to their commitments, and we did while we were in government. They actually did not close a fish plant, and I am not aware they laid off any people. They certainly did not lay off any numbers of people.

Mr. Chairman, I think, as well, that we finally convinced the government this spring that it was time to amend the FPI Act and strengthen it. The current Minister of Fisheries even went so far, outside of this House and inside of this House, as to say that one of the things that he was going to do, or was considering doing, with the FPI Act was to strengthen it in a manner in which it would force the Board of Directors of FPI to cross-subsidize. In other words, take money from its more prosperous division, that division that rests in the United States, the American marketing and secondary processing division, and take some of the profits that they are making from there and put it into towns like Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown and Burin, who happen to be their groundfish plants. As we all know, the groundfish fishery is experiencing some problems today, but that is not unusual in the groundfish fishery, it has its peaks and valleys. We have seen the price of fish rise and fall in the past 500 years. I can't say that I have been around for 500 years, but since I have been a boy I have seen the price of fish rise and fall. There have been lots of songs written about it, in fact, Mr. Chairman.

That was one of the things that the Minister of Fisheries advocated earlier this year in the back of a pickup truck on O'Leary Avenue. He said: maybe we will amend the act to force FPI to take its profits and cross-subsidize its less lucrative division, the groundfish division. We kept it up and kept it up until finally we see in the House of Assembly some amendments to that act which the government feels will strengthen the act so that they will have more control over the board of directors and more control over what that company does.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I applaud the government in bringing forward the amendments, and I think they have three or four or five amendments to the current act. What we are asking for is to accept the nine recommendations that we have as well. I understand from the Minister of Fisheries that he has accepted two of our recommendations and they will be included in the act, for which I am grateful. I would be a lot more grateful, I say to the minister, if he were to include all of them because we are not saying we don't agree with the amendments that the government is putting forward. We are saying that if you change the wording on some and add a word here and take a word out somewhere else, that we would even strengthen the act more.

Mr. Chairman, I will give you a couple of examples of these. In the current FPI Act, the one that we amended in 2002 - I was the minister at the time when we amended the act. In that act it says: FPI is not permitted to sell all, or substantially all, of its company. What we realized last spring, last June to be exact, when FPI wanted to sell their American division - which I happen to think is the most profitable. There was a question as to whether or not - if FPI was going to sell that division, would it constitute all, or substantially all, of the company? The government at the time, led by the Minister of Justice, had three independent legal opinions. Two said it would not be selling all or substantially of the company and one said that it would. In other words, there was conflicting legal advice as to whether or not selling the American division would be tantamount to selling all, or substantially all, of the company.

Now, the minister said he is going to change this clause. He has it put forward here today as an amendment. What he is saying is that you should replace all, or substantially all, with the words: a substantial portion of the company. FPI shall not be permitted to sell a substantial portion of the company. What we are asking them to say: without the written permission of government. That is what, I think, the clause that the minister wants to substitute in there today, that FPI cannot sell a substantial portion of the company without written consent from the government. What we are saying is let's take that a little bit further because we know the word potential or substantial - substantial can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. It is rather ambiguous. What my fear is, is that FPI may try to sell something that is far more substantial than they would lead you to believe without coming back to government.

So, we are asking that they remove the word substantial and just write in there that FPI shall not dispose of any portion of their operation without the written consent of government. Take out the word substantial and just say: should not be able to sell any portion without the written consent. That does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that they will never be permitted to sell a portion, I say to the Minister of Justice. That does not mean they would not be able to sell a portion or substantial portion. All we are saying is put down that they cannot sell any portion without the permission of government and take out the word substantial. Take the ambiguity out of it so that we do not have to get a legal opinion down the road; so we do not have to come back here and debate that word again, as lawyers are apt to do. For some reason, lawyers like to find meanings to words that most people do not think about. I think that is how they make their living and that is why they put words like that in there.

The other thing that we would want them to do, Mr. Chairman, is in the act today they are saying that FPI cannot sell a plant, cannot dispose of a plant without the prior approval of government. Well, what we are saying is that - for example, they have Harbour Breton closed today but they still own the plant. So, under the amendment that the minister is putting forward today, they would have to come to government for permission to dispose of the plant in Harbour Breton. That is what you are saying, and that was not in the act before. They would have to come and ask government to sell that plant. What we are saying is, before they even decide that they are going to sell it: Why not put in the act that FPI will not be permitted to close a plant without government approval? That does not mean, I say to the Minister of Justice, that FPI will never be allowed to close a plant. All that means is that before they close one and before they sell it, they should have to come to government and ask for permission to close it. I am sure -

MS FOOTE: Look at the impacts on rural Newfoundland.

MR. REID: Yes.

I am sure there are certain situations where the government would say: Yes, we will permit you to close the plant. But before they do that and before we realize the impact that it is going to have on the community, at least they should be able to have the decency to come in and sit down with government and say: Listen, we want to close that plant. Can you give us permission? If there was a good business case and a good social case made for closing it, I am sure the government would (inaudible). All we are asking for, instead of saying permission to sell a plant; permission to close a plant and then to sell it. So, it is only by adding another word.

The other amendment that we wanted to put forward - again, we are not changing anything. All we are asking to do is strengthen the wording that you already have in your amendments. The third one says: FPI cannot dispose of a plant or processing facility in the Province. That is all it says. FPI cannot dispose or sell a plant in this Province without the permission of government. Well, there is another thing that is missing here. FPI just bought a brand new plant, or not a brand new plant, but FPI just added another plant to their list of plants and it is in the United Kingdom. It is in Great Britain. They also have another processing plant in Danvers, Massachusetts. What we are asking the government today is to take the word province out. They need permission from the government to sell a plant in the Province and say: they need permission to sell any of the plants they own, wherever they may be. We want to put in there: to dispose of a plant situated anywhere that FPI owns. That way they would not be able to sell the very lucrative plant in Danvers, Massachusetts, which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador indirectly bought through FPI. That is what we are asking.

I must admit, the minister was kind enough today to agree with this one. So we are not always at loggerheads. It just proves that we are capable of putting forward reasonable, logical, suggestions to government and one of them was accepted today, and that was one. I appreciate that, I say to the minister, the fact that you did have a second look. It just goes to show that Oppositions can be effective. We can contribute. That is the reason we question sometimes. That is the reason we are always questioning. We are not questioning to score political points. We are questioning so that we do what is right for the people and we hold the government accountable. Unfortunately, when we ask some questions the Premier gets rather testy and he wants to insult people, but that is just his nature. I look over him in that. We come from different backgrounds. I know that he likes to attack and insult me every time I stand up, but we were very jovial prior to Question Period. We were even throwing a few jokes across the floor at each other.

It is like the old cartoon, remember when the wolf and the sheepdog used to go to work in the morning? The sheepdog would go to work in the morning to guard the sheep and the wolf would walk in with him to kill the sheep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sam and Ralph.

MR. REID: Sam and Ralph, those were their names.

Sam and Ralph would walk in together in the morning and the whistle would blow and they would try and kill each other all day. Then, when the whistle blew at 5:00 o'clock and it was time to knock off work, out they walked together and said: See you tomorrow, Ralph. See you, Sam.

Well, that is the way the Premier gets on. As soon as I asked him a logical question today, sure, he went ballistic. He called me everything under the sun, I cannot repeat. It is a good thing my mother is not alive, I say to the Premier, to hear what he called me today in the House of Assembly. I just find that, every single time I ask him a question, he attacks me instead of answering the question. I don't know if it is his nature or it is just because of his background in a business where nobody -

CHAIR: Order, please!

While the debate is certainly wide-ranging and there has been an agreement by both sides that we would give members an unlimited time to speak, I would ask the hon. member if he would confine his comments to the spirit of the bill, please.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for that, but every now and then - the point I was trying to make was that we do make some good suggestions, and at least the Minister of Fisheries takes these suggestions seriously, unlike the Premier, and incorporates them into the bill.

The third amendment, or the fourth or fifth, we would like to see is - the Premier spoke quite often in the last few weeks about strengthening the Board of Directors of FPI so that competitors could not move in, such as Mr. Risley and Mr. Armoyan and people like that, and sit on the Board of Directors of FPI, and they wanted to tighten up the restrictions as to who could sit on the board and who could not.

They are talking about also increasing the number of people on the board from the current day number of seven. That is all that sit on the board at FPI today, seven, and he wants to increase it to thirteen. Well, we are saying if you are really serious, really serious about this, why not, when you go from seven to thirteen, go back to when this act first came into the House of Assembly in 1985. Then the government appointed the board of directors. We are not saying the government should appoint all of the board of directors today, but if you are going to increase it from seven to thirteen, what we are suggesting is that you add two members on that board who are appointed by government. That does not mean they have to be government employees - in fact, I would recommend against that - but we should be able to appoint two members who would act on behalf of government and act on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador . I do not think that is unrealistic, when you consider it was in the original act, when you consider what that board has done with FPI, when you consider the commitments that they made and the commitments that they broke. I do not think any of them qualify to be the pin-up or the poster child for Trust magazine. As a result, we are saying, if you are going to have thirteen members on a board, appoint two people from this Province by the government so that they can be the eyes and ears of the people of this Province and report back to government. That is what we are saying in amendment number five.

There is another amendment, because the minister is talking about being on committees of the board, because the board of directors set up committees, like all organizations do. City Hall has a transportation committee and a finance committee. FPI has the same type of thing. I do not think they have a transportation committee but they have a finance committee. What the Minister of Fisheries is suggesting is talking about what the makeup of these select committees of FPI should be. What we are saying is, if we have two government representatives on the board, each of these committees that FPI forms should have at least one of those individuals on the board or on that committee - not a lot to ask for.

Mr. Chairman, we are also putting in, if you really want to get serious about the competitors sitting on the Board of Directors of FPI - and I have a concern about it, there is no doubt about it. We all had concerns when they took over the company originally. We told them we were going to keep an eye on them. Unfortunately, when the government changed in 2003, they forgot that FPI existed over there. They did not keep a close enough eye on it and, as a result, that company and its board of directors runs roughshod over the employees of that company in the Province.

What we are saying is, if you are serious and you do not want competitors like Mr. Risley who owns the very large - the largest, actually - largest seafood processing operation, harvesting operation in Nova Scotia. He sits on the Board of Directors of FPI. We also have a very large Icelandic company, who is our direct competitor in the United States, they own 15 per cent of FPI. They sit on the board, and they are the direct competitors.

We are saying, if you are really serious about not letting competitors of FPI sit on the board, or you are trying to limit their right to sit on a board go a bit further. Put it into law. Put it into the bill that we are discussing here today, into the FPI Act, where it says that a competitor cannot sit on the board of FPI.

These are some of the proposals that we are putting forward. I am delighted that, for once, anyway, the minister responsible for this act, the Minister of Fisheries, at least felt that some of the suggestions - two of the nine, I think, that we have here - are worthy of putting into the bill. I thank him for that, Mr. Chairman. I do hope that the act will be strengthened as a result of it, and I do hope that we are not here again discussing this act in the very near future, but, believe me, I really and truly think we are going to be back here.

Number one, I don't think that we have strengthened it enough. If you would put our proposals in there, I would feel a little bit more confident that it was strengthened enough. Even with that - because every single day, as they say, to use the expression, the water changes on the beans. We are here today discussing an FPI Act that this government over here last year basically voted to scrap. For all intents and purposes, you voted to scrap the Act, because you voted to allow FPI to sell the most valued division of that company, the American division. You voted for it. That was done. Last June 5, I think, Minister, wasn't it? Last June 5, the majority of the members opposite voted to allow FPI to sell the American marketing division. Everyone remembers that.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) I didn't.

MR. REID: The Minister of Fisheries says he didn't.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is only because I wasn't here.

MR. REID: It is only because he wasn't here. That is very good. That means, if you were here you would have voted. Okay. Maybe you can explain to me, when you get up, why your Premier didn't vote for it, but everyone else did, or most of all of you did, enough to win the day.

Anyway, last year this time government voted to amend the Act to allow FPI to sell off its American division, the most valued division. Now, all of the sudden - if anyone is listening out there and who has been following -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: We will debate that later, I say to the hon. Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is last year in this House the majority of those opposite voted to allow FPI to sell its American marketing division and the second year processing division.

Anyone who has been following the FPI shenanigans that have been going on in the past year or so, that was supposed to be a done deal. Then, all of the sudden, what do we hear floated just two or three days ago by the Premier himself? All of the sudden now, the American marketing division of FPI is probably the most important part of that company, and that division of FPI is going to be the saviour of our marketing woes in the entire fishing industry in the Province. He wants now to get some group together to take that from FPI and establish it as a marketing division for all Newfoundland and Labrador seafood products. You just think about that. All of the sudden now he is saying, boy, we can't allow FPI to sell that. We have to keep hold of that, boy, because that is going to be our saviour.

Everyone at that forum yesterday, by the way, said we need to put more money into marketing our fish. We have to find new markets. We have to build the ones that we have. We need some mechanism, some money from both levels of government, to spend more time on marketing. The Premier floats the idea: Well, we have a marketing division in FPI, why don't we somehow take that way from them, put it in the hands of some group of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and let them market all of the fish in the Province? A great idea.

Sure, it was only a year ago that his government voted to sell that. You wonder why I am standing here, sort of scratching my head, and wondering: Where does the next saga of FPI take us? Where does the next saga of FPI take us? Because I do not know. We are amending the act today. The Premier said, yesterday, if they were to go the route of taking the marketing division, breaking it off from FPI and letting a Newfoundland group, a co-op or something, run it, then, in order to do that, we need to scrap the FPI Act. That was twenty-four hours ago. Around about 3:30 yesterday afternoon the Premier was talking about the possibility of scrapping the FPI Act. Here we are, today, standing and talking about amending it, strengthen the FPI Act. We are going to strengthen it.

Last year he was going to sell it. It wasn't worth anything to us; let FPI sell that. Then, we come in here this week, we are talking about amending the act to strengthen it so that they cannot sell the American division, because that is in there, in the amendments, that they need permission to go out and sell that. Then, the Premier says, while we are in the middle of this debate, we might have to go back to the House of Assembly and scrap the act.

If you think you are confused, anybody watching this saga unfold out there, you have reason to be. I have been following the act as closely as anybody, I guess. The last time it was amended it was my name on it, right on the front of it. My name was there. Now you are talking about selling it one year, amending it to strengthen it so that they cannot sell it, amending the act so that you cannot sell it, and while we are doing that the Premier is out talking about scrapping the act so that we can take it over.

The question arises, when are we coming back? I know the House is supposed to close today, but when are we coming back to amend the act further - because I think it is not strong enough the way it is - or to scrap it, as the Premier says? I think someone needs to answer those questions. I really do.

Because I raised that issue in the House today, and on an Open Line show this morning, the Premier gets so irate that he hurls insults across the floor at me. There is the relevancy, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand where the Premier is coming from on the act. Because I ask a question, why were you going to sell it last year, why are you going to strengthen the act, and then why are you going to scrap it? - all from the same individual in less than twelve months.

I think the people of the Province deserve to know the answers because, let's face it, most people in the Province are really concerned about what is happening with FPI. I think they are, because they have a lot of relatives, brothers, sisters, cousins, and they are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like ourselves, and we certainly have pity for those who are knocked out of an industry who spent forty years in it. I certainly do feel for the people of Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown, those who are unemployed today. I also worry about the people in Bonavista. I have no relatives there, but I certainly worry about them. I know people down there. I know people in Triton, Port au Choix and Port Union, and I think we all are concerned about them. I think, because of that concern, we should have a right to know.

I think, as well, that it is incumbent on me and those of us over here who know something about this act - I am sure that my colleague, the member who represents Harbour Breton in the House, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, I think it is incumbent on him to ask the questions so that the people out there in those affected communities, and the people around the Province who care for those people in the affected communities, should at least hear the answers to our questions so that they can get a better understanding of what is happening in this Legislature with regard to FPI.

That is all I am asking. Unfortunately, when I ask those questions, I think the Premier becomes somewhat embarrassed over his flip-flops on the FPI Act. You know, he had his government vote to scrap the FPI Act last year, or to amend it to allow FPI to sell it. He stood and voted against it. He, himself, said we should not do it. I think that was a first in the House of Assembly where the leader of a government voted against something and the majority of his caucus voted for it. He called it a free vote, but we know what happened there last year. I think anyone opposite knows it was the biggest farce or the biggest charade ever perpetrated in the House of Assembly, and that is how it has been referred to, by the way, by a number of editorialists in the media who followed what happened.

I think that the Premier is actually embarrassed about how he and his ministers handled this file in the past twelve to twenty-four months, because there has been a lot of talk about what is going to happen in Harbour Breton, a lot of talk. There has been a lot of talk about what is going to happen in Fortune. He tries to put the big spin on it, that it is all under control; we are on top of the file. What we have come to realize over here is, when the Premier says I am all over it or I am on top of the file - I hope he never says that about me. I hope he never says he is all over me or on top of my file because, do you know why? I would be worried. Because every time the Premier has said that, we have seen a disaster. We have seen a disaster. He was all over the file in Stephenville, all over the Stephenville mill file. I am all over that; we are on top of it.

Every time we asked the question, what is going to happen in Stephenville? - back last spring, this time - he told us we were fearmongering. There is nothing going to happen to the mill in Stephenville because I gave a commitment out there during the election that Stephenville mill will never close under my watch. I think he even had it written on a stone out there during the election. Not a stone, a bolder. It is not going to happen - but, it closed because he was all over the file. He was on top of it.

The next thing, Harbour Breton - don't worry, people of Harbour Breton, don't worry about FPI closing down there. We are all over this file. We are on top of it. Do you know what that meant to the people of Harbour Breton? A make-work program. Today, hundreds and hundreds have left to find work elsewhere.

I heard one young lady, who left her daughter home with her parents while she drove to New Brunswick to join her husband to find work. I heard her one night on the Open Line show, actually, when the House was open. I went out for a cup of coffee there in the back room - the Premier keeps an eye on me. Every time I leave a meeting, or leave a room, he writes down how many times I am gone, I have left, and how long I was gone for. I am beginning to look around now and wonder if he has me under surveillance when I go to the washroom.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is that lady who called Open Line that night actually thanked the Premier and thanked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Yes, she said, I would like to thank the Premier and the Minister of Aquaculture for driving me and my husband out of the Province to find work, because they did absolutely nothing for them in Harbour Breton expect give them a bit of make-work and they have no future down there.

They are still down there today being toyed with, because we hear that Barry company wants to come in down there and process all these fish quotas that they do not have. Then we hear, all of a sudden, that Barry and company want to go in there but they cannot get an environmental clearance from FPI. The government says, well, we are going to force FPI to give them the plant, or we are going to force FPI to do the environmental study, and then we will pass the plant over to the community. Well, this has been going on now for three, four or five months. It has been going on. There is no resolution found on that yet.

I say to the minister, call up some construction company or go out and tender it, send them down to Harbour Breton - here is the solution, and it is simple: Go to tender with some environmental company, get them to go down into Harbour Breton, clean it up, and send FPI the bill. If FPI does not pay it, take their plant in lieu of payment of the bill and then pass the plant over to the Town of Harbour Breton. It is as simple and cut dry as that. Government has the authority to do it. If there is an environmental problem down there, FPI is obligated under the law to clean it up. If they don't do it, the government should spend the money and go in and do it. If FPI does not pay their bill, rather than take them to court, say we are taking your plant in lieu of the money you owe us. Because we did it. We did it in New Ferolle.

There was an individual in New Ferolle who owned a fish plant and owed money to government. What did the government do, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries? What did they do? They walked into New Ferolle and said: Listen, bucko, you owe us money. Give it to us. I do not have it. Okay, you are out. We are taking your plant. They did it! Then they went out, without any public notification, and gave it to somebody else. They have done it. So if you can do that in New Ferolle, minister, do it down in Harbour Breton. Then we will see if Mr. Barry is going to go in there. At least the people would know then if he was going in or if he was not.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are telling me to clue up, are you? No. Just keep going and get back on track.

Mr. Chairman, I think Harbour Breton, what is happening down there and the future of that town has a lot to do with FPI and the FPI Act, I would say a lot.

Fortune, the same thing. If FPI pulls out of Fortune, government comes out saying: Don't worry, don't worry, we have that solved. That is going to be solved. Cooke Aquaculture is looking at going into Fortune.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, they are looking at going into Fortune. They are looking at going into Belleoram. If I heard the spokesperson correctly, she said that they are looking at going into a lot of places but they are going into where it is best for them. She said she would be happy to look at the plant in Fortune because the minister asked her to, but she said we are not going into Fortune. That is what I heard.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is not correct. I do not know what she said but I did not ask her to look at the plant.

MR. REID: Well, she said government asked her to consider -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay. All right. Semantics. Cooke approached you people because, obviously, anyone in the fishing industry, whether it is here or in Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, they know what is happening in the other provinces and obviously they heard about the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton and Fortune.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Right. Yes, a Newfoundlander.

What they did, the lady - to be sidetracked - I digress, I say, because the Minister of Fisheries across the floor is asking questions and making comments, and I appreciate what he is saying.

Anyway, we were led to believe, and the people of the Province were led to believe, that Cooke Aquaculture were seriously considering going into Fortune. Then we hear from the spokesperson for that company: Yes, we will be interested in going in if we have a fish quota. Now, where are they going to get a fish quota? Loyola Hearn, the Minister of Fisheries, has every bit of fish that he is responsible for already allocated. He has his shrimp done and his crab and his cod and every species. They are already allocated. So there is none of that, and he has already said he is not giving them any. So, where are they going to get a quota?

What I am saying is, Harbour Breton is down there. Bill Barry is supposed to be in there processing all of this fictitious fish that was supposed to come from the federal minister; 50,000 tons of caplin and other pelagics, such as herring and mackerel. It has not materialized. In fact, they do not even have control of the plant. What really bothers me is the expectations that were raised in the town, because I am sure all of you people saw it. In fact, when Mr. Barry said he was going in there, guess what he did? He took his dragger that he owns and sent it into the harbour. I remember this gentleman standing on the wharf that day, he said to see that boat come in through the harbour there today is as good as giving me a million dollars. Because that is their hope for the future.

So, you build expectations and nothing happens. I said it publicly, sometimes no hope is better than giving you some hope and then dashing that hope from you. You are playing with people's lives and people's emotions and people's expectations, and I think you have to be honest. If you are serious about FPI's plant being turned over to Mr. Barry, I gave you a way to do it, but you have to be honest. We do not know what is happening in Harbour Breton. We do not know what is going to happen in Fortune and now we do not know what is going to happen in Marystown because while the summit yesterday - the Premier gets a bit irrate with me, but I said yesterday it was a good process. We heard all the problems.

The Member for Windsor-Springdale I think was there for awhile yesterday. The Premier did not mark down when you got there and when you left, when you picked up your pen or when you went to the bathroom, because that is what he did with me yesterday. I would like to know how many times the minster left the room yesterday to go to the bathroom and when he picked up his pen - and the Minister of Transportation, because he was there, too. I noticed myself that the member from Marystown never showed up there until after lunch. So, he missed the first four hours. The Premier is condemning me for having been there from 8:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock last night, and because I walked out for a cup of coffee or to go to the washroom I was condemned because I did not sit there all day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, MHAs only had two seats. So what does that mean? If you had a problem, I say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, about you only had seats - why didn't you ask the Premier to invite more of you? Sure, he was the one - it was written right on the front cover of the meeting yesterday: Premier's Conference on the Fishing Industry. So, if you never had a seat, then I suggest you should have taken that up with your Premier, your leader.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, again, I ask him if he would kindly keep his remarks in tune with Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

MR. REID: I will. Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the fishing industry and the fishing summit that we had yesterday which discussed FPI at one time. I do not know how much closer I can go to that in relevance in this act. I really and truly do not. I think you are only kidding me when you are saying that I should get back on the topic, because we were discussing FPI in the summit.

Mr. Chairman, all I am saying is that we should not be dashing people's hopes. We should have done something about this, and I think we could have two years ago when FPI came in and said that we were closing Harbour Breton. Once you opened the floodgates, you knew full well what was coming.

So, Mr. Chairman, I can talk all day on this. You will permit me an hour but I spoke for an hour the other day and, I think, you got the general gist of that. I am not too excited about the amendments that you are proposing because I do not think they go far enough in strengthening this act to force FPI to do what we would like to see them do. You have accepted two of our nine amendments, and I thank the minister for that, but I still leave today with a heavy heart because I do not think we have seen or heard the end of FPI and that bill will be back on the floor of the House of Assembly either to amend or to scrap. As the Premier says, to amend or to scrap.

We haven't seen the end of the plight of the people in Marystown because they haven't been back to work since the end of November or the middle of December this year. They have already lost five months of the year. That is something that is unusual down there. I do not think the Marystown fish plant has been closed for five months in a row in the last twenty-five years. Maybe the member who represents Marystown can get up and tell me if that is correct. It might have been longer than that. Even if the union accepted the proposal that FPI gave them as to the number of people who were going to work. They said a month ago, that even if you accept that now, you are not going back to work for six months. We are six months into a shutdown now and it is going to be another six months to open. That is a year that the plant in Marystown is going to be unoccupied, no one working, a full year. Just imagine! How many people are going to be left in Marystown? How many employees, who work in that plant, are going to be around? They have to make a decision. I heard nothing yesterday about a solution to that. The Member for Windsor-Springdale is looking at me. I heard nothing yesterday about a solution to what is going to happen in Marystown, Fortune, Harbour Breton, Port de Grave, St. Joseph's, Anchor Point. I heard nothing yesterday that gave me any sense of comfort, that the Bonavista plant, the one in Triton, the one in Catalina or the one in Port au Choix were going to be protected. I did hear some frightening remarks from some lead processors down there, one in the shrimp fishery who said we should close the shrimp fishery today. Just imagine! You heard him. One of the lead processors in the Province, Mr. Barry, said: We should close the shrimp fishery today. My goodness! I hope that he was kidding and I hope that he is wrong, because I have 150 people out in Twillingate in my district today in a shrimp plant. I have another one in Seldom. I only hope there is no truth in what he is saying, that we should shut that down or that there is something going to happen to cause it to shut down, because we are going to have an awful lot of unemployment in a lot of communities in rural parts of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, to say that I can't get excited about that would be an understatement. I am sure that when I sit down you won't have heard the last speech from me on the FPI Act. I can pretty well guarantee you that we are either going to be back saying, strengthen it further because FPI is still running roughshod over the people, or we are going to be back to scape the Act. I won't be voting for that, not under the circumstances I know of what is happening with FPI today.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down and let somebody else have a few words.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the Committee ready to deal with the amendments as put forward by both government and Opposition? Is there any more debate in Committee?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is some more debate. My colleague, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, was just speaking to the Opposition House Leader with respect to the amendments. He is right there now, so he will be speaking to it for a few moments.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank my colleague for saving the day for me there. I was out behind the curtain, as we say in parliamentary language, having a chat with the Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take a great deal of time. I proposed the amendments that the government is prepared to support earlier in the day, and I think at that time I indicated that two of those amendments were amendments that originated with the official Opposition. I wanted to acknowledge that and thank them for their perusal of the Act and the amendments that they proposed.

I know the Opposition proposed nine amendments in total, and seven of them, we feel, for one reason or another, either because we believe they may be too intrusive and get into micromanaging the company and we do not want to go there - we want to keep our controls on the company tight. We want to keep it realistic, things that we believe we can accomplish, but at the same time we do not want to make it so tight that the company cannot function.

To compare FPI to, say, Newfoundland Hydro, I do not really mean that. I just want to make a comparison. For example, if we were to accept the Opposition amendment on any portion - we are saying a substantial portion, but if we were to accept the Opposition amendment for FPI to divest themselves of any portion of their assets they would have to get approval from the government, from the Cabinet. We do not even have that kind of a restriction on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for example, which is a wholly owned Crown corporation of which the government, on behalf of the people of this Province, own the shares. We have to be realistic, we have to be careful. Where we think the Opposition has gone in the right direction in tightening up the wording here, we have agreed to those two amendments that I read into the record today.

Mr. Chairman, when I was reading the amendments into the record today I read from a draft that had a wrong wording in it.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I could have your attention. I say that kindly, Sir. Don't give me a parliamentary rap, I say that kindly.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: When I read the amendments into the record this afternoon, I read from a draft that had a word in it that is not supposed to be there. It is subsection 3. Today when I read it into the act I said: In subsection 1, property and assets include. The proper wording of the amendment that is before the House is: In subsection 1, property and assets mean. I suppose maybe it is semantics, but I think both the words mean the same thing. Maybe the word ‘mean' is clearer in parliamentary language, and I propose that.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman: I talked to the Opposition House Leader and we are going to propose one final amendment, which I believe the table has, and that is to the proclamation clause. The proclamation clause, as it stands now, clause 5, says: This Act comes into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The amendment, Mr. Chairman, will read as follows: Clause 5 of the Bill is repealed and the following substituted, "This Act or a section, subsection or paragraph of it comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council".

The reason behind this move, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. There is no hidden agenda here or anything of that nature. The fact of the matter is that this Legislature is saying to FPI, once this bill is passed you have to increase your Board of Directors to thirteen members. Right now, for example, I believe they have seven. They have to find, say, six new directors. That cannot be done overnight. We understand that. It is reasonable, appropriate and proper that we give the company some time, not a lot of time, but some time, maybe a week or two or something of that nature, to scout around, to come up with another six directors and have them appointed to the Board.

In the meantime though, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to leave all the other sections of the Act unproclaimed, the other sections of the Act that deal with the disposal of their assets, the substantial portion, the amendments put down by the Opposition as to defining what is meant by property, and those things. We do not want to leave those unproclaimed. We do not want to leave those not becoming law, because to do that, Mr. Chairman, might be dangerous. It might be tempting faith a little bit to do that, so we are not prepared to do that. We would like the concurrence of the Legislature, and I understand that the Official Opposition feels the same way, to pass the bill, pass the amendments, proclaim the amendments immediately, have the Act come into force immediately with the exception of the part of the Act dealing with the appointment of the additional directors. We understand that it is reasonable and proper that the company will need some additional time to do that. In the meantime, there is no reason why all the other parts of the amendments to the Act cannot have the full force and effect of law which will happen once it is passed by the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, based on concurrence from my colleagues on the other side of the House the amendments that we proposed - and I believe there is a method for dealing with all of the Opposition amendments as well. We will therefore move on to dealing with the amendments that are proposed for the legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have an opportunity here to make some comments in Committee stage with regard to Bill 32 which is An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

For my friends Joe and Martha again, we are in Committee stage now, and what we do here is we get into the nitty-gritty. We have all had our say in terms of the principles of the thing in second reading and now we are going to get into some detailed examination of the clauses, as to what government wants to do, whether we are in favour of it or not, if not why not, and some amendments that we have proposed, to discuss each of those, and why we feel those amendments are warranted.

Again, I would say at the outset, in general we are not opposed to Bill 32 in the principle of it, i.e., trying to add some strength or put some teeth into the Fishery Products International Limited Act. It is a case, I would say, of, as opposed to being opposed to it we feel that the government is not going far enough. If you are going to give it teeth, you ought to put some good teeth in it, some incisors and all kinds, and not just some false teeth and don't go the full way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is right.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, we feel, with all due respect, that you are not giving it enough teeth and the bite is not going to be big enough. That is what we are trying to do with the amendments that we have proposed.

I think I am on safe ground in saying, judging from the comments I have heard in second reading from the government, that we are at odds as to whether we can or cannot do something else or whether we should or shouldn't. I think we are in disagreement as to what we could do if we were of a mind to do it and had the political will to do it. We differ in that respect as well, particularly when it comes to some issues like quotas and so on.

With regard to amendment number 1 that we have put forward here - I will read it into the record, our number 1 amendment. We want to amend subsection 7(1) that the government has put in here. Basically what we are doing is we are suggesting we take out the word ‘substantial' in 7(1) which the government has there, and put in the word ‘any' portion of. To explain that, what the government is saying in number 1 is that without the approval of the government FPI nor Fishery Products International Limited cannot do certain things with their property, their business operations, their harvesting, their processing and their marketing of seafood.

In the old Act, when we go back to 1987 when we privatized the company - and I believe today's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was the Minister of Fisheries back at that time as well, when the 1987 was actually done privatizing it. That subsection 7.(1) used the words "all or substantially all" when it was describing what the company could or could not do with their harvesting and so on, and their marketing and processing.

What the government is doing here now in Bill 32 is, they are getting rid of the words "all or substantially all", basically, and putting in the word "substantial". I have some concerns with that, and I mentioned in second reading about the three legal opinions we had.

We had legal opinions in the previous Administration and from the current Administration as to what "all or substantially all" in this act means. We had, for example, the 2001 Stikeman Elliott legal opinion, where they looked at certain things that FPI was trying to do - or which were happening with FPI, it was the Clearwater reverse takeover of FPI - as to whether or not that would be in breach of section 7.(1). Stikeman Elliott, back then in 2001, says: No, we do not think they would be in violation of 7.(1) under that definition "all or substantially all".

Then we go ahead to 2005, when we had the Income Trust being considered, and again we went to Stikeman Elliott, another law firm called Fasken Martineau, and one called Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, and got three opinions on whether or not the creation of an Income Trust and splitting that off from FPI would be in contravention of this section 7.(1), all or substantially all.

When those three legal opinions came back - and we have read them again, and I have mentioned it in second reading - we got a difference of opinion here between these three respected national law firms.

Stikeman Elliott said, again, that the Income Trust would probably not be a violation of section 7.(1). That was confirmed by the Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt legal opinion which says that the Income Trust would probably not be a violation of 7.(1). Fasken Martineau said they thought it would be a violation. So, we have different legal opinions as to what all or substantially all meant.

Now, my question is: Where do we sit with those three legal opinions now with the government's proposed amendment? Because we are only moving from all or substantially all to substantial. I am of the view that the three legal opinions we had back from 2001 to 2005, which dealt with that issue, stand today. You will end up, if you went back to those three law firms and asked them do they vary their opinion now that government is going to put this amendment in, I would suggest they will come back with the same divided opinion. Because all we have done is change from all or substantially all for it to read substantial, which leads to the obvious question, again, of: Why, if government is going to be in the same predicament tomorrow with 7.(1) that they were in today before they change it on 7.(1), isn't that in and of itself clear evidence that the government's proposal of the word "substantial" is not going far enough? It seems to me to be quite common sense.

I think it is very obvious that government is not looking at these three opinions that were there, not taking them into consideration when they applied them to their new word "substantial". That is why the Opposition, in amendment number one, is proposing that, instead of the word "substantial" let's be very definitive about what we are saying FPI can do and cannot do. Instead of getting hung up on whether it is all or substantially all, or substantial, let's put in the words "any portion". That is a very common sense layman's definition. If FPI, or FPI International, gets rid of any portion - never mind if it has to be all or substantially all, or substantial - any portion whatsoever, they have to come back to the government. That, as I understand it, is one of the intentions of the government, to make sure that they have the proper controls, if they want, over the operations of the company. Why be hung up - with three legal opinions, again, I would submit that we are no further ahead by just using the word "substantial". Why not be definitive and definite? Any portion, if you want to do anything in the company, you have to let us know and we have to give you approval.

I do not think government has rationalized, really, why this amendment to substantial just does not cut it. It just does not cut it, and you are ignoring the very legal opinions that you had, and have had for three or four years, in defining that.

When we move on to amendment number two, we have basically inserted - section 7.(2) that the government has proposed is basically saying that the companies, FPI Limited or Fishery Products International, have to have government approval. Neither company shall sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest on, or otherwise dispose of, or allow or direct a subsidiary of it to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest on, or otherwise dispose of or close - we have just inserted the words "or close" - a processing facility or a plant.

The government's answer to that is, well, we don't want to be too intrusive. We cannot put in close a plant because we do not want to be too intrusive. How much more intrusive can you be than what the other parts of this 7.(2) do? What we are saying - because history has proven that the problems come about in this Province when the company makes a decision, such as Harbour Breton, to close, there is very little, if any, consultation between the company and the government before the decision is made. Then it gets made and all hell bursts loose.

All we are suggesting here by this amendment is, if they are going to close a plant or a processing facility, they come back to government. At least government, then, is informed before it becomes a matter of public knowledge, that we intend to close a plant and where it is going to be.

Now, I do not see that as being intrusive. I see that as being protective of the interests of any community that might be affected by such a closure. It also gives the community an opportunity to have input.

We find ourself here where, in the case of Harbour Breton, for example, it gets closed. The decision is made. Everybody is upset. The community is into shock. People up and move and go away. Why shouldn't we have a situation where it is more planned, it is more organized? At the end of the day it still might be the decision that has to be made, but at least we are not sitting with a plant closed and we are out looking for a person such as Mr. Barry to come in and try to salvage it, after the fact.

It is not like Fortune, for example, where the decision is made, the shock hits the community again, and then we are out looking for someone like Cooke Aquaculture to come in. It allows a proactive view. It might still happen, but the people who ultimately protect the interests of our FPI communities, the government, under this act, would at least be aware of the intended closure and could have input into it.

I would suggest it is very prudent, very wise, to have a set-up whereby government is informed up front, government has an opportunity to get other players in the game before the decision of closure is made and it makes the process that much more easy for the communities that are affected.

It is not intrusive, it does give certainty, and it protects the community and allows the community to have an opportunity before the final decision is made.

With regard to number three, we thank the government, and I think this is one case where it is quite obvious, people say you just do not oppose for the sake of opposing.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: The hon. the member, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member by leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

With regards to number 3, the government has accepted the amendment that we have put forward. The legislative draftsman of course has changed the wording a little bit. It has more to do with our English semantics than it has to do with what we are saying. The suggestion was that it did not go far enough again because it only talked about property in the Province, and we said it should be broad and it should include the property of either of these companies anywhere in the world. We suggested that it should be amended to reflect that. We want to have control over Danvers or we want to have control over their UK properties, the same as we could have control over Bonavista and Marystown.

It is good to see that government has accepted that amendment that has been put forward in the spirit that it was intended, for example strengthening the act. That is exactly what is going to happen with that amendment going forward. The only comment I would make is that the same good intent, the same sincerity and the same common sense that the government has sought in our number 3 and number 4 applies to the rest of our amendments as well, and ought to have been accepted.

The other one, and I have to comment on this again, that government has accepted amendment number 4 that we put forward. What we suggested here is that under the definition of property and assets in the act, we wanted it defined in such a way that property and assets included vessels, that it included all physical property owned by the companies anywhere in the world, including the marketing divisions of the companies and all company quotas.

I think it is rather telling that the government has finally accepted our proposals that we have to find some hook, we have to find some way, that everything that FPI owns, constitutional arguments aside and everything else, we have to find some hook under this legislation that we can bring to bear if need be against this company if they do not act in the best interests of this Province. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made about how you cannot do this with quotas and you cannot do something else, we now have government including quotas in the definitions of property and assets. Now, somebody might come back after this becomes law and take us to the court and say, you cannot include quotas into that. So be it, might lose, might win, but the bottom line is you had the intestinal fortitude to put it in there and say, whatever you own we are going to control. We will fight it out later as to whether you think we are right or wrong.

I think that is an admission by government finally. Instead of ducking the issue of the quotas, we finally have government here saying that quotas are going to be included under the definitions of property and assets. It is good to see.

I think, by the way, as an Opposition party, that is our role, to give constructive commentaries and proposals to government, because it is not our intent here to tear down something that we need. We are making these proposals as government is putting forward the legislation because we want to give some strength to this Act, not to tear it apart. These are two examples where we have put some incisors into this, some real teeth.

Amendment 5 - I am sort of at a loss again. I deal with the logic piece. If you look at Bill 32 that we are dealing with here, the government is saying in section 2 of this bill, which will become section 9 of the Act, the government has a subsection in there about 4. This is all about government trying to determine now whether or not someone is a substantial, significant shareholder, whether there is independence of people who sit on the Board from significant shareholders, and that is what this section 9 will deal with when it becomes law.

If you read subsection 4 it says: In subsection (3) - where you are talking about how a majority of the Board of Directors shall be independent of a significant shareholder or an associate of a significant shareholder it says, "...a director is independent if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would conclude that the director is independent of a significant shareholder or an associate of a significant shareholder of either corporation."

I do not know about anybody else out there but Joe and Martha, I am sure, like myself, believe that when we start using terminology like a reasonable man in legislation something is lacking. That is not very definitive. That is not very certain. If a reasonable person - it actually says a reasonable person - should say that is a significant investor, stakeholder, who is that going to be? It does not say who it is. Are we, on every single opportunity, going to have to go to the courts to find out what is reasonable or who that reasonable person is? It does not say here that government is going to make that determination. Who makes the determination? Who is this reasonable person who we are leaving this to? Again, that is why we raise it. What is the point of suggesting you are strengthening the Act if you do not go actually to the point of strengthening it.

That is why we proposed an amendment. If you compare what they are saying about reasonable person to what we are saying, we are saying: "(4) No director shall serve as a director, officer or employee of a competitor, customer or supplier..." of the company or be a major shareholder of a competitor, customer or supplier, "...unless specifically approved by the other members of the Board of Directors by majority vote, and by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as otherwise permitted by applicable law." Now, that is pretty definitive. It doesn't say that you are automatically off the board because of certain circumstances. It does not leave it for any reasonable person to figure out whether you are off or on. It actually allows - and I think this ties in.

The Premier made a valid comment in the media last week when he talked about: we have this balance to make here between having people on the board who may be a competitor of the company, such as Mr. Risley, for example, in some aspects, yet he is a very knowledgeable man about the fishing industry. You do not want to become so unbalanced and unhinged here that the very expertise you might wish to call upon from their board of directors, you might be ruling it out because of this definition. What we are proposing here is, you can still have the John Risleys of the world involved, if you wish, or the Bill Barrys, who might actually be competitors of the company, but at least the person who this is intended to protect, the people of this Province, get the final say as to whether there is a conflict or not or they feel it is a conflict, because it requires the majority of the board to sanction that person plus the government of this Province to sanction that person. Again, I think it is a no-brainer. Why are we leaving it uncertain again with using the words "reasonable person". We are prepared to admit that the government is a reasonable person. Let's not have some courts or whatever on every particular circumstance deciding what is reasonable. Let the government do it. You are in control of it.

Again, I think the amendment as you have there in 9(4) is uncertain, it is weak, it is not putting any teeth in here. If anything, it is leaving this government open to court actions again when it comes to determining what is a significant investor, and if you are independent of a significant investor. It defies common sense again. All we are saying is, let's do what is sensible, or else, if we are really in a pickle, in the sense that we do not know what this board is going to do because it may or may or not have competitors and such, does anybody in this Province actually think that by passing this law with this clause 4 in here today that is going to stop those people from doing what they wanted, assuming they even had any nefarious types of motivations, which I doubt. No. If they have ill motives, they are going to use a clause like clause 4 that you are putting in here to bang you over the head with. Instead of being teeth it is going to become a hammer for them to use back, I suggest. That is the last thing in the world we want to do, is give anybody who might be associated with this company as a shareholder or on the Board of Directors anything they can use against the government and stymie your desire to have control. I think it is very shortsighted of this government to leave that wishy-washy definition in section 4.

I move on to amendment 6. Amendment 6 talks about appointing two directors to the Board of Directors. We had all kinds of comments saying, oh, don't know if that is possible, don't know if that can be done. I am not aware of anything under the Corporations Act which prohibits it. I am not aware of anything in the exchange commissions, the Toronto Stock Exchange or the regulatory agencies of this country or this Province whereby you cannot appoint directors to it. If the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture know or have any legal opinions in that regard which say that is improper and you can't do it, I would certainly like to see them. I am not prepared to accept bald-faced that, no, you cannot do that. I would like for somebody to show me why we can't do it. Don't just tell me we can't do it.

Surely, if we are talking about creative thought processes, why wouldn't we? You have gone so far here, as a government, to say we are going to increase the membership of this board from seven to thirteen. What is wrong in saying, two of those thirteen shall be appointed by the government? Government passes laws saying we are going to have appointees on school boards, hospital boards, zone boards, whatever we want to put them on. It is our law. Why can't we say that of the thirteen - if we can take this law and say we are going to increase it from seven to thirteen, why can't we go that little half inch further and say how the thirteen are composed. Two of them are going to be our appointees, thank you very much. If you don't like that logic, say we are going to have fifteen, the thirteen you want and put on two government appointees.

I think the reason we are suggesting they should be there is quite obvious. It comes back again to the openness and the transparency of the board, and their motivations. We find ourselves, as a Province, with our flagship, having decisions made about marketing arms, processing facilities, plant closures, hirings and firing of senior officials and officers of the company after the fact.

I was in this House and asked the Minister of Fisheries a question myself one day about: What information did you get when you went to FPI looking for the information that you wanted on Harbour Breton and on certain things like the Income Trust and whatever, and the operations? Didn't get it all, he said, wouldn't give it to me. That was his response - and that is the truth - didn't get it. He said, they wouldn't tell us about their shellfish operations, and what they did in crab or shrimp, wouldn't tell me.

Well, I don't think FPI ought to have any right to tell this Province, who created this thing, that we ain't gonna give you the information.

I am suggesting, and we are suggesting by this amendment, that we get around that problem of waiting for them to tell us what we can and cannot find out. If we put our own two nominees on the board, they are the government's eyes and ears, and the Minister of Fisheries doesn't have to be going cap in hand looking for the information and demanding it, and getting it probably after the fact, weeks and months later, and puts the government in a position of being reactive again. The government should have their own eyes and ears on that board. If something is going to be done that is going to negatively impact this Province, or anybody in it or outside of here when it comes to their assets and property, we ought to know about it, and not when the horse is out of the barn. We ought to know before the horse is gone.

That is all the intent is, of this amendment, to put two directors on the board. I have not had anybody on the other side yet stand up and tell me what is wrong with that amendment, or show me why you cannot do it, not a person. We are just going to disregard it. Thank you very much, we do not want to do it, can't do it, not going to do it. I do not think that is being constructive. I do not think that is dealing with this thing in a common sense manner.

I am very disappointed to see that the government could accept what I thought were two of the major amendments we put forward, number three and number four, and particularly the inclusion of the quota piece in the vessels, and yet not accept this common sense, straightforward recommendation to put two members on the board.

I look forward to the minister, at some point in this Committee, telling me today why he cannot do it. Now, surely it has nothing to do with being intrusive. Where do you balance out the intrusive piece to your right to know and to be informed? That is all we are saying. You do not want to be too intrusive. You are not trying to take over the board. You are just saying that two of the thirteen, or two of the fifteen, whatever you want to do it - you do not have to tamper with the numbers so as to be seen playing games with the numbers of directors. It could be one director, if you want. At least you have a set of eyes and ears. I look forward, some time in this debate, to the minister telling me why that cannot be done or should not be done.

That brings me to our amendment number seven. When we talk about, again, the committees that the board might strike out, just for those who do not understand, sometimes, how the companies work, you could have a board of directors, which in this case is going to have thirteen members at the end of the day, once this becomes law, but there are all kinds of committees of the board. You can have an executive committee of the board, you can have a human resources committee of the board, you can have a finance committee of the board, you can have a marketing committee of the board. There are all kinds of committees, and what the government is saying here - in fact, they are proposing an amendment today which says the same thing, that on these committees as well there must - we are dealing with the issue of significant shareholders and potential conflicts and so on. What we are saying in our amendment is, let's make sure that not only do we put two members on the board, that if you are going to set up committees of the board you must have at least one of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed directors on those committees. Again, for the purpose of eyes and ears, because there is no point in just saying they are going to be on the board, if it is the executive committee of the board that might consist, for example, of the chairman and the CEO and one other who makes all the decisions and they are done and said before you actually know about it. That is just a common sense thing again to make sure that there is a government set of eyes and ears on the company committees.

Number eight we have here, you talk about corporate governance. I have heard the words corporate governance coming across the House and in the media, and the government, how they explain this thing. Basically, what we are suggesting here is, our amendment, number eight, establishing a committee of the board on corporate responsibility. Again, it adds to the good governance needs of the company. That is what we are saying.

It also talks about reporting regularly to the board and annually to the House of Assembly. Again, not draconian, not intrusive. We are saying, you are going to have a committee of your company called corporate responsibility. The committee shall review and define and monitor performance of the company's responsibilities as set out in the act and as a good corporate citizen, including the growth, the strengthening of the fishery in the Province, maximum development stability - employment stability, rather - and resource stewardship. That committee will report to the board and to the Province annually.

Now, what could be more common sense? If one of our concerns is whether or not these companies are living up to the spirit and intent of the act, then having a committee that monitors the activities of the company and comes back here on an annual basis to this House and says this is what we did, this is our report. I do not understand it. We are insisting that every other body or agency in this Province file annual reports on just about everything. We are getting them here in the House every day, reports from standing committees and others, everything from workers' comp to, you name it, exceptions to the Public Tender Act - we have had those today - every school board, hospital board, right to your yin-yang you get reports. Why can't we just say here, probably one of the most important companies - I understand the single biggest private sector employer outside the Avalon Region is FPI. Yet, we are not insisting that they come back here, who controls them, and tell us what they are doing?

I think government has fallen far short. You cannot insist on the one hand that you want to informed and, on the other hand, you will not take common sense motherhood, protective, certain, actions such as outlined here.

The other amendment we are proposing - some of these, by the way, sometimes they tend to get a bit technical. That is just to make the wording fit what you need to say here. This is our amendment number nine. It is not dealing with anything that the government is proposing in Bill 32. What it deals with, actually, is, it goes back to the act, original act of 1987.

You will all recall we had a big discussion, and an all-party committee dealt with it, about the 15 per cent ownership rule. I had this discussion with the Minister of Fisheries, actually, some months ago outside of the context of what we are dealing with FPI right now, but a general discussion of where I thought we were weak on the 15 per cent rule. Actually, the FPI Act of 1987, when it talked about the 15 per cent rule, it actually says that the board - the board - shall determine if the 15 per cent rule is being abided by.

When I read that in section B, I thought to myself, there is something wrong here. There is something wrong. We are passing a law saying that no one company or person can own more than 15 per cent of this company, and we are putting in a provision saying that it is the very board of that company that is going to tell us whether or not they have violated that rule and regulation. That is a little bit to me like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Do not touch the hens but, meanwhile, we are going to let you look after the henhouse. We are not going to watch you. We are not going to put any eyes there, no shotguns but do not break that rule about 15 per cent.

What we are proposing as an amendment here is we are saying it should not be the Board of Directors of FPI who decide whether the 15 per cent rule is violated or not. We are saying it should be government or some independent body that decides that. I mean, it is ridiculous! It is like telling someone who smokes, you lock them up and there is a pack of smokes: Do not touch it. You are not allowed to smoke. You do not touch those smokes. Yet, they are in charge of themselves. That is not good enough. You cannot, on the one side, talk about having teeth and having strength and seeing that the intent and spirit of the act is complied with and then not taking the moves to make sure it is complied with. That is all we are suggesting here. Again, I am elated to see that the two amendments you have accepted, I think, add very substantially to this Bill 32 to what you are trying to do.

These other amendments are far less intrusive of the two you have accepted, are far less meddling in the company. It is all geared to an assurance of oversight by the government, an assurance of being certain, an assurance of being informed of what the company is doing and this government says no to those common sense security provisions that we are putting in there. Yet, accepts two very important amendments about the quotas and the vessels and where the property of the company is and so on.

So, I am pleased to see that you accepted certain amendments. I am disappointed that you did not accept the others. I fear, I do fear, despite what we are doing here - and, at the end of the day, I do not know about the NDP, but I feel certain that everybody over here is going to be voting for this Bill 32 and the amendments that the minister has now accepted that we put forward. But I do fear that we are going to be back here again. We were here in 2005. Actually, if you rewind the clock a little bit further back, the former Administration had to deal with the issue of the NEOS thing back in 2000. Then we had the Clearwater reverse takeover in 2001. Then in the fall of 2004, we started this Income Trust process. We do not get around to dealing with it until last June of 2005. We are back here again now in the spring of 2006. I mean, there is a pattern here. There is a pattern here that this act has probably been back to this Legislature more than any other act in the Province, if you look at it, going back to 1983, 1987, 1993 and all-party committees of the House being struck.

I think we are going to be back here again, either in 2006 or in 2007, if you do not put these extra teeth that we are suggesting in there. It is going to come down again, I think, to the issue of information providing. I do not think for one minute you can limit the control of the directors and everything else that you want to do, which is good with this act, but if you do not deal with the access to information piece properly, we are no further ahead. We are always going to find ourselves in a reactive position where we are told that we are closing the plant, we are selling off such and such and we find out about it after the fact. That is the sad piece that is missing here. We have the opportunity to put those oversight provisions in there, and we are not doing it. It is not intrusive. It is not infringing upon the companies rights or the shareholders rights as a publicly traded company. In no way does it infringe upon the shareholders rights. It just simply allows this Province to know what is going on. We can never forget the fact that this company would never exist if this Legislature did not create it, and they have to live with that.

Like the Minister of Fisheries said - he tells the truth all the time in my opinion, and he said it again the other day. We have to worry about intrusive on the one piece, and he stands up and says: Anybody who invested in this company knew what they were getting into when they got in. John Risley did not put his bucks into FPI and not know the rules, and not know that FPI was a creation of this Legislature and could at any time be brought back to this Legislature for changes. Mr. Armoyan, anyone else, Mr. Barry, John Doe, Joe and Martha who bought shares in the company know. So we do not have to worry about somebody saying you are changing the rules on us now. It was always known by these people.

These institutional investors for example, like pension funds and whatever, who go out and buy shares in these companies and expend millions of dollars in investing, do you think they do not know and did not know when they put their money in that they might be subject to the laws of this Province and that this act might come back and be changed? I do not think these people who invest those kinds of monies - I do not think for a minute John Risley is a fool, not at all. I think he is a very smart man who knows what he is doing with his bucks. He would not be as successful if he was not. I do not question his motives of what he is trying to do with FPI, but that is aside from the point of what we have to - what he wants to do and what he feels the interests are, that is fine and I do not quibble with that. All we are trying to do as a Province is say that when you do it, Mr. Risley, we just want an accounting as a Province that is all. Nothing more and nothing less. We want to be informed about what you are doing with the company that we created, that affects the lives of so many people in our Province. All we are asking is to be informed and if you are going to do certain things, you have to have our approval. That is all that is happening here.

So, we cannot talk on the one hand about being intrusive and changing rules and contrary to this and contrary to that. All these people in that game knew what the rules were when they got in, so we should have no qualms and concerns about whether they feel we are too intrusive. That is why I raised again - some people thought I was being negative again when I raised the issue of the investment climate, when I made reference to the Ben Nevis thing. We have to face reality. I mean, the statements are made. I did not make the statements. The statements are out there by the government. Decisions are made, for whatever reason, for right or for wrong.

Right now the negotiations, for example, on the Ben Nevis thing are shut down. They might be on again tomorrow, and I hope they are. I absolutely hope they are. Tomorrow morning if I woke up and the lead story on the CBC is that the discussions on Hebron-Ben Nevis were back on full force, that would be very positive. The point I was making, when I made the comment, is we cannot be over there out publicly having the governments and the oil companies saying that Hebron-Ben Nevis and the offshore industry in this Province is basically shut down - which no doubt, anybody would tell you, is a negative factor when it comes to our investment climate. Then, on the other hand, be over there saying: Well, we cannot touch FPI because people might think that we are tampering with the investment climate. If you are doing it for the right reasons, which I believe the government is, and that is for the protection of this Province and the people of this Province when it comes to FPI, do it. Don't second guess yourselves.

I think, in fact, the people who are on that board or the people who go on that board and the shareholders of that company will have a lot more respect for this Province and the people in it if they know that we are dealing with them firmly but fairly. That is all we are saying here, is that these amendments address the issue of accountability, transparency, being informed and be protective of the interests of the people of this Province, which is not where it is right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words about the amendments. I know we are going to be voting on them individually in a few moments.

I, first of all, want to commend the Liberal caucus and the Leader and Government House Leader for putting together a series of amendments to this Act and presenting them with great detail and great sincerity. They have done a lot to try to strengthen the legislation. I am certainly noting with great interest that the government has accepted a couple of these amendments which will ensure, first of all, that quotas are included in the assets of the property. That is something that the All-Party Committee dealt with, did not get a resolve to, but had been promised by FPI a binding agreement on quotas. In fact, I have a letter here with me dated in June of 2001 from Derrick Rowe stating just that, that they undertook, the directors and the company, to ensure that all present and future quotas be operated within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, caught and processed here. That wasn't a binding agreement, Mr. Speaker. The All-Party Committee asked for a binding agreement in the absence of which the committee recommended that legislation be passed ensuring that was the case.

In this particular case here we have a standstill provision that says the quotas can't be dealt with without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council which is the Cabinet. I am certainly pleased that the government has done that.

They have clarified, secondly, that wherever located is used as a phrase instead of just assets in the plants in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and ensured that any committees of the board ought not to be controlled by other than independent shareholders, ones who are independent of a significant shareholder or of an associate of a significant shareholder by their corporation. That is a substantial limitation on the Act.

With respect to the other amendments, I think we will deal with them one by one when they come before the Floor, and cast our votes on them. I think they are sincere attempts to strengthen the Act. I haven't seen the legal opinion on all of them.

There is this issue that was discussed in the House in the last few days, as to how far a government can actually go without effectively taking over the company, without taking it over. As I said in the House on Tuesday, you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb because the kind of intrusion, when it goes to a certain point, you actually are effectively taking over control of the company and you might as well do that.

That obviously is my preferred position, Mr. Chairman, and as I said earlier, I believe this legislation is going to turn out to be stop-gap legislation because something more substantial will have to be done in the next few months. I expect that we will be back here sometime in the next few months dealing with a new approach to FPI Limited, because once these amendments that are here go through, including the government's amendments, we are going to see some reaction both from the Directors of FPI and potentially from the stock market as well.

I think there is a recognition in the Province that we have a major crisis in our fishery and substantial action has to be taken. A part of that will include, I believe, ensuring that the marketing arm, the international marketing arm which was built up over twenty years by FPI, will and should play an important role in the improvement of our fishery in the Province and become a vehicle potentially for the marketing of all our fish products. That is something that has been floated only in the last few days, but I think it is something that deserves the earnest consideration of the industry. I know the union has indicated today that they are very interested in exploring this option, and I hope that leads to some really hard discussions and thinking on behalf of the fish processors. I believe what was stated by the Premier yesterday to be a very substantial position and I would call it a very substantial offer by the Premier to the fishing industry, one that is very much in keeping with the original notions of what FPI was supposed to do for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador back in 1984.

I may speak again at third reading just in a general way, but the amendments that have been proposed, I congratulate the Liberals on putting forth these nine amendments to the amendment of the Act. I believe that some of them have merit. Some of them have been accepted and some of them may be things that are not advisable at this time, but we will deal with them in voting one at a time as we go through.

I do want to say for the record that we will be voting for the amendments put forth by the government to the Act to strengthen the provision with respect to directors and the provision with respect to the changes in the restrictions on the disposal of assets, and also, of course, the repeal of the legislation that was passed last summer. I think we go back to prior to that, we strengthen the legislation, we ensure that the things that we have seen taking place by the directors of late, and particularly those with interest hostile to the company - we have a very grave concern that if this legislation is not passed now, we do not know what we will be dealing with in two months or three months or six months time.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to move shortly to the individual amendments and we will vote on them as they come forward.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is ready to call the individual clauses to Bill 32. If it is the wish of the Committee: since we have thirteen amendments to Bill 32, maybe the only way to create less confusion is I will recognize the Government House Leader, we will deal with the Government House Leader's amendments to clause 1, then we will deal with the government's amendment to clause 1, and proceed with each clause in that direction with whatever amendments are put forward. We will deal with the Opposition Leader's amendments first.

The Chair has had an opportunity and has conferred with the Table, and all of the amendments are in order. The Chair will not rule on each individual amendment whether they are in order or not because they are all in order.

I now call on the Opposition House Leader as we call clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

I seek direction again. Are the amendments going to be read into the record for the second time or will be just call the amendments as already put forward by the member?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I think we just vote on the amendments as put forward by the Opposition, then we will vote on the amendments as put forward by government, and then we will be done.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall the amendment as put forward by the Opposition in clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair deems the amendment defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall amendment 2 to clause 1 as put forward by the Opposition carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall amendment 3, as put forward by the Opposition to clause 1, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the fourth amendment, as put forward by the Opposition to clause 1, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 1 as put forward by the government carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.'

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 1 carried as amended.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

Shall the amendment, as put forward by the Opposition to clause 2, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the second amendment, as put forward by the Opposition to clause 2, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the third amendment to clause 2, as put forward by the Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment, as put forward by the government to clause 2, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried as amended.

On motion, clause 2 carried as amended.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

Shall the amendment, as put forward by the Opposition to clause 3, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall the proposed amendment to the clause, as put forward by the Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The proposed amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as put forward by the government to clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment to the proclamation, clause 5, is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 5, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as put forward by the Opposition to Schedule B of the act carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Chair report Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, carried with amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 32, as amended, is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your diligent work.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 32 carried, with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, passed with some amendments.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said amendments be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The amendments to Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that the said amendments be read a second time?

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments to Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

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

I know that we have two speakers left in third reading, so I do now move third reading of the bill. That will allow, I think, my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who wants to have some remarks in third reading, and then will allow the Premier of the Province who wants to close debate on Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know we do not often have third reading debate to any great extent, but we had a second reading debate on the general principles of the bill and we have had a number of amendments debated today, and some passed, amendments to the amendment.

We have also had an important intervening event since second reading as well, Mr. Speaker, and that consisted of the fisheries forum that was held yesterday, attended by some seventy delegates, representatives of the processing industry, a number of representatives of the fisheries union, and some independent processors, plant workers and communities.

I think it was an important forum, Mr. Speaker, because there is a recognition that we have either a crisis or a need, a strong need, for a major restructuring effort in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a lot of ideas tossed around. Some of them rehearsed the problems that we have had in the fishery for many years, and there is a general consensus that there needs to be some serious restructuring in our fishery. That is going to require significant programs from governments at the provincial level and at the federal level, but there is a willingness within the industry and within the union to go through that process.

One of the issues that was on the table yesterday for discussion, which is a piece that is not yet finished, in fact, has to do with FPI. I think there was a response to the kind of comments that were made in this House in the exchange on Tuesday between myself, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Leader of the NDP, and the Premier, in which the notion of this particular bill, how far it is going, will it have any real effect on the future of the fishery in the Province, were discussed.

I said, during second reading debate, and I say again today, that I do not believe that these amendments are going to do what needs to be done to ensure that Fishery Products is going to be the vehicle that we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, hope and expect it can be for the fishery of the future in this Province. I believe that we are going to be back here again in a number of months dealing, for the fourth time in four years, with Fishery Products Act legislation. In the interim, I will certainly support this legislation.

What was discussed yesterday and what I believe to be a very substantial position and move from the government is the possibility that there could be a consortium, or co-operative, or a venture that would involve a number of interests in the fishery in the Province that could play a role in a restructured FPI as a vehicle for a significant marketing arm for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

That is something that I think deserves fair consideration by the industry and by the processors because we cannot (inaudible). The status quo - I think the consensus yesterday was, and the Premier stated afterwards - is not an acceptable position for our fishery, is not an acceptable position for our communities. The way forward is going to involve, perhaps, less people involved in the processing side and less people in the harvesting side. If we continue to do the fishery with a smaller group of people the way it is done today, then we will not have achieved anything except reduce the size of the people benefitting from the fishery.

We do need to improve the quality. We do need to improve the ability of fishers to not be forced to try and catch all of their fish at one particular time. We can get better prices in the market. We can have a market-driven fishery as opposed to a fishery that is driven by what comes over the wharf that people are forced to try and sell at whatever price they can get.

That can only happen with a substantial change in attitude in how we prosecute the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that a significant element of that can be an FPI marketing arm that can act as the vehicle for the marketing of all Newfoundland and Labrador fish products, presumably on a voluntary basis. As was said yesterday, we are not going to get behind something like this unless they can do a better job than we are doing now ourselves. I believe that we have seen, over the last twenty-five years, or twenty years, the buildup of a very significant and important asset, a brand for Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and FPI, access to markets, a very sophisticated organization and a high capacity to be able to deliver a quality price and market penetration for Newfoundland and Labrador products. That is something that I think would be a very desirable thing to see. In fact, as was pointed out by Richard Cashin yesterday, something that the original FPI was conceived of in 1983 as one of its major roles to be that vehicle for Newfoundland and Labrador fish products.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that that idea takes hold within the industry. The government has a significant role to play in that, both in terms of leadership and in terms of being able to - I think the Premier called it a passive investment yesterday, but an investment nonetheless, that would see that potential coming into being.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support these amendments because I think they are necessary at this time, but I believe in the medium-term, and maybe even in the short-term, there is going to have to be substantial, significant change in the structure of FPI if the goals that we appear to share in this Province and in this House of Assembly are to be realized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try and be as brief as I can. First of all, what I would like to do is thank all hon. members. This debate is very similar to the last debate that we had on FPI. It has been very orderly, very constructive and people have made good suggestions. They have shown their passion for the fishery, for the act, for the company, and their interest in the company.

I find it, I guess, somewhat ironic that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and I are closing debate on this - which I assume we may be closing it - at this particular point in time. I thank him for observing his passion for the fishery over the years. We did practice law together and those are the times I referred to, when you were incorporating the company and Rick Cashin was around. It was interesting, Jack - excuse me, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - to see Rick sit there for so long and not open his mouth yesterday. He was very patient. He was wonderful. He sat there from 8:30 until 6:00 o'clock before he gave his viewpoint, which is always a very solid, honest and appreciated viewpoint. That is why yesterday, I think, was just such a wonderful exercise. I am going to come back to that.

One comment which came yesterday from Alec Noseworthy, the Mayor of Fortune, he said the proposed amendments to the FPI Act is a very strong step, which was good to hear from him. It was nice to hear that a community that was under some stress appreciated what was going on, appreciated what we are doing in this Legislature and appreciated the fact that we were stepping up.

The one thing that I am very comfortable with and very pleased with is the fact that this has been a thorough process. I want to thank the hon. members opposite for the amendments and for the debate on the amendments. I think there was some concern expressed in the beginning that this government would not accept amendments. I just want to assure them, that is what this process is all about. That is what this Assembly is all about. That is what this debate is all about. We do not have all the answers. We do not pretend to have all the answers. We never will have all the answers.

If by through the benefit of the expertise of the Opposition House Leader, our other people in the Assembly here who are able to bring constructive changes, well then obviously we embrace them and we accept them. The amendments that were proposed today were very seriously considered by Cabinet, in conjunction with the officials in the Department of Justice. We do have four lawyers around the Cabinet table - I guess it is four. It might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing, I do not know. At least they are able to give the benefit of their expertise, just as other hon. members and other Cabinet ministers are able to bring the benefit of their background to such a discussion. So, I am satisfied that it has gotten a very thorough scrutiny. It is delicate, you have to strike a balance here.

I guess I have touched first on the comments by the Opposition House Leader. I was just listening to him when I was upstairs preparing some notes. He indicated he is not opposed, in principle, generally to what we are doing here. I guess it is all about striking the balance as to what is intrusive, what is not, how far do you go to protect. The only time you got political is when you talked about Hebron and I bristled a little bit on that, but I am not going there. I think you understand, and I think you indicated too in debate on the whole Hebron exercise is that it is important that we keep their feet to the fire - those were your words. You said that it is important that we stand up for what we believe in. I see this as a little bit different than that.

The Hebron thing is about getting equity, getting a piece of our action. It is about not giving away our resources. This is more of a governance issue. Now, it is protecting our resources but it is a governance issue. So, when we are scrutinized by the corporate world or by the national media or by national legal experts, we have to make sure that we do not cross the line. That is the delicate balance that we have tried to strike here, and it is not easy.

You are quite right when you say that when you get legal opinions they can go either way. That is how we make a living - or that is how we used to make a living, I used to make a living. But that's the way it is. There are legal opinions that come on both sides, but it is up for us then to basically adjudicate on those opinions and take the best advice we can and try and find something that allows us to protect the interests of the people of the Province as far as we can without exposing us to liability. I think that is the difference. When we got into issues where we felt we were so intrusive that we were going to basically jeopardize shareholders rights, then we had the concern, outside the privative clause, of perhaps instigating some possible legal action.

One thing which you mentioned was the whole question of the reasonable person, which came up in one of the sections. The precedent that we used for that, if I remember correctly, was the B.C. legislation. So, that is directly out of the B.C. legislation. As I was watching it, I was thinking, someone listening out there might think this is really kind of a soft, foolhardy kind of a test because it is just a reasonable person. I think the people who probably are not in the legal community do not realize that the reasonable person test is something that has been used for years and years and years, back in - and I am going back thirty-five years now. When you go back to law school, I mean, in tort law, the reasonable person - the reasonable man it was in those days, it wasn't correct at the time, but that was the test that was used. It was a reasonable foreseeability test, and that is not an unusual terminology in legislation. I can give the assurance that we can be comfortable. It appears that there is a certain vagueness to it. However, in listing sometimes the criteria, you pin yourself down to those criteria. Sometimes a broader test, a reasonable person test will allow you to go even further and protect the interest. So, I just want to point that out, that this is not something that is unusual. It is in other legislation in other provinces. As well, it is something that is steeped in common law and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years.

The issue of appointing a director - and I am just dealing with some of the points that kind of jumped out when you were speaking - the Newfoundland and Labrador Government appointing someone on the board of directors. There are a couple of problems. One is, that when you do it, that director then becomes a director of the company. They then have a fiduciary duty. They then are responsible to act in the best interest of the company. Concerns of government and Cabinet and caucus were that they are, then, not in a position really to consort or to come back and confide and break the confidentiality of that fiduciary duty that they have as directors. So, we placed them there for good reason, but then we would not be able to get the benefit of the fact that they were actually on the board to come back to you. So it placed the person, who is appointed, in a difficult position. It also makes it difficult because then we are deemed to be party and privy to anything that goes on. In the interesting situations we have now, where charges are possible and are possibly pending, you could have a situation where the government has to take action against the company and one of our own is on the board of directors. Then you get into a really tough, inherent conflict of interest. So, I just want to assure the hon. member, that we have thought this through. There is a balance, as to the question of how far you go, but we thought, quite frankly, that would create us more problems than it actually resolved.

Again, the other point is with regard to the governance and giveaway. This is a governance issue, so we have to be careful that we can satisfy the scrutiny of the corporate legal community in Canada because if we go too far and we are deemed to be too intrusive, then we do not want to have the tag of a banana republic down here. Although, people clearly understand that this is a legislated corporation. We do say, and the minister has said, and you acknowledged it today, that when people come in and invest, they come in and invest, basically, at their own risk. They know that the act governs the company, but there is also a certain degree of stability and certainty that they have an expectation of, and we can understand that. Now, the main reason that this has happened, of course, is because we felt that the controlling shareholders, the significant shareholders, and/or the directors, some of them wear both hats, were acting outside the best interests of the company.

It is quite clear, the purposes of the act, which were amended some time ago - I am just going to go through those briefly, afterwards, but - to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is very general. To continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship. So, if it is going to be widely held, then you have to basically respect that in the actions of the board of directors, the representation of the board of directors, the independence of the board of directors, so that a small group cannot act in concert in order to control the company. This is why, of course, we have the amendments today which go beyond that and go actually into the committees.

To recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions. To ensure maximum employment stability and productivity. So, good preamble, good purposes, very clearly set out what it is, so people who invest in the company come in with their eyes open; they know that is there.

Now, if we were to dramatically change that, they may have cause for saying, okay, now the ground rules have changed. However, those are very broad and we, as a government, and I think hon. members of this House, know that they really stepped outside that. Therefore, we have good reason and good justification, certainly to our own people, who would support us, I think, to the hilt, whatever we decide to do with this act, but also justification to the rest of the world and the rest of the country that what we are doing is proper here because we feel that the directors have gone beyond what they were authorized to do. Striking a balance again is a difficult situation, but that is what we have attempted to do.

I do want to take issue with the Opposition Leader. As I listened to his comments, he spoke in terms of flip-flops, and he spoke in terms of, you have to be honest. I bristled today during Question Period, and I am not going to heat this up. I do not intend to heat this up. I think we need to have a really rational discussion about this, but there is a reciprocal obligation, to be honest, absolutely. If he is going to indicate that we have to be honest, I honestly do think that we, as hon. members in caucus or in Cabinet and throughout this Assembly, try to be as honest as we can and as forthright as we can to the best of our ability.

I did take exception today, and I did it during Question Period. If we are going to be honest, we have to make sure that when we are speaking to the public in our capacity as somebody who has authority, who is leader of a party, or the Opposition Leader or the House Leader or an MHA, we have a duty to be clear and to not misrepresent in any manner whatsoever what has gone on.

The summit yesterday, for those who were there, and I notice a comment was made that basically some of the other members did not show, were not there for long periods of time, moved in and moved out, and I was not checking on them. Well, the arrangement that we had is, we only had five members from the governing party there, which represents about 55 per cent of the Legislature as opposed to 75 per cent which we actually hold. We thought that was fair. We, as a government, could have loaded up, invited everybody, and blocked the room down there, but we did not think that was fair to the stakeholders in the room. We had five, the Liberal Party had three, and the New Democratic Party had one or two, I think, well, certainly one at the table. That was the allotment. We were just trying to be balanced and fair.

When the Opposition Leader talks about people going in and out of the room as opposed to him, he was at the table. He was presenting. He was a person who was one of the forty-nine who actually were around the table or making representation. That is kind of misrepresenting that Clyde Jackman was out of the room, or Ray Hunter was out of the room, or Charlene Johnson was out of the room, or Roger Fitzgerald was out of the room. These kind of things, they are political, they are playing with words, but the fishery is just so important.

I will say it today, and I have said it before, I think one of the greatest challenges that I will ever have in my life, as a person, is trying to come up with solutions for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very, very complex. We have spent a lot of time on the fishery. The fishery, for us, is priority number one, there is absolutely no doubt about it, because it affects each and every one of our rural communities. It is a lifestyle. It is a way of life. It is what we are all about. It is our essence. It is our very being.

When the Opposition Leader gets on and says that - I heard this, this morning. I was going to go on Open Line when I heard it but, I said, you know, you just cannot go on and start to react to these kinds of statements all the time. I felt it was important that it be brought to the attention of this hon. House.

He talked about solutions. He said he did not hear any solutions. Then he said the only solution that he heard was the fact that I want to restructure the fishery. Anybody who was in that room knows - because there were lots of people in that room, lots of people all around the table, and they know; the Leader of the New Democratic Party knows - that people came to that assembly prepared. There were proposals that set out five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten solutions, reforms that were necessary. When you say that there are no solutions, you actually insult everybody in that room who has taken the time to come and be prepared.

I have learned to get a thin skin since I have come in here. You have to, that is the only way you can survive in this racket, but people who come in genuinely prepared in order to try and present what they think are solutions, and then for it to be said that there were no solutions offered - well, the hon. member, when he came in, did not offer any solutions. He just basically stated out, he stated the facts. He basically said everybody was partially responsible for this, but there were no solutions presented.

Having been there, in and out throughout the day, there was a plenary session at the end so he did have the benefit of hearing the various solutions. The fact that I was not the one who had suggested restructuring, it came from the floor, it came from the unions, it came from the communities and the municipalities, it came from the processors, and it came from other people who were there presenting. It was there. If he had a fundamental problem with it, if he had a disagreement with it, at the plenary session he could have stood up and basically said: Look, this is not on. I disagree with it - but, he did not. He made no comment at the end, so you have a right to assume that he was in the room and he is hearing these things and he is not objecting to them, but then he comes in the House today, or he is outside, or he is on television, and all of a sudden I am the only one who is suggesting restructuring. Well, that is just playing politics.

There is nobody in this House, on this side or that side, who wants to close down any community in this Province. There was a reality in that room yesterday by every single person who was involved that status quo is not an option, that something has to be done. I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that the youth are voting with their feet; they are moving on because there is nothing for them. It was said by someone else that youth are not interested in being involved in the fishing industry. So we have a responsibility to make it sustainable, to make it strong, to make it year-round, to make it good employment and to make the salary levels come up so that someone can make a living in the fishing industry and live in their communities. I think that is the grim realization that is setting in all around the Province. So comments like this do not help.

Then, to talk about myself and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and Earl McCurdy getting together to - what was the term? Obviously there was some discussion between those three on that before the meeting.

The member and I had a discussion here in the House in front of the world. I had not sat down with Earl McCurdy and talked about it. When I saw Earl McCurdy after the meeting, when we were in at the press conference, we had a brief conversation but there was no conspiracy theory here. This is about trying to find an alternative that can work for the future of this Province.

There was lot of talk yesterday about marketing. An awful lot of people talked about it. There is a need there for a vehicle, a tool of some sort. The FPI one is there. When the question was asked by the hon. member opposite, and there was general talk of nationalization, I think this party was saying we cannot embrace full nationalization because we do not think the government should be in the business of operating fish plants. It is a difficult business for the operators and the people who are involved in it now, but to take the marketing arm and to put a Newfoundland and Labrador brand on it, and to have that cold water brand, that unique brand, and then - actually, it was really interesting because the federal minister's ears pricked up when he heard it, he was interested, so it had the attention and it had the interest of a lot of people there around the room.

I could go through everything that was said on Open Line this morning, but there is nothing to be gained for me to do that, and for us as a group, but if we are going to be honest we need to be honest. We cannot go out and talk about things that transpired in a room that are not an accurate representation that went on. In fact, they are a complete and total distortion of what went on in that room.

The other thing I think which we need to go back over, we talk about we will be back again to change the FPI Act, and we probably will. I will acknowledge that. We did say when we started this, that this could be a stop-gap measure because we have to move quickly and efficiently in order to try and prevent the significant shareholders, and perhaps one who is probably more inclined to go in a certain route to prevent him or them from dismantling the company. So we had to move quickly, but that does not mean that we would not come back in a week or two weeks or two months if it was absolutely necessary to do something else in order to tighten something else up. If someone is aware of something whereby there could be another loophole, then we would convene the House and we would call the House to do it. So, we will be back and we will change the act, and the act has been changed before. When we look back over the history, when we look back in 2002, the all-party committee, they changed the shares in order to cover off a loophole where it was possible that they could have gotten out of it by a different type of shares. So that was covered off.

The corporate office of Newfoundland and Labrador, that was something (inaudible). It was an all-party committee. Everybody got together, they agreed upon it. The privative clause was put in to prevent the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from being sued. That very good preamble was put in because it set out the purposes of the act. It was a good piece of work by all parties, but on quotas. The quotas were not put in at the time, and there was good reason why the people involved in that did not go for the quotas. They, obviously, had the same type of legal advice that we had.

There is a distinction today, and I just want to point out to the Opposition House Leader, on quotas. He did acknowledge today that in the amendments we put through today, we added the word quotas, but we are adding it in its ability, in its construction as an asset as opposed to dealing with how quotas are handled. So, in other words, if you are going to direct someone to process their quotas or harvest their quotas, then that is more ultra vires or more unconstitutional than just putting a security blanket in which basically says you cannot sell it as an asset. So, there is a fine distinction, not something I think which would be readily apparent to everybody, but Justice and Cabinet talked about that this morning and that is the distinction. But the important thing is that the all-party committee did not do what has been suggested that, perhaps, we should have done in the course of this debate. This is not to be adversarial. This is to be explanatory so we know what is going on.

Secondly, on the Income Trust. We know why the Income Trust legislation was brought in. A good debate, not a heated debate. A good solid debate. It was a free vote. I think the Opposition House Leader said it was a charade. That was not a charade. I have made the statement here. I have made the statement publicly that on that morning, I did not decide how I was going to vote until 11 o'clock. I really did not. It was a true vote, and all our members of caucus know that it was a true vote and a free vote. We, as well, at this particular time, had discussed in caucus whether this should be a free vote or not, whether it was absolutely necessary. Caucus unanimously felt, no, it wasn't necessary because the issues were different. It is governance now. Then it was about the communities and shoring up the communities. Like the Member for Bonavista has to be in a position whereby if he feels he has to protect his community, then he can vote as he wishes. So, that was not a charade under any circumstances. That was a true, free vote. Quite frankly, up until that vote was taken or very closely to it, we did not know which way the vote was going to go. That is the truth.

So, nothing is further from the truth on that. At that particular point in time, in order to package the whole deal, it was looking like there was going to be a revocation of the privative clause. But now we are back, and now we are looking at it again. What we doing here, I think the amendments that have been put forward by all parties, as a result of the debate of all parties and the conclusions that we have come to, I think are a very thorough process. We are going to cover off the assets. The all, or substantially all, has been changed to substantial. Then with the restrictions, I think that narrows it down. It confines it. It strengthens it, as much as we can. With the advice that we had, we cannot go much farther than that. So, I thank the Opposition for their amendments in that particular area. Cabinet approval, of course now it will not just simply go to a single minister. So the weight of the world is not solely on the shoulders of a minister. It will come to Cabinet if there has to be approval for a sale.

With regard to the directors; we do now have a Newfoundland component. We do have an independence test. Again, what that does is dilutes the ability of significant shareholders to be able to get control of that company. The amendment that now goes to committees takes it even a step further. We did seriously, very seriously, consider the amendment that was suggested with regard to a - I cannot remember exactly the name of the committee that was suggested in the amendments by the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Corporate, or whatever the name of the committee was. A good suggestion but we still felt that would be going a step too far. That it was a step that there was probably no precedent for, that it would be seen to be overly intrusive, when in fact we could accomplish what we wanted to accomplish by doing what we did.

As well, just so you know, we considered a threshold. We looked at that to see if we could possibly have a situation whereby we set a minimum threshold as to what could be approved and what could not be approved or what could be sold. If we go to, from substantially to any, then you are dealing with a pickup truck. The problem is, if you go to any asset, inventory is accepted out but if it happens to be a small asset, then you cannot have a situation where you can have the company coming to government just to do things that happen in the normal course of business. That is not to trivialize the argument but that is just to say if it is any asset then it is any asset that they own. Whether that happens to be vehicles or office furniture or a plant or whatever, they are all encompassed in that particular definition. So, that is why that was not considered.

Again, the independence side was taken from B.C. The disqualification of a director on the basis of conflict of interest. There are sections in our Corporations Act which cover that off, and it is done on a transactional basis. Corporate Law requires a duty of disclosure. Again, if we go beyond that then there is a question of interference with shareholder's rights which could trigger a class-action on a national basis which I think could jeopardize and expose the people of the Province.

The duty to appoint; we also looked at possibly forcing the company to appoint a CEO. That was suggested. It was floated out there. We looked at that. Again, you are into micro-management. You are telling them how to appoint or who they have to appoint in order to manage their company. Again, it is going too far.

Cross-subsidization; I can say quite honestly in this House that the statement of cross-subsidization was a statement that I made. In all fairness to the minister, I was the first one to float out cross-subsidization and you have blamed for it or hung for it. I was the first one to put that out. In a perfect world, if we had a company that was acting in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and was a Newfoundland and Labrador company, was owned by the people of the Province, for example, they would cross-subsidize because they would see the need for the social responsibility balanced against the whole economic side.

From my own experience, in my own corporation years ago, we would often take losers on the one side and subsidize them with winners on the other side in order to provide a complete blanket of services to the people who are customers. So, it is not unusual for companies to do that, but if government intervenes and forces companies to do it then that is a different situation, then there is the cross-subsidization argument. Then you could have a situation where you are infringing on shareholder value, and that could be held against us. We could be liable and we could also have, possibly, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador assets seized outside the Province.

The government appointee; we have talked about that. The possibility of someone finding themselves in an inherent conflict of interest position and, as well, not being able to disclose back to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Disqualifying significant shareholders completely, to turnaround and arbitrarily take George Armoyan or John Risley off the board, I just think, quite simply, would have been a mistake. What a message it would be to Corporate Canada. We have been firm with companies like Inco because we feel we have a right to have them live up to their obligations. We have been firm with ExxonMobil, Chevron and like companies in order to make sure that they fulfil their obligations when they are using our resources in this Province. We have been firm with FPI but we have to be reasonable as well. We have to protect the interests of the people of the Province. The minute we cross the line too far then cumulatively there will be too many instances which could affect any business in the Province. We could be tough with the big ones but then it starts to affect small and medium-sized businesses in the Province. So we have to be careful with that.

Of course, on the question of quotas. If you interfere with the actual use of the quotas from a harvesting or processing perspective then you are into an ultra vires argument.

So, in a nutshell, I think we have collectively done a good job of doing this. We have not covered it all off. It is probably not as tight as it could possibly be because I do not think a legal document is ever foolproof. I think we all know that we could be back on something else. The shareholders or the directors may challenge this at some point in time. If they do, it is no different than the Federal Income Tax Act. When people find loopholes and people challenge it, they go to court and then governments are forced to try and tighten it up again. That is the nature of the Legislature, that is the nature of our role.

I just want to generally say to the members of the House and to the people of the Province, that this government is very, very much committed to the fishery in this Province. We do see it as our number one priority. We have made huge commitments. With regard to Harbour Breton, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune will tell you that we have spoken today on a couple of occasions with regard to Mayor Stewart. We had a meeting today with Major Stewart to bring him up-to-date as to what the issues are to find solutions for Harbour Breton. If the people in Harbour Breton are listening, Harbour Breton is a hugely, significant, strategic location in this Province. We are doing absolutely everything we can to find solutions.

The communities like Fortune - the ministers will tell you that we are stepping up to give them short-term solutions, give them something to get them to the medium term, and then in the long-term we are also looking at aquaculture. We are making a significant investment in aquaculture, which is something that we talked about in our blueprint over three years ago. We made a commitment for a total of over $4 million, $4.2 if I remember correctly, in the Budget this year that may increase, because if we see an opportunity whereby we can give a good bunt to our aquaculture industry in this Province then we are prepared to do it. Overall we have made a big investment in the fishery, and we are prepared to make a bigger investment in the fishery.

The Opposition House Leader this morning on the radio said, if we are going to invest in the oil and gas industry, if we are going to invest in the Lower Churchill, then we should be prepared to invest in the fishery. What he did not say was, that is exactly what I said yesterday. I said: Look, we as a government - and the minister was next to me, and myself, as Premier - if we are going to turn around and tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we want to buy a stake in Hebron, and we want to own the Lower Churchill, well surely we have to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we are prepared to invest in the fishery. The arguments that have been put forward by hon. members throughout this House, by hon. members opposite, are not lost on us. We are a government that is listening. We are trying to do whatever we can. We are intent on saving rural Newfoundland and Labrador, doing absolutely everything. There is no magic.

Some of the statements that were made yesterday were mind-boggling, by people at the summit who just acknowledged, members of a union - like I said, I took notes because they were important. One of the members of the union said: We may have to face harsh facts. We must accept change. People quoted Rick Cashin's quote of years ago and agreed with it: Too many people, too many plants, too many boats, too little fish. Status quo is not an option.

The Federation of Municipalities said that we have to reform systemic problems, that there has to be regional approach. People are actually considering a regional approach to finding solutions so that we can put sustainable industries in regions. That does not mean if a plant is going to close in a certain community that is going to be it for that community. There are tourism options and there is other options. We have an economic diversification strategy, but that is going to take time and we have been working hard on developing that.

The frank acknowledgments around that table were really - Mr. Harris said, there is a significant change that has to take place. The young Newfoundlanders are voting with their feet. We need a coordinated marketing strategy. The fishery is a valuable asset. There was also an acknowledgment there that it is not over, not by a long shot. We are going through a transition, and the term restructuring just means that we are going to go through a transition and we are going to regroup and we are going to organize it and we are going to come out better at the end of the day. There was also a reality there yesterday, that it is going to happen whether we get involved or not. If we allow it to happen according to market forces, then, as I said, we are going to have to pick up the pieces. Then it is something that is out of our control, that we have no say in. We have to pick up the shambles that are left and try and put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That is the problem.

You know, we have an opportunity here to do something real. The people in that room yesterday, to the person - and the comment was made that there was no discussion on foreign overfishing and there was no discussion on custodial management. Well, you know, there was. It was mentioned by some of the political people who were there. It was also mentioned by Ches Cribb. I remember Ches Cribb specifically talking about custodial management (inaudible) foreign over fishing. One statement was made that perhaps there will never be a ground fishery. Another statement was made by several people: Oh, yes, there will be a ground fishery. That ties into our long-term plan which we did in Bellevue, is that we are going to buy quotas. At some point, we feel that ground fishery will come back. Now, that might not be for thirty years, but if it is, it is very, very important that the people own and control those quotas and have rights over them.

That is why we made a $3.5 million investment and that is why, during the course of discussions with FPI, that if we have to step up in order to purchase quotas, to protect them for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will take them, we will put them in the bank and we will leave them there until such time as that ground fishery recovers, because we firmly believe it will. This Province, these people, this fishery is resilient. It is interesting, we have been fortunate. The ground fishery collapses, the shell fishery comes in. The shell fishery has some trouble, pelagics come in. That is the nature of the beast.

We had to be careful that we are managing it properly and, as a result, a restructuring involves the purchase, perhaps, of the marketing arm of FPI. What a great feeling that would be for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if a cooperative of the stakeholders in this industry were able to wrap their arms around that, have ownership in it, control it, manage it, put their stamp on it. Government would stand back and be passive investors. It would be done with the approval of the federal government, who, I think, would be active partners in trying to achieve whatever we are trying to achieve. We had them at the table; very fortunate. We do have a good relationship, an extremely good relationship.

The federal government and our Minister of Fisheries, sure, they may want to take some time. They want some time to figure out early retirement, but we are going to keep their feet to the fire. We are going to keep asking them for that. We want early retirement, but that minister is in only three months, and we need to give him some time to settle out. He said, yesterday, categorically, that he is very close to a fleet separation policy, that they have been working on it, that our ministerial committees have been doing an awful lot of this, from an organizational perspective, to get positioned so that we can deal with whatever comes at us in the fishery, but sometimes you get blind-sided. The daily exercise was something that just came out of nowhere, and it hit us over the head, but we are reacting to it and we are dealing with. Those things are going to happen. That is the nature of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I think the people of the Province need to know that their government is as prepared as it can be, that it is working with the federal government, that it is working with the stakeholders, the union, to have the municipalities and to have the industry, the processors, at the table, together with other leading experts and political representatives there yesterday, all singing from the same hymn book.

You know, I don't know. I may be green, I may be a novice, but that has to be a first in this Province, to get that kind of consensus, that kind of buy-in. I think we have to build on that momentum to try and do what is in the best interests of the people of this Province. We also said that any people who are running into trouble in this Province, that we will try and provide a safety net, that we will be there, and we have proven that time and time again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am basically going to wrap up. I know it is has been a long debate for everybody, and I could go on for a long, long time.

Again, I want to thank all hon. members for the decorum in this particular debate, for their positive contribution to the debate. I want to thank hon. members opposite again for the amendments. Hopefully we will not be back to amend the FPI Act, unless we have a brand new plan for a Newfoundland and Labrador operator to take over the Newfoundland and Labrador assets to give communities the assurances that they need to make sure that they have the safeguards, as long as they can get them, in order to make sure that their communities are protected. That, coupled with the possible ownership of the marketing arm of FPI with a Newfoundland co-operative, I just think would be the beginning of a wonderful solution and a wonderful restructuring. That, coupled with the programs that could come from the federal government through early retirement, through fleet separation, licence buyback, there are a lot of things that we have on the table now. We have the interest of a Fisheries Minister who is there to help, who wants to help, who is prepared to help, and I think is prepared to deal with the bureaucracy in Ottawa. He is prepared to make representation to his Prime Minister in order to get his support, but the Prime Minister of this country is a rational person who has to be logically convinced that this is the right thing to do. So, it is incumbent upon us to come forward with a proper strategic plan that gives him the comfort of putting the money up from the federal government in order to support us on this transition.

Thank you once again, and I move third reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. ( Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

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

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

I am in a great position today, as Government House Leader, I suppose enviable in some ways, that we have cleared the Order Paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That does not happen without the co-operation of all members in the House, Mr. Speaker, which is, I guess, underlining the point that I want to make.

This brings us to the end of this session. There has been a feisty debate, debate on a number of issues from the Throne Speech to the Budget to the legislative agenda brought forward by government.

Before I adjourn the House, I do want to take the opportunity to wish all members well. I guess we run into it, as elected members, there is a perception that, once the House closes, you hear people all the time saying, they are on their summer break. Nothing really is further from the truth for elected members. We would all like that to be true, whatever side of the House we are on, but it just means that we get busier in a different way.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members for their participation in the spring session of the House.

Before I put the adjournment down, I do want to invite all members of the House to a small reception we have for an outgoing colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in the Government caucus room for a half-hour to an hour. We would love to see everyone there.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn and return at the call of the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn and return at the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House is now adjourned.

On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.