MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Central Chapter of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador on their spectacular efforts in raising money for the Shamrock Farm Center for Autism, through a province-wide radio telethon on Rogers Televison on November 15.

Mr. Speaker, through the efforts of this group, chaired by Mr. Scott Kenny of Grand Falls-Windsor, and through the generosity of people from across our Province, $130,000 was raised for this important project.

The Shamrock Farm Center for Autism, a state-of-the-art facility, located in Pippy Park, St. John's, will provide treatment and intervention for individuals with autism and their families. Construction began in June of this year and this recent fundraising effort by the Central Chapter will, no doubt, contribute to this completion.

Mr. Speaker, the families of children with autism and their educators work tirelessly to have government recognize autism as a disorder that requires special attention and first-time government funding was provided in 1998. Significant strides have been made since then and I am very proud to be able to stand today and ask all members of this hon. House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the Central Chapter of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador for a job well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I rise today to congratulate Mr. Bob Rideout of Botwood. On June 10, he was presented with the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation in recognition of his outstanding service to veterans, especially as a source of comfort to the terminally ill comrades.

A veteran of the Second World War, having served as a Gunner in the 166 Newfoundland Field Regiment and Royal Artillery in Italy and the United Kingdom from 1943-1945. Mr. Rideout had remained dedicated to the care of veterans and promotion of remembrance.

Upon his return from the war, Mr. Rideout joined the Great War Veterans Association, now the Royal Canadian Legion and is still an active member.

Mr. Rideout has special responsibilities for the Exploits Memorial Veterans Pavilion in Botwood. However, it is Mr. Rideout's commitment to comrades during their final days of life at the pavilion is why he received the commendation.

Mr. Rideout is the only veteran from the central region to receive this distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in passing along congratulations to Mr. Rideout.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend sincere anniversary wishes to Marilyn and Jack Keeping of Grand Bank. It is an anniversary of a different sort, Mr. Speaker. It was ten years ago in August that this couple made medical history in Atlantic Canada.

Ten years ago Marilyn and Jack were at Victoria General Hospital in Halifax in adjoining operating rooms, with two teams of doctors working on them performing a procedure they had never done before. One team of doctors removed Marilyn's right kidney while the other team prepared her husband, Jack, to receive it.

Today, ten years after the surgery - the first spousal transplant performed at the Victoria General Hospital and indeed, in all of Atlantic Canada - the couple is happily living and working in Grand Bank.

Marilyn and Jack have been married for twenty-six years. Marilyn, Jack, and their son Jamie are savouring every minute together and enjoying life to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Marilyn, Jack, and son Jamie, many more years of health and happiness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today to congratulate the Calvary United Church of Creston South on their fiftieth anniversary. On this past Saturday, I was very pleased to share in a celebration of their fifty years as a church community. The church was built and completed in 1955, and its history of construction is very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, the congregation's fiftieth anniversary booklet points out that a year earlier, in 1954, the community of Great Burin resettled to Burin. They left behind a church building which was in excellent condition. Negotiations saw the church purchased by the United Church residents of Creston South, who fundraised the necessary $1,000. The church was dismantled and transported in two loads by schooner to Creston South. From there, the cornerstone was laid on November 17, 1954, and since that time the Calvary United Church has served theirs and the surrounding community well.

Mr. Speaker, today, the members of the Calvary United Church continue to contribute to the larger community, and I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending our congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize two churches in my district that recently celebrated 100 years of service. St. Andrew's Anglican Church in the community of Bryant's Cove, and All Saints Anglican Church in the community of Tilton. Both churches opened their doors within a day of each other; St. Andrew's Anglican Church on November 2, 1905, and All Saints Anglican Church on November 3 of the same year.

Special services and social events were held in both churches to commemorate this joyous occasion. After 100 years of service, individuals are still giving their time, talent and money to support those churches.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing this momentous occasion for both churches, and pay tribute to all individuals over the years who have given so much to maintain these churches as a place of worship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in the House today to recognize the athletic accomplishments of two Happy Valley-Goose Bay athletes.

Young Alex White recently won gold at the Juvenile Men's Division at the 2006 BMO Skate Canada Sectional Figure Skating Competition held in Grand Falls-Windsor. He will now compete in the 2006 BMO Skate Canada Junior Nationals being held in Moncton in February.

Mr. Speaker, Stephanie Hodge, another athlete, now living in Boston where she attends Harvard, also pulled off an amazing feat earlier this month. An avid long-distance runner, Stephanie was the first Canadian woman to cross the finish line at the New York Marathon, in a time of two hours, fifty-seven minutes. She placed thirty-sixth in the woman's category and placed four hundred and forty-forth overall in a field of over 36,000 runners.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize these two amazing athletes as they strive to be the best in their chosen sport.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues, parents and educators, about a project to raise awareness of skilled trades as a career choice for our Province's young people.

Opportunities for our future high school graduates are rapidly increasing as employers and business operators identify a shortage of skilled labour here in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country.

The Department of Education, Mr. Speaker, has been working with the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum and Skills Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador, a not-for-profit organization that works with employers, teachers and labour groups, to raise the profile of trade and technical careers as a real option for young people.

This work is part of the $12 million national campaign, Skilled Trades: A Career You Can Build On, which was launched last fall. With input from our Province's schools, Women in Resource Development, and construction industry stakeholders, a proposal for the development of a skilled trades' user guide and information package was submitted to a national committee and chosen for full development. The project is called Resource Tools for Educators, and is expected to be completed next spring.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that our teachers and guidance counsellors are well informed of all career opportunities that exist. Educators themselves have indicated there is a lack of awareness of the many career opportunities in the skilled trades. The tools that will be developed over the next several months will not only raise awareness, but will also raise the profile of skilled trades among high school students.

This is the latest initiative within the Department of Education to promote the skilled trades. In May, 2005, the department launched a new apprenticeship and certification Web site. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the Resource Tools for Educators will help increase the number of young people who take part in apprenticeship programs and is a step to addressing our skill shortages.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement. Anything that can be done to raise the awareness of skills and trades for our young people, I think, is an honourable thing to take on; although, on one hand they want to promote trades but on the other hand - in all of the government literature that is being circulated from this new government - they are saying that there is going to be a population decrease of 20,000 people over the next ten years. That is not very encouraging for our young people who are trying to get a job in our Province.

They talk about having teachers and guidance counsellors give direction to young people looking at trades for a career; but still, for all of that, this government eliminated 400 teaching positions over the past two years, so I do not know how teachers are getting the time to even address this.

This same government, the first thing they did when they came to power, they eliminated the tax credit for students wanting to work in this Province and contribute to paying off their student loans. That is gone. This government also reduced $3 million from student employment.

I believe it is time for this government to get serious and foster a new relationship with labour and business, do a complete inventory assessment of our skill shortage in this Province, show some real leadership here and get the job done right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that this is good news indeed. I am very pleased to see that the skilled trades are taking a priority in this Province where they were years ago, but over the past number of years it seems as if we pushed all of our young people towards computers, computer training, programming, and all of these things, which left a big gap.

In the Province today, in the major industries, the majority of tradespeople are getting older and about to retire. There is going to be a need for a new group of apprentices to go through the system to take the jobs that will be created.

When we look at what is happening in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, coupled with if the Lower Churchill goes ahead, we will probably be looking at bringing workers in from other countries, like we had to do back in the 1970s in Labrador, in order to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: In the 1970s, we had to go to Europe to attract tradespeople to come to work in this Province.

The tradespeople in our Province and in our country today, from an earning power perspective, probably make more money than people who graduate from major universities with two degrees. It is a very honourable way to make a living. There is a need in this Province and in this country for skilled trades to continue, and I am glad to see that there is some emphasis returning to the importance of tradespeople as a skilled profession.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers. Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment has indicated that he is close to making a decision as to what is going to be done with the stockpile of used tires around the Province. The minister has confirmed that one proposal being considered is to burn these used tires at the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill to generate energy.

I ask the minister: Given the environmental and health concerns in the area, before you move forward with this proposal would you at least hold public hearings and do a full environmental impact study?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there won't be any need to carry out public hearings or consultations. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has made the decision to pull that proposal from the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I thank the minister for that decision, but I don't understand why it was on the table before, because, Mr. Speaker, in an article in The Telegram two short years ago, on September 22, when he was the environmental critic, this is what he said: Burning tires can release heavy metals that have been linked to cancer, asthma and cardiovascular disease.

In light of these comments, I say to the minister, comments that he made, why did you even consider that proposal and why did you put the people in that area through the anguish that you have in the last couple of months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There are a couple of reasons we considered that proposal: because it was submitted for consideration and we have to consider any proposal that is submitted for consideration: but even more importantly, I guess, and the question that maybe the Leader of the Opposition should answer - we did require Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to carry out consultations and when Abitibi was considering burning tires at their mill in Stephenville we asked them to carry out consultations. It was the Opposition party, when they were government, it was them and their environment minister who gave Corner Brook Pulp and Paper permission to do two test burns without any information be given to the general public. Those two test burns, Mr. Speaker, were the basis for which we considered that proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, now that this proposal has been taken off the table by the company, and not the government I might add, what do you now plan to do with the huge stockpiles of tires that we find around the Province? Finally, are you still going to continue to charge consumers $3.00 to have these tires recycled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is another proposal we had received through the MMSB; eight proposals. Two of them - we had narrowed it down to one by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. There is another proposal that we are very close to making a decision on. We are still asking for background information on that proposal. We will be releasing information on that proposal, which is not to burn tires but another use of the tires. We will be releasing information on that, once the proposal is formally submitted from the MMSB to our department for consideration.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if political patronage did not play into the former tire recycling programs - the tire recycling program that was put forward by that party when they were in government - it never, ever would have gotten into the dire situation that it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Yesterday, I asked if government would table two reports related to equipment problems and road conditions on the day of an accident on the Argentia Access Road earlier this month. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he would pass this request along to the minister. I ask the minister: Will you table those two reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am not aware of two reports, and maybe there are two. If there are, I will certainly endeavour to find out about the second one. I am aware of one report, a handwritten report by the supervisor on duty at the time of the incident that the member just referenced. After Question Period is over, if the member wants to come and have a look at the report, it is handwritten - and certainly, I would suggest, a little bit of a sensitive issue - but if he wants to come and have a look at it, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to accommodate him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister is not willing to table the report here today but wants me to have a look at it, I will table the report for the minister.

In this report, it contradicts what the minister stated the day after the accident took place on the Argentia Access Road. The minister stated that the roads were dry. I quote the minister from The Telegram on November 15: The truck went down the road about seven to ten kilometres and encountered nothing but dry pavement. At that point, there was no need to continue on with salt and sand. The actual report states that the roads were 50 per cent wet and 50 per cent dry, and the temperature was 0.8 degrees Celsius. We all know this water turns into ice.

I ask the minister: Why did you release incorrect information concerning the road conditions, contradicting your own department's weather and road condition report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that the Opposition continues to try and make political gain out of an unfortunate incident on the Argentia Access Road. The fact that a person died, they are trying to make political hay out of it. Now, that is the fact of the matter. That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what I said on that -

MR. BARRETT: Trying to save lives.

MR. TAYLOR: If you were trying to save lives, I say to the Member for Bellevue, when he was Minister of Transportation he would have invested more money into roads so that the roads would not be deteriorated to the point that they are now, and he would have invested more money in equipment so that the equipment that is on the roads today would not be in the deteriorated state that it is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said is exactly inline with what the report said. The report said - if he had read on. I am not sure if it was read on or if it was in the former part of it - that the section of road that I was referencing, that the truck went down over, was dry. The report does indeed say that the road was 50 per cent wet and 50 per cent dry. The 50 per cent dry, Mr. Speaker, was the part that the salt truck went down over. The 50 per cent wet was beyond that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary question by the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister, I am not trying to use any unfortunate circumstance. I am trying to stop another one from happening. I am trying to stop another one from happening, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated that equipment in the area was operational and working on the day in question. The minister stated in the media that there were two pieces of equipment available. These are your own words, minister. I would like to table the maintenance report that the truck in Placentia was not in working condition that day. The out-of-shop date for the truck was November 15, 2005, and that report is in your own department files, Mr. Minister.

I ask the minister: Why did you leave the impression that this equipment was on the road in the day in question when the information that the minister has in his possession contradicts his public statements?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if he is going to submit the document, or table the document, then it will clearly show for the record what the status of the equipment was at that time.

Mr. Speaker, when I was interviewed on this issue I was asked about the status of equipment. Somebody suggested that there was one piece available out of six. I inquired and was told that there were two available out of five. Whether that was indeed factual or not, Mr. Speaker, I do not know. That is what I was told at the time.

MR. REID: You should find out.

MR. TAYLOR: That is what I was told at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen no evidence of anything being wrong.

MR. REID: Here, we will show it to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would you please quiet down the Leader of the Opposition so I can answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the piece of equipment in question was available when the supervisor directed it to go on the road. The road was inspected, as the accident report will clearly show. The road was inspected at 4:00 o'clock, the road was inspected at 5:30; portions of the road were found to be wet, portions of the road were found to be dry. The temperature was above zero, and it was not seen necessary (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to table these reports to give the minister the information, which obviously is in your department, which obviously you never took the time to read or you just do not have. Mr. Speaker, if they want a copy, I have a copy here. I say to the minister, this is something that we need to prevent somehow.

Mr. Speaker, the minister held a press conference earlier today to deflect criticism that has been directed at his department; however, nowhere in today's announcement was there anything to address the problem being created from the closure of thirteen highway depots in the Province. As a matter of fact, the Placentia depot was one of the thirteen depots closed.

I ask the minister: Why are you not reversing this poorly thought-out decision instead of having a press conference in an effort to do some damage control during a polling period, when obviously the information that you have - which you say you have - is inconsistent with the reports that were given to your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious what is going on, the politics that is being played. The member has actually referenced that there is a polling period going on. That is why they are trying to make the hay out of this that they are. That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. They are not concerned about the fact that some people died on the highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the Member for Bay of Islands.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the accident report speaks for itself. The supervisor on duty at the time makes the determination as to whether or not trucks are dispatched. When it was decided that a truck needed to be dispatched, the truck was available. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. There was a truck available. The accident report clearly says that at 7:15, when the person who was on the highway checking the highway found that ice conditions were developing, he radioed back and was directed to come back, take the truck and go out over the road. The truck was dispatched. The accident report comes from Placentia, Mr. Speaker.

As for the issue of winter maintenance, Mr. Speaker, the closure of the summer depots has nothing to do with winter maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the FFAW and its members, the communities that depend on the fishery in this Province are in crisis. My colleagues and I were invited to meet with fisher people from Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, and they told us that what they are experiencing today is probably worse than when the moratorium came into effect. They also said efforts by their union to get this government to acknowledge this crisis have fallen on deaf ears, which is why they were holding meetings with the various MHAs. There are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have worked at the fishery for a lifetime and now face an uncertain future. They and their union have been asking this government to support an early retirement package for them.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Has this government made a written request to the federal government for funding to support an early retirement package?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has consistently been on the record saying that we believe an early retirement program is necessary in the fishery as part of a rationalization program that is also needed in the industry. That issue has been raised on every occasion when I have met with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, including at the latest Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' meeting two weeks ago, including at the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' meeting in Saskatoon two months ago, as well as previous occasions similar to that in the past year and a half.

Mr. Speaker, it is a priority of the government. We believe that it is necessary in order to help us get through this crisis that the industry is facing right now. Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that this government is certainly willing to put its 30 per cent on the table if the federal government are willing to put their 70 per cent on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that response from this Minister of Fisheries or that Minister of Fisheries ever since he has been the Minister of Fisheries. I recall asking this question of him in Estimates Committee, and at the time he had made a reference in passing to the federal minister. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough, it is about time this government made a formal written request to the federal government for an early retirement package.

Again I ask the minister: When are you going to put the request in writing, so that those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are looking for some way to retire with dignity can do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue as to when it will be directed to the federal government in writing officially, I do not know how much more official you can get than dealing with it at Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' Meeting and Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers' Meeting. That is a fairly official forum, I would think, within which to address that issue. It is one of the main priorities of our government. It is one of the four or five issues that were raised at the last two meetings of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers from across the country, by myself, and I am sure that the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will carry on with that. Certainly, I think that we will be working aggressively with the FFAW on a go-forward basis to try and bring that about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is foolhardy for this minister, or any minister, to expect that the federal government is going to come to the table without a formal written request from this government seeking an early retirement package that will be cost shared. The previous Liberal government made a commitment to cost share to the tune of 30 per cent and it is about time this government did the same.

Mr. Speaker, you have a federal election just around the corner. Has the Premier made an issue of this with each of the leaders of the parties so that this will be considered when people come knocking on the door? Has he made an issue with this, as he did with the Atlantic Accord, and as the Minister of Justice said he will do with the fact that there are no federal jobs or few federal jobs in this Province? Certainly, this must be a priority with this government. So, I am asking: Will the Premier make this a request with each of the leaders?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that, not only with this issue - issues raised and dealt with this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and many others - once the federal government falls, that the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador plan to have its own shopping list before the three leaders and do exactly what we did before with respect to the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is to hold every federal leader, irrespective of political stripe, to account for what they plan to do for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our plan, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it has been two years of talk and no action by this government when it comes to an early retirement package for the people of this Province, people who have given a lifetime to the fishery and who want to retire with dignity. Why don't you put your request in writing? Put it in the table. Table it so the people of the Province will know exactly what you are asking the federal government to do, so that when people come knocking on the doors in the various districts the people will be able to say to those MHAs or MPs, who are looking to get re-elected, will you support this? And that will help them determine who they are going to support in the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member makes the allegation that two years and nothing has been done. We were able to leverage more money on equalization, more money on health care, more money on the Atlantic Accord. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition wish to ask a serious question which impacts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if you would like to have an answer, I will provide one for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the Member for the District of Grand Bank and the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader who is giving the response.

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

I know what is going on today. I mean this is a serious issue, and I appreciate the member who has raised it, and I also would appreciate dealing with it in a serious and responsive way.

The fact of the matter is this, the minister has talked about, on several occasions when he was minister, that he has raised this at the federal-provincial meeting level. He has stood up here today and has made a commitment to the people of the Province that this Province's 30 per cent would be there. Will it be an issue during the federal election? Absolutely! Will this government make it one as a priority? Absolutely! The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, we will do what is necessary to protect the interests of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically with that request.

I say to members opposite, that if they want to participate in a good-natured and in a spirit of co-operation, that during the federal election, if it does come next week, that all of us should hold our own individuals and our own individual MPs to account. The question is: Will you join us in doing so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not have to worry about what we will do when it comes to holding the federal government, or anybody who wants to be the federal government accountable. You are the government. You should have that formal, written request out there so the federal government know exactly what it is you expect of them. I know that we have fisherpeople around this Province who have been asking and begging for this government to put it in writing so that the federal government will respond; not to make a reference in passing at various meetings that you are having with ministers of one stripe or another.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know the member may be trying to kill some time with respect to Question Period, but the fact of the matter is this, a reference in passing - she tries to minimize the impact and the credibility that government has brought forward on this issue. The fact of the matter is, at federal-provincial-territorial meetings - she was a minister one time, she understands that this is how it operates - that when you bring your priorities forward as a government, irrespective of jurisdiction, on this matter with respect to fisheries, that when you bring it forward and you make the official request, a request has been made. This issue has been on the radar with this government for some time and, Mr. Speaker, let's not forget the fact that the money associated with an early retirement program has already been committed to by this government.

The fact is, now: How do we, as legislators, and how do we, as people in the Province, ensure that the federal government ante up too? That is exactly what we plan to do in the upcoming federal election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Back in September, Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement made that the Trans-Labrador Highway would become part of the Trans-Canada Highway network. I want to say to the minister, that was good news and we give credit to the previous minister for making that one of his priorities; but, now that this has been done, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What proposals have they put forward to the federal government that will see an aggressive work of putting blacktop on the Trans-Labrador Highway in the coming year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the negotiation for adding the Northern Peninsula Highway, or a portion of the Northern Peninsula Highway, and the Trans-Labrador Highway in particular, to the National Highways Network, initial contact was made between the federal government and the provincial government to identify funding, cost-shared funding, for the further development of that highway.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, all provincial governments and the federal government are awaiting a national transportation strategy that is being developed jointly. We should have that in the very near future, Mr. Speaker. That will form the basis for negotiations between the Province and the feds on cost-shared funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, during the upcoming provincial budget we look forward to a fair chunk of money being committed for this project since the dollars will be matching from Ottawa.

Again, Mr. Speaker, to go back to what we just talked about in the previous question, will the minister and his government make the issue of transportation and upgrading road standards and paving programs a priority, and try to get a commitment out of all three federal parties in the upcoming federal election for very strong programs to be put in place so that this work can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, needless to say, having a highway added to the National Highway System is of little consequence if the funding that needs to be done to upgrade and further develop that highway is not associated with it. Mr. Speaker, this will be a priority of this government. We will be prepared to commit our 50 per cent to the ongoing upgrading of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and we would hope that the federal government will be prepared to do the same.

We hope that we do not hear the rhetoric out of certain politicians about: the funding gone into the Labrador Highway is federal money. The fact of the matter is, it is all provincial money. The fact of the mater is, the provincial government took over the ferry service and the coastal boat service on the Labrador Coast in exchange for three hundred and some-odd million dollars.

I am not questioning whether it was a good deal or a bad deal, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, it was federal money that was paid in lieu of them having to continue a service, so therefore it is provincial money. It was provincial money that built the Trans-Labrador Highway; it is provincial money that is continuing to build it. The federal government, I hope, and federal politicians, recognize that fact when we go looking for 50-50 funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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.

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that some of the radiation equipment at the Health Sciences Centre has been shut down due to renovations. I also understand that there are a number of patients who are suffering from skin cancer, who have had to have their appointments deferred on more than one occasion in the last few weeks.

My question for the minister today is: Can he tell me when this renovation will be completed and when that equipment will be up and running again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I can say to the hon. member that I will certainly have to make an inquiry with respect to that particular piece of equipment to which you refer at the Health Sciences Centre. I will certainly undertake to do that this afternoon and report back to the hon. member and to this hon. House with respect to the equipment to which she refers, and whether or not the fact that it is not working has resulted in any impact again that she has referenced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware that there have been a number of patients who have had their treatments deferred, as I said, on more than one occasion in the last two or three weeks. I would like to ask the minister how many patients that require this treatment for skin cancer, radiation treatment, have been affected, how long their treatments have been deferred, and how soon this equipment can get up and running and the services being provided?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises, obviously, an important issue. It is one that I am not presently familiar with. I will certainly endeavour to ascertain the information and immediately report back to the hon. member and to this House with respect to the issue that she has raised. It is an important issue and I will certainly undertake to provide the information forthwith.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and it is pertaining to the watch.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm that it was a Rolex? Was there an appraisal done, and if so, would he table it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the hon. member: Again, I think it is time that I put this to rest; I really do. I certainly would say to the hon. member that it was a protocol gift. I certainly disclosed it properly, and right now I feel very comfortable in saying that I will be moving forward in the next stage which will be to take care -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: What I am saying to you is this, that the watch was given to me as a protocol gift and that I followed proper procedure. With regard to moving forward, I would say to the hon. member that I will make sure that the business is taken care of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, last fall the Town of Stephenville was faced with serious flood conditions which threw the lives of many people in that community into chaos.

I ask the minister: Can he give the House an update on the current situation in Stephenville on the status of the response to the flood?

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I thank the member for the question. It is a very legitimate and timely question, Mr. Speaker.

The situation in Stephenville is that over 150 people had to move out of their homes and we are trying our best to get those people back into their homes as soon as possible. We are presently waiting on a final report from the assessors, the engineers and all the individuals concerned with respect to doing the assessment on Stephenville. What will happen in the not to distant future, Mr. Speaker, is that we will be making an announcement. I had to prepare a Cabinet Paper based on information. There are certain situations that had to be looked at. The disaster financial assistance program, that the former minister is quite aware of, has to take part in this, and the federal government has to be involved in the final decision as to where we will be going with respect to the situation in Stephenville. We do have to look at the area itself, the flood zone. Will the people be permitted to go back there: That is a decision that has to be made. If they are permitted to go back, it has a varying impact with respect to the amount of monies that will be spent in the not-to-distant future. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is not something that can be answered in a minute here but we are on top of the situation, no doubt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I just want to move some motions that are on Order Paper today.

Motion 1 through Motion 9, if I could do it or would you rather me do it -

MR. SPEAKER: Under our Routine Procedures, I think the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) maybe when we get to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: We should wait until we get to Orders of the Day.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on the issue of Sunday hunting. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker. It is:

WHEREAS hunting on Sunday is not permitted in our Province; and

WHEREAS there are many people in our Province who work Monday to Friday leaving them only one day a week to hunt; and

WHEREAS hunting is probably the only activity, I say to the minister, that people of our Province are prohibitive from doing on Sunday; and

WHEREAS not being able to hunt on Sunday has a negative impact on local hunters and outfitters alike;

We, the undersigned residents, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to change the laws and regulations of this Province that will allow Sunday hunting.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the last couple of days, being restricted to a one-day hunt a week really for people who work Monday to Friday is hardly fair to them, considering the amount of money that they have to spend in order to pursue that activity. Sometimes it may not even be one day a week because that time of the year our weather is not exactly great all the time, and if you have terrible days in October and November, then, obviously, these are days that are ruled out as well. So, the time frame that people have to exercise their right to utilize their licence is limited indeed. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is necessary in today's world.

Northern Ontario, now - I say to the minister, Northern Ontario now has just changed their laws that will allow for Sunday hunting to take place. Southern Ontario, I doubt there is much hunting that takes place there, so it is probably not an issue like it would be in rural and Northern Ontario. So, this is happening, Mr. Speaker, throughout the country and I want to say to the minister that rather than just let this issue die in the House and not deal with it, it would be wrong and irresponsible. I think the time has come when people of this Province are open to the concept of Sunday hunting and that many people, particularly those in rural parts of the Province and, indeed, many in the urban parts who pursue hunting activities would like to see this change take place which would give them more flexibility and more time to enjoy being out in the country and pursuing the hunt.

As I used the example yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when you are 100 miles from nowhere and the closest people that you see - if you see any - are hunters themselves, than this just does not make sense that you are not allowed to use your gun on a Sunday when you are out in the middle of the country, in the middle of nowhere, and you come across an animal that you probably did not see the day before, but simply because it is Sunday, you are not allowed to execute your licence. It is time for that to change, I say to the minister. After three days of petitions, I look forward to hearing a positive response from him in the near, if not immediate, future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, this petition relates to the marine services that are provided to the area, especially through the Sir Robert Bond, which operates between the ports of Lewisporte, Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what the petition, in essence, is asking, is that the Sir Robert Bond be used to provide a greater, I guess, frequency of service between the Cartwright and Goose Bay ports. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is simply because there has been increased traffic, there have been a number of complaints, especially in the last year, by people who have had trouble getting reservations on that particular section of the service. What they are asking is that government would reconsider, or at least take another look at this configuration of service, and see if there is a way that they can increase the frequency of trips that would occur between Cartwright and Goose Bay on a weekly basis, to allow for a greater number of people to travel, to allow for more goods and services to be transported in that particular region.

I think it is a very fair request, Mr. Speaker, and one that I would certainly encourage the Minister of Transportation - the new Minister of Transportation, who happens to be the Member for St. Anthony - to have a look at. I think, in doing so, there could certainly be some compromise made here, there could be some resolution, so that the people in this particular area could have a better service, a more frequent service.

The other thing that they are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the ferry rates be brought in line with the distance travelled. What I mean by that is, as it is right now, if I was going to ship a container of freight out of Lewisporte to go to Nain, I would pay about $2,300 for a container of freight on the ship to go to Nain. If I was to ship that same container of freight out of Cartwright to go to Nain, I would be paying $2,200. So, Mr. Speaker, the range of pricing is not adequate and, in essence, when it costs you the same amount to ship a container of freight from Lewisporte to Nain as it does from Cartwright to Nain, you know yourself it is an unfair playing field. It is unfair for the business community in the Upper Lake Melville and in the Southern Labrador region, and I think that government should have a look at those rates.

We have run the service there the last couple of years; now is the time to reassess it, have another look at it and see what the rate structure could be, how it could be adjusted so that it allows for the business community in that region of Labrador to be competitive with the business community in the rest of the region of the Province that may be using Lewisporte as a shipping port for Northern Labrador.

That is basically what the petition is asking, that there be some changes in that service. That it be brought in line in a more fair way for the people of that area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: 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.

I wonder if I could ask the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, by leave, to introduce Motions 1 through 9, as opposed to going through them individually. I know it is Private Members' Day and I would like to get those Motions, each one of them, Motions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, introduced and read a first time before 3:00 o'clock so that we can proceed with Private Members' Day without any interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It seems I have leave; so, Mr. Speaker, I do move Motions 1 through 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that we will dispense with the reading of each individual bill and the Motion number?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. ministers as named shall have leave to introduce bills entitled according to their listing on the Order Paper.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. ministers shall have leave to introduce said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

[Introduction of Bills]

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Dietetics." (Bill 51)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians." (Bill 52)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid Practitioners." (Bill 53)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses." (Bill 54)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy." (Bill 55)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists." (Bill 56)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration of Psychologists." (Bill 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004." (Bill 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act." (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bills be now a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

[First Reading of Bills]

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Regulate The Practice of Dietetics. (Bill 51)

A bill, An Act Respecting Dispensing Opticians. (Bill 52)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Registration And Licensing Of Hearing Aid Practitioners. (Bill 53)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Licensure Of Practical Nurses. (Bill 54)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy. (Bill 55)

A bill, An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists. (Bill 56)

A bill, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Psychologists. (Bill 57)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 2004. (Bill 58)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: These bill have now been read a first time. When shall the said bills be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bills 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 read the first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I do understand we have a private member's resolution being introduced by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member now.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's motion that I would prefer not to have to bring forward, but I think it is safe to say that this motion, I guess, in some respects, is what could be considered a non-confidence motion in a company, that company being Fishery Products International.

We usually hear the word non-confidence attributed to governments. Of course, with what is taking place in Ottawa this week, it is something that is on the top of everyone's mind.

Today, I guess, I am talking about non-confidence in a company, and I think it would be safe to say that, if you were to ask anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, even those who are not associated with Fishery Products International - maybe with the exception of the Board of Directors and management of FPI - they would indeed say that they have lost confidence in a company that has played such an important role in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. It has played a major role in the economy of this Province for years, and it is sad that today we have to stand here and speak to a motion calling for a public inquiry into the operation and management of Fishery Products International.

The sentiment in terms of non-confidence is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from how FPI was viewed in this Province just a few short years ago. In fact, FPI played a big part in ensuring that communities throughout our Province had a future, that those people who worked day in and day out in fish plants around our Province had a future, that they, in fact, could provide for their families because of FPI. If you worked for FPI you were counted among the fortunate, because you knew you had a job to go to, albeit the job tended to be seasonal, but then the nature of the fishing industry in our Province has been seasonal. There were areas of the Province, of course, where many worked for longer period of time than others, and it was those people who were very fortunate indeed.

What has happened in such a short span of time, from when the former regime was ousted and replaced with a new management and with a new Board of Directors? All that happened in the space of a very few short years. I recall the discussion around the board table, in the executive board room in the West Block of the Confederation Complex. At the time I was a member of the Economic Planning Committee of Cabinet as a Cabinet Minister. It was a meeting of both the Economic Planning Committee of Cabinet and the Social Planning Committee of Cabinet. We had come together as two committees to meet with individuals who were interested in comprising the new Board of Directors for FPI. As we sat around the table with them, first and foremost in our minds, of course, was the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the future of those communities where FPI had fish plants, the future of the residents of those communities, people who depended on FPI.

Naturally, our questions to the people who met with us - and they weren't all there, some of them couldn't make it - but our questions all centered around: What are your plans? How is it that you can do a better job of FPI than the present management or Board of Directors? What are you going to do? How can we feel confident that your plans are the best plans for Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Every response that came from those individuals who we were meeting with, every response talked about expanding, creating new jobs, growing the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and every answer we would ask them to elaborate because we wanted to be sure that they were, in fact, being up front with us and that they had a vision and that they would, indeed, grow the company.

While all of the members of the board spoke - well, most of them spoke - to the issues that we raised, they made it very clear that the company had a very bright future, indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, not only would the existing plants continue to flourish under their watch, but we could, indeed, expect expansion and with it more jobs.

Of course, for those of us in government at the time, who had a responsibility and an obligation to make sure that there was a good environment in Newfoundland and Labrador for business to invest, and that, in fact, there would be jobs available to those people who elected us to represent their interests, everything they were saying was music to our ears.

Well, if that commitment had materialized, Mr. Speaker, I would not be here today introducing this private member's motion. I would not be calling for a public inquiry into the operation and management of FPI. Thousands of people around this Province would not be wondering where the next dollar is coming from, how they will support their families, how they are going to put food on the table, if they are going to be able to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province where they have lived and worked for the best part of their lives.

Now, I am all too familiar with the repeated comments from FPI, that their problems can be attributed mainly to the rise in the Canadian dollar and to cheap labour in other parts of the world, specifically in China, but aren't these challenges that most companies face? And, when you are making plans, aren't those the types of issues that you take into account? The dollar tends to fluctuate. Yes, you can get cheaper labour in other parts of the world; that is nothing new. So, certainly, in putting forward a plan and a strategy, when they took over FPI, this present Board of Directors and management must have taken that into account. If they didn't, what does that say about the management and Board of Directors of FPI? Aren't these issues that are factored into your plans so, as the saying goes, you are not caught with your pants down?

The questions go on: How is it that a company that had a debt load of $75 million in 2001, which at the time they said was manageable, is today saying that debt load has grown to approximately $300 million? That is a significant increase. Now, just look at that; it has gone from $75 million to approximately $300 million in four years.

Certainly the powers that be at FPI have something to answer for. It cannot all be blamed - or, I do not think it can all be blamed - on the rise in the Canadian dollar. I do not think it can all be blamed on cheap labour in China. How is it that other companies who experience similar challenges, as all companies do who are doing business in the global marketplace, how is it that there are other companies who are thriving, or at least surviving? In fact, some are even expanding - local fishing companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, how is it that on the one hand we have FPI who said they cannot possibly deal with the rise in the Canadian dollar, with cheap labour in China, and still be able to continue with their operations that they have in Newfoundland and Labrador, while on the other hand we have other fishing companies in our Province who are surviving, who are employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are making it possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stay in their communities and earn a living and support their families? Is it any wonder, then, that today we are calling on the government to initiate a public inquiry into the operations and management of FPI?

How is it, Mr. Speaker, that just four months ago this company was promising to invest $8 million in converting their fish plant in Fortune to a secondary processing facility? Now, I know the response to that question will be that promise was tied to the establishment of an income trust, but the promise to build a new plant in Bonavista was not tied to proceeds from an income trust, and they promise to do that in 2007.

The $40 million investment in the UK, money that they borrowed - albeit I expect they hoped to be able to repay that out of proceeds from the income trust. Nevertheless, they went ahead and borrowed the money and invested a significant amount of money into a company in the UK..

These are decisions made by a company who knew it was going further and further in debt and, in so doing, was jeopardizing the very reason for its existence, and that is to provide employment opportunities for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I ask, is it any wonder that we are calling on the government to initiate a public inquiry into the operations and management of FPI?

Now, don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with making a profit. In my books, profit is not a dirty word, but I do question how much profit and for whom. Is it possible that, in trying to grow the company and increase the profit of their shareholders, those in charge at FPI lost sight of its history, lost sight of the fact that the company came into existence because a provincial government of the day saw fit to take several fishing companies that were struggling and create, with taxpayers' dollars, tax dollars paid by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that could compete on the international scene? The idea was that, in making the company viable and competitive, the people of the Province would benefit from the expenditure of their tax dollars. There would be jobs for people in this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in those rural communities whose very existence came into being because of the fishery.

Just take a look at our Province. There are 10,000 miles of coastline, and if you were to look at a map of Newfoundland and Labrador you will see that the coastline is dotted by hundreds of communities. People built their homes as close to the sea as they could possibly get, because it was by fishing they earned a living. The fishery has been the industry of choice by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians since this was a Province. They have fished and provided for their families without questioning the hardships associated with earning a living from the sea. Those who went to sea provided a product to be processed in our fish plants, some owned by FPI, where thousands of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians went to work daily, and that is not easy work.

I think if you were to ask those people who earned a living with FPI prior to 2001, if the company lived up to its obligations, they would say that it had. Were there difficult times? Of course, there were difficult times. There are difficult times in any industry. But, prior to 2001, the management of the company never lost sight of the moral responsibility it had to the people who made it possible for it to exist in this Province. That is what is missing from the mindsets of those who now hold the reins at Fishery Products International.

Now, there is an irony here, because one of the individuals who was front and center in this whole debate is John Risley. John Risley is President of Clearwater Fine Foods, the largest shareholder in Fishery Products and Clearwater Seafoods, which are Canada's largest fishing companies. Clearwater is the parent company of a fish plant in my hometown of Grand Bank. I would be less than honest if I did not say that the company has been good for the town and for the entire Burin Peninsula.

In fact, I read with interest a column that Mr. Risley had published in the Globe and Mail on January 12 of this year. It was titled, Don't write off Rural Canada. If I could recall correctly, it was actually written in response to the now infamous column -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having some difficultly hearing the hon. member. She is making some concluding statements and I would appreciate some co-operation from all members.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious issue and I, too, would appreciate if the members opposite would listen to what is being said instead of talking over it.

The column that was written by John Risley - in fact, if I recall correctly, it was written in response to the now infamous column that was written by Margaret Wente. I was so pleased to read Mr. Risley's words but, as I did, I could not understand how this same individual could initiate actions that would question the very statements he made in that article. Statements that if you believed in rural communities would in fact be music to your ears. And I quote: It is foolish to try and measure the role that any member of Confederation plays purely in financial terms. What is tragic is to suggest that rural Newfoundland, or indeed any part of rural Canada, has no future. Now, to me this sounds like an individual who understands that with business decisions comes a moral responsibility to those who helped to build the business.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker. It is my experience that the vast majority desperately want quality year-round jobs which they know are the key in retaining the next generation; key to the very survival of their communities.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a person in this Province who would not agree with this statement. However, because they are not able to work year-round and while, unfortunately, it is primarily a seasonal industry, an important one at that, does not mean you write them off. Even working seasonally and living and working off the land for the rest of the year, as most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do, has meant the survival of rural communities, those very communities that the thousands of tourists who visit our Province come to love and return to, in some cases, to buy property. I venture that without our rural communities, we would not have a flourishing tourism industry in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more quotes that I could refer to, and I will in my concluding remarks when I finish off this afternoon, but today I am asking the government to take this motion seriously and undertake immediately a review of the operation and management of FPI. You have the authority to do so and an obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. By doing so, you can also postpone proclaiming recent amendments to the FPI Act, amendments that were voted on based on commitments given by FPI, which now appear may not materialize, thereby leaving hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out in the cold, which they do not deserve, and their government should ensure it does not happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start by saying that I listened to the Member for Grand Bank quite intently and there is not a lot in her statement that I can disagree with. In fact, as I prepared to stand today to speak on this matter, I just wondered where I could begin. I think as people around the Province recognize this to be a provincial issue, I think though, the debate and the entire matter speaks more to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It speaks to the future and how it will unfold. I know that this is an issue that has been discussed very much around our caucus table. I know the Member of Bonavista South has had meetings, and I think today he is meeting with a town in his district and with FPI representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the last sitting when all of the debate took place regarding the proposed income trust, and I think back to the stress that people were under at that time. Earlier this week, I said that I thought the people of my district, especially those who work in the plant, if you look at how the fish plants in my district have impacted upon the economy, I think the entire district, and indeed the entire Peninsula, is under this cloud of stress.

Again, if I reflect on the income trust debate, I think about the people who filled this House, who sat in the galleries from day to day from Harbour Breton, the people who were in the galleries who were from my district, who followed the debate very closely. During that time, I spoke with community leaders, I spoke with union leaders, I spoke with individuals, and, as I went back to my district on the weekend, the debate around FPI was continuous. Again, we find that we are in that situation.

As the Member for Grand Bank alluded, FPI was putting before us matters and challenges that they faced in terms of the Chinese labour market, how it was cheaper to operate in China, and how they faced ever increasing challenges because of the strength of the Canadian dollar. Like the Member for Grand Bank has mentioned, we have other companies that have met those challenges; and our hope, in moving ahead with that income trust, would have been that FPI could have faced some of those challenges. Unfortunately, due to the federal government ruling, that income trust is now on hold, so we are again faced with more and more challenges.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, for a minute, just show you and show the people of the Province who are watching, and show the members of this hon. House, how important FPI has been to the Burin Peninsula and the District of Burin-Placentia West.

My district is built around the sea. We have people in the inshore, and for so many years people fished the draggers and continued to fish the offshore. We have been into ship construction, and during the 1960s, with the increase in fish plant construction, times were booming and work aplenty.

Mr. Speaker, it was during the late 1960s that my family, and many other families from my community, resettled into Marystown. It was exactly because of that. My father had gone ahead of us and had gotten a job in the fish plant, like so many other men from my community. Mr. Speaker, during my time there as a high-school student, the fish plant in Marystown was a place where you could always go in the summertime to get work. Many of the people will relate to that. During my summers there, we went there on Saturdays loading and unloading boats, working on the assembly line, and so on and so forth. Even for a couple of summers, Mr. Speaker, work was such aplenty on the draggers that I even took to taking a few trips to the Grand Banks. I think it would be safe to say that every community on the Burin Peninsula, and in the District of Burin-Placentia West, profited from how lucrative the fishery was.

No matter what, Mr. Speaker, we have always been connected to the sea and I think, whatever transpires from these proceedings, we will remain connected to the sea. It is in us, and that is the way it will always be.

If we look specifically at the fish plants, in Burin there is a secondary processing plant. It is involved with the marketing arm of the Ocean Cuisine, and there are approximately 200 people living there. They make a good living from this fish plant. This is a sector that seems to be doing quite well.

Then, if we look to Marystown, FPI have made major investments in Marystown. There are approximately 600 people working there. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the workers in these plants are committed to making these facilities successful.

I had a discussion this past week with an individual who said that production capacity in the Marystown plant, in this groundfish operation, is probably as high as it has ever been. These workers, with their union, have worked as hard as they possibly can in this facility to make it successful. Never can it be said that the people in these plants are not working up to their potential to help this company.

Madam Speaker, even during the days of the moratorium this fish plant in Marystown operated. People managed to eke out their living there. Any business people within the community will tell you that, how go the fish plants in the area so goes the economy. When the fish plants are operating up to capacity and doing well, so does the economy. It has been a steady employer and it has been a steady contributor to the economy. Not only in our larger communities, Madam Speaker, has FPI been an integral part of the community, they have been good corporate citizens - I don't think anyone would argue that - secondly, in the smaller communities. In the Community of Baine Harbour where I lived, FPI operated a small plant. There were only ten to fifteen people working in that, but, Madam Speaker, let me tell you how important that was to that community. On a seasonal basis they processed everything from lump roe to salt fish. It was an employer, and ten to fifteen jobs in these smaller communities can equate to much higher numbers in areas such as St. John's.

In the fish plant in Marystown it can't only be said that it is a Marystown plant. We have people from the Northern part of the Peninsula, in Brookside and Boat Harbour, who work there and have always worked there, and so it continues on around the boot, from Grand Bank to St. Lawrence, on down through Lewin's Cove. People from all over the Peninsula work there. It is a stable employer for the entire Burin Peninsula.

Madam Speaker, where do we go from here? As I looked and followed the CBC programing on these people - a little while ago I watched a gentleman from Harbour Breton and a little while ago I also saw a husband and wife who worked in the fish plant in Marystown, and have always worked there. If we look at the people who started in these plants, these many years ago, some of them left high school to go to work there, because at that time a job at the fish plant meant security. You could come out of high school - you worked there. Work was aplenty, as I have said, and people dedicated their time and their efforts to making the company successful.

This is where these people have worked for their entire lives. At the age now - I think the average age in the fish plant in Marystown is somewhere around fifty to fifty-two. As governments and union leaders - the federal government has a responsibility here to come onside with the provincial government to look at programs, such as early retirements. I feel so deeply for someone who at the age of fifty-eight, for example, and who have worked and given their entire life to a fish plant facility and a fish plant company to make it work, who suddenly can be left in a situation whereby there are alternatives that none of us want to consider.

So, Madam Speaker, where do we have to go from here? We have to ask certain things of this company. In their news release the company said that they would look from the boardroom to the floor. I am asking this company to, first, look at the boardroom; to take a look at how many people they have in management. We may as well be up-front.

As the Member for Grand Bank said, we have companies who seem to be operating in the Province and who seem to be successful, and maybe FPI needs to take a closer look at the numbers in their management as compared to these other companies. Start in the boardroom. The easy target would be the workers, but I am asking the company to start in the boardrooms.

This is much more than a business decision, Madam Speaker. We, as a government, meet continuously on this. My colleagues and I are continuously talking about this. The minister is very much on top of this entire matter, as is the Premier, and as is all of our members of our caucus. We, as a government, are willing to work with whomever. We are willing to work with the company. We certainly hope that we can work with the federal government here to look at things like our early retirements. We are willing to work with all of the stakeholders in this to ensure that a resolution is found that will benefit all of the people, especially the people in our rural communities, our fishing communities, our fish plant facilities, and Madam Speaker, this is no time for blame. This is a time that all of us work together here. We, on the Burin Peninsula, in the District of Burin-Placentia West, have always survived and have been attached to the sea.

Madam Speaker, as a district, we continue and we will always continue to be attached to that. You cannot separate us from that. FPI, I certainly hope, will be a contributing factor in the future. As I have said, the workers in these facilities have given their utmost. They do what is necessary. They do whatever they can to ensure that this company is successful. I certainly hope that the company sees that and that they will work in partnership with us, as a government, and the workers, as a unified union force, who will work to reconcile these matters and make a successful future for people, such as in the District of Burin-Placentia West.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, calling for a halt or postponement of the passing of the Income Trust that went through the House here back in June, as well as a call for a public inquiry into the management of FPI.

Before I start on that, I have to beg the differ with my colleague, the member who represents Marystown, when he says this is no time to blame people or to cast blame. Well, that is a magnanimous gesture, but I certainly cannot stand in this House today and say we should not be pointing fingers or we should not be placing blame because I cannot be that magnanimous when it comes to the Board of Directors of FPI and what they have done to the people of this Province in the last three years. I certainly cannot do it. I know it is not the Christian thing to do but, boy, I have to cast blame when it comes to FPI and what they have done to the people in the communities in which they operate. But, I will get to that later, Madam Speaker.

As I said, I am standing today to support the motion put forward by the Member for Grand Bank with regard to FPI. Let's talk about the inquiry first, why we should be investigating FPI publicly, because we did it. We held a public inquiry by an all-party committee, when I was Minister of Fisheries in 2002. We did not have a problem doing it then and it was an all-party committee, I say, Madam Speaker, made up of the Opposition, the NDP and the Official Opposition at the time. Because when the current Board of Directors took over FPI back in 2001, they made commitments to the government of the day - and I was the minister, and my colleague from Grand Bank sat around the table in this building when five or six or eight of us met with the Board of Directors of FPI. There were some concerns as to where they were going to take this company, the direction that they were going to take it in. We had concerns, and a lot of the people in the communities who work for FPI had concerns. They sat around the table with us and to allay these concerns they made us a number of commitments.

Their commitments were to: Number one, rebuild the fish plants that needed rebuilding in the operation of FPI in the Province. Number two, they were going to rebuild or build new boats so that they could bring more fish ashore, to provide more work for the people who worked in FPI plants. Number three - the one I find most galling that they made - was to employ more people, not fewer, to create more jobs to grow FPI, not only in terms of the number of employees, but grow the company so that they could provide a bigger share value to the shareholders; who, I might add, the vast majority of them, live outside this Province. I would go so far as to say, 99 per cent of them live outside of this Province.

Well, Madam Speaker, we took them at their word, but we did, that day when we met with them, we did say to them: We will hold you to your words and we will ensure that you will keep your commitments and if you vary from these commitments, then you will feel the weight of government. They said: You won't not have to worry about this, Minister. They said to the Member for Grand Bank: You won't have to worry about that because our commitments are as good as written in stone. We are going to do this. We will provide better management to FPI than the past Board of Directors, led by Mr. Vic Young. Because they gave the impression that he certainly was not going in a direction that would improve, not only the lot of those who work with FPI, but the shareholders.

Madam Speaker, we told them we were going to hold them to their commitments. One short year after - it was not even a full year, I do not think. Yes, almost a full year. The fall of 2001. Back in December, 2001, they announced that they were going to layoff 700 workers on the South Coast of the Province, namely in plants in Harbour Breton, Fortune and in Marystown. Well, we knew what we were going to do as a government. We heard lots of rhetoric from the Opposition: You should not have let it happen. You should not have let them take over the Board of Directors. The Premier himself was saying we should not have let them take over the Board of Directors. We told them we could not prevent the shareholders of the company from voting for a new Board of Directors because that would be tantamount to nationalizing the company, but not to worry, we would hold them to their commitments. When they decided that they were going to layoff 700 people, we said: No, you're not. We held public meetings and they withdrew. They said: No, we will not layoff the 700 workers. In fact, we will not lay anybody off unless we have had extensive consultations with the union, and the agreement of the union, and that we would do something for these workers in the event that they were laid off.

Well, the company operated well in 2002, and the company operated and kept their commitments while we were in government up until the fall of 2003. We did not see massive layoffs, plant closures and the company going into bankruptcy. Then, something happened in 2003. The government changed. Then, all of a sudden, the Opposition - who wanted to enforce all kinds of rules and regulations on FPI - gave them a free run. They told them they could do what they want; either that or they turned a blind eye to it and they did not pay any attention to what was happening in the boardroom on O'Leary Avenue. They certainly did not pay any attention to what was happening in the boardroom, because one thing that they did, right off the bat, was drive the company from $75 million to $80 million in the hole to $300 million. Nothing said!

They came out and complained a lot about competition from China and the cost of importing foreign fish; something they told us they could do without any trouble. All we heard from this government and the Minister of Fisheries - the past Minister of Fisheries, the new Minister of Transportation - it was almost like an echo chamber for FPI, out every single day saying the competition from China is driving us into bankruptcy over here; that FPI is experiencing trouble because of the dollar, the marketplace and the competition from China.

Well, the people who run FPI were in businesses, in the fish business for lots of years. The shareholders in FPI, the group in Iceland, they made a living in Iceland since the day that Iceland was formed off fish. The New Zealanders, who owned fish plants for years and year and years, knew what the fishery was like. Mr. Risley, who became the president of the company, owns his own fish company over in Nova Scotia. He knows about the ups and the downs in the fishing business. He knew all of that when he made us the commitments. Now, all of a sudden, they have the company driven $300 million in debt, who are we going to blame it on? We are going to blame it on China - we cannot compete - and the minister falls right in line and says: He is right. There is nothing we can do about it.

So, when they came along a year ago, almost to the day that we are standing in this House, a year ago, the people of Harbour Breton where informed that this plant is no longer going to operate. Three hundred and fifty people were told to go home out of it, we longer need you in this great corporation. We no longer need you in this great corporation where the Board of Directors and the CEO are making anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 a year. We do not need the people in Harbour Breton who built this company. We do not need them. You go home out of it. What did this government do about it? Absolutely nothing. We are going to help you out with a make-work program - nothing going to happen.

Shortly after they made the announcement in Harbour Breton, what did they do then? They went down the road to Fortune, across the bay into Fortune, and said: Too bad, you are gone as well. What did this government say? Nothing. Oh, the groundfish fishery is in an awful state; the company is not going to be able to survive unless they close plants. They did nothing, they said nothing, because it was too late when they found out what was happening. They did not keep a close eye as to what was going on in FPI. I do not think they were interested enough in those districts, because they are two Liberal districts, probably. Maybe that was the reason.

Anyway, we saw what happened then. When questioned on the Fisheries Broadcast - that is two plants. That is Harbour Breton and Fortune gone. When questioned on the plant in Bonavista, an old crab plant, one of the first crab plants that was in the Province, I guess, when questioned on that by me, and questioned on the Fisheries Broadcast - what are you going to do with the plant in Bonavista? - the only answer that we could get from the CEO, Mr. Rowe, was: Wait and see. Wait and see. It is an old building. How can I tell you the answer to that? No answer for Bonavista. No answer.

Then, shortly after they made the announcement in Harbour Breton and then in Fortune, they came forward and said: We want to make an income trust. We want to do an income trust. We want to sell 40 per cent of the American asset, the most valued asset of FPI, the one that is worth the most, into an income trust, so we can raise money.

What did they say they were going to raise money for? What did they say they were going to raise money for? Number one, to pay down the debt; and, number two, to honour commitments that they made to the Province, to give $3 million to Harbour Breton, to rebuild the plant in Fortune and create new jobs down there, or at least maintain some of the jobs that they had. What else were they going to do? Rebuild the fish plant in Bonavista.

Do you know when they started talking, ladies and gentlemen, about an income trust? A year ago today. In fact, if you look at their last financial statement, they will tell you, between last November and June of this year when we sat in the House and you passed the income trust, they spent $5 million on the income trust, to work out the details, to have it ready to go to the market once it was passed in this House. What happened? Five months after they were given permission to do the income trust, they came back and said we cannot do it now because the federal government will not allow it; it is on hold. Poppycock! I say to the members opposite. They never had the intention of going through with the income trust because they knew back in June that they could never realize the amount of money. They were looking for $100 million for 40 per cent of a company that was worth $105 million. They knew they could not do it.

They could not, and they come back now and say: Because of the federal government, we have to cancel the commitments that we made to the 350 people in Harbour Breton, to give them the $3 million that they owe them because they did not pay their severance. They went to Fortune and said: The deal is off. We are not rebuilding your plant because the income trust is going through. We do not know what we are going to do in Bonavista. We cannot honour our commitments.

What did they do? Instead of talking about debt - remember that? That was one of the keys, pay down the debt with the income trust. What did they do? They go to Britain and spend $40 million on buying a fish plant in Great Britain, and drove the debt of FPI up, the one that they were going to pay down if they sold the income trust, the one they were going to pay down the debt, because everyone knows that debt and fish do not mix. That is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who has ever been involved in it will tell you that, right from the Kirby report back in the 1960s or the 1970s right up to the past Minister of Fisheries a few months ago.

This government sat by and did not even know they were doing it; or, obviously, if they did know, they said: Yes, boy, that is right. Go on; you do not have the income trust. You have a problem with debt. You have a problem with competition from China. You have a problem with foreign fish. It is too expensive to buy.

Even though the company is going bankrupt, or we are up to $240 million or $250 million in debt and we are closing all of the facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador, go off, boy, and buy a fish plant in Great Britain!

Then the current Minister of Fisheries is standing in the House this week defending it, yelling and screaming and insulting me for dare asking the question. The best thing FPI ever did! Going to go and spend $40 million more, drive the company $300 million in the hole, lay off people in Newfoundland, close fish plants - but you are doing the right thing, boy! Do it!

Therein lies the problem. This government never kept an eye on what FPI was doing, and they are still not keeping an eye on FPI, what they are doing, because I am firmly convinced, in my mind - and I am not playing politics - the Premier of this Province is a businessman, and every businessman will tell the government: Butt out! Do not interfere with my business.

That is what he has done with FPI. So, yes, I say, put the income trust on hold because they have not honoured one commitment, and do not pass the legislation so we can allow them to go off and sell 100 per cent of the American asset. Put that on hold until we find out what they are doing. Have the public inquiry, similar to the one that we had in 2001 when I was minister and we were the government. Go out and find out what happened to FPI, why they drove the company from $75 million or $80 million in debt to $300 million in debt. Why is it that, all of a sudden, the geniuses who took it over and said that they could bring in foreign fish and do this and that and create employment and rebuild boats - do a public inquiry. Find out exactly what is happening; because, personally, I do not believe what they tell me. I do not believe what they tell me. I do not like to be lied to, and when someone looks me in the face and makes a commitment to me, I expect them to honour it. I expect them to honour it, and they have not honoured one commitment that they made to the people of this Province; but, more importantly, they have not honoured one commitment that they have made to the people in those communities who are now in a very hard situation and predicament. We have seen it on the public airwaves of this Province, what is happening in Harbour Breton, and we are going to see it in Fortune.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: One minute to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: For the member from Marystown to stand today and say we should not place blame or cast blame, I will tell you one thing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Burin-Placentia West.

MR. REID: The Member for Burin-Placentia West.

I would cast blame, if I were you, because guess who is next if you are not careful and your government is not more diligent? That is going to be Marystown, and God help the Burin Peninsula if there are another 650 jobs gone off the Burin Peninsula.

With that, Madam Speaker, I say I will be supporting my hon. colleague from Grand Bank in her private member's motion calling for a public inquiry into the workings of FPI, and calling that the income trust be put on hold until that inquiry is over.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to have a few comments, a few words to speak on the motion presented by the Member for Grand Bank.

I, too, remember the days when we sat around our table, when we were discussing proposals from NEOS and the Barry Group and the Risley group. There was a lot of suspicion with some of the terms and conditions that they required from government. We spent many hours discussing the proposal. It had a big effect on my district. I have a plant in Triton employing 350 and sometimes up to 400 workers. Of course, that makes me more suspicious than people who do not have a plant in their districts.

When I look back at how this evolved, when we go back to 1983 and, of course, the creation of FPI and thereafter, when things were done to keep the company surviving, when they had no other choice at the end of the day - have we reached that point now where we are in the same predicament, where FPI needs tough decisions and tough measures taken by all the stakeholders, the unions representing the workers, the company, and of course, the government. It is our responsibility to make sure that every avenue of hope is given a chance.

I think today we speak on this resolution based on our own convictions, representing our constituents. This resolution today, to me, is sort of a step in a direction where it is premature. We should be giving the company a chance. They are doing their internal review - and I am not defending the company - and I think the internal review needs to be done so good solid decisions are made.

Of course, I go back to when we were discussing the whole aspect of FPI and, of course, Bill 41 and the amendments to Bill 41. It is a time that I do not like to remember because of the stress and pressure that it put on the MHAs, particularly our MHAs with plants in their district, the Member for Burin-Placentia West now, and our Member for Bonavista South back then, who is today already meeting with FPI and his community leaders. We have to make sure we do not put the cart before the horse. If we go ahead today and have a public inquiry, then that could jeopardize, probably, the viable outcome of the successful resolution to this problem.

I sympathize with the people of Harbour Breton. I am close to a lot of people from Harbour Breton, being from Grand Falls-Windsor. I know the impact of a fishery. I know the impact of a community in areas that are service sectors and hubs of services for rural Newfoundland. In my district we have Triton, Springdale and Grand Falls-Windsor that are major service centres for the fishery. Without the fishery then we see a big downturn in the economy of rural Newfoundland. We see a major effect on all of these communities. It effects the whole Province. Even in St. John's we see the effect of FPI, with their head office here on O'Leary Avenue.

As my colleague from Burin-Placentia West alluded to, maybe it is time the company do this review. Maybe there are things that this company can do to make their own accountability better for the company. I remember times when FPI was so lucrative they were flying around in helicopters, their own helicopters, spending thousands and thousands of dollars, probably unnecessary.

This internal review now is going to find out where the problem areas are and where the solutions are. We need to give them a chance to do that. If we do not, then rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be in a lot worse shape than it is in right now. I am very fearful of the outcome, of what could happen. If FPI disappears my district is going to be impacted so greatly that I can see many, many families having to move away. The effect that it has on the community councils, a dozen councils in my district, a dozen communities that are depending on the success of FPI which has done well in the Triton plant - we have depended mostly on crab and crabmeat production, but in the last couple of years they have been experimenting with H+G cod, a few years ago, and now they are into the palagics. They are doing really well in the mackerel. This year has been a really good year for mackerel. That is not the solution to the problem. We may have a good plant with millions of dollars invested in the last couple of years. Back about three years ago they invested $500,000 in a waterline to the plant and new equipment. The equipment has been upgraded continually. We have a fairly young workforce out there, a stable workforce, who come from all of the Green Bay area. Some come from Bay Verte District and some from other districts.

We have to be very careful that the decisions we are making - I put my trust in this government and the minister who alluded to the fact that maybe an inquiry is necessary, but it is not necessarily an inquiry. Maybe there will come a time when we have to say, now is the time for an inquiry. We have to put our ducks in line, we have to make sure decisions are made on a timely basis. The former Minister of Fisheries has been so involved, of course, in the last couple of years, and last year was involved with the Raw Material Sharing. We had to look at trying to help fish businesses in this Province survive, to get through the hard times. Are the hard times over? Not by a long shot. I think we have a lot of tough choices to make in the near future.

The fishery is the backbone of rural Newfoundland. If the fishery goes then so goes rural Newfoundland. If we don't make those crucial decisions - and I don't mean that we have to be against big businesses, because big businesses and small businesses are certainly keeping this Province alive. Even though FPI is a creature of the government, it still has to have some flexibility to survive. I don't think we can tie their hands and expect them to swim through rough waters. It is not practical, it is not a good business practice, it is not good business ethics, to be too involved, to let them drown in their own demise. We need to give them a little bit of flexibility, not saying that we have to change legislation to let them do what they want to do, but by not proclaiming the amendments that we proposed last year to the bill, it is already on hold. We have to wait and see, wait and see what the federal government's impact is going to be on their proposals and how they implement the plans they have for the different plants in the Province.

We see, all too often, that these communities are affected so greatly that the population decreases very fast. Of course, the economies of these areas, then, are devastated. Families have to move. Families have been moving out of the Province for many, many years. We have to make sure the right decisions are made.

FPI is a good company, it is a big company in this Province in the fishery. It has a good collective agreement with its workers, paying good wages, good benefits, top wages that are being spent in the communities. I am not saying they should be allowed to do everything they want to do, but if there is no alternative to FPI then it has got to be based on the same benefits to the people of the Province. We have to have a company that is going to keep the jobs, give good benefits and good wages. FPI is doing that. We must still make them accountable.

I remember back on February 7, 2002, the all-party committee had a meeting in Triton. Of course, there were a lot of nervous plant workers back then. They were very nervous of the loss of jobs, and that situation is arising again. When you are talking to your constituents, and you know them on first name basis who work at the plant, you know that when they go to work they are proud to go to work. They cannot wait to go to work. When you know that this is hanging over their heads - and they are nervous. The same as they were back in 2002, when we were having an all-party committee going around trying to find out what the solutions are, what the problems are and of course, the proposals that were made to government back from the NEOS group and the amendments to Bill 41. We were so disillusioned, I guess, that maybe the answer was there in front of us and we had to give it a try.

I supported the Income Trust last year because I thought that this extra money was good for the company. The company needs to grow. The company needs to have the flexibility, financially, to invest in the Province. Investment has been good in Triton. I have seen it since I have been there. The company has been investing in the town and in the plant there. Maybe this Income Trust was going to be a way to help them invest in the other communities that we have plants in. So, if we want to see lucrative fish plants in communities like Burin, Marystown, Bonavista, then we have to make sure that - no matter if it is FPI, or what company it is - we do not tie their hands and throw them out to swim. The federal government has to take some of the responsibility as well.

We had many discussions in my district with workers pertaining to the early retirement plan. We have to be involved in that. That is not the solution of all the problems but it is one of the things with respect to the plants that we have to make sure that does happen. In some areas they have a high age of workers. We are fortunate in the Green Bay South area where we do have a lot of younger workers and, of course, a lot of experienced and skilled workers, but we do have to look at what we are going to do with people who are ready to retire now. They are anxious to have an answer. Of course, I have no problem in supporting a resolution calling on the federal government to bring forward an early retirement plan for plant workers. It is something that needs to be done and done soon. Other things need to be done soon, but I do not think, at this point in time, we need a public inquiry into FPI's operations.

I think that this resolution today, even though it may come to a point where I may think differently, I will be voting against this resolution today and hoping that we do not see a full demise of FPI in the near future. I hope that we can work together with the Opposition, that we can come up with plans and solutions and ideas that communities, like Harbour Breton - we can work together with them. We can work with the company, with the unions, which is very important, that all the stakeholders work together, because if we do not work together, then we will spread further apart and a demise will come quicker.

We all know the fishery is in big trouble in the last decade or two, and that solutions are out there. Some answers are not what we want but they are necessary. It is necessary for the people of the Province to realize that our fishery is not in the shape that we would like to have it, that we know it is not the same as it was thirty years ago. It is not the same as it was twenty years ago. It is not the same as it was last year.

So, if we are going to make decisions, I encourage the stakeholders, the Opposition, the towns, the communities, the unions, workers, all work together and give your opinions. Let us know, let the minister know, what your opinions are but make sure they are not political and make sure they are decisions that are going to help keep the towns in this Province alive. I have no problem in supporting any ideas or resolutions or amendments or policies that makes rural Newfoundland more viable and more sustainable - as the Member for Grand Bank said - to keep our families, to keep our people in rural Newfoundland, in the communities they want to live in, in communities they want to work in and raise their families in, because, if not, then rural Newfoundland will disappear, and I am certainly not against anything that could help rural Newfoundland.

So, thank you, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to any comments from other speakers on this issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this resolution as well. I would beg to differ with the Member for Windsor-Springdale when he says that FPI is a good company. He certainly hasn't been in the meetings that I have been with the people from Harbour Breton, and I would say that the former minister would probably attest to that as well, but I am not going to go there. I am not going to play politics with it. I have not up to this time. I do not intend to. The problem is too crucial for that. It is too severe for that. It is too important for that. It is the life of a community that we are talking about. It is the life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we are talking about. For any of us to try to show one-upmanship on that, I think it would be blatant disregard for the problems that are out there. So, I have no intention of doing that.

Why is it necessary to call into question FPI's operation within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to call for an inquiry and to stop, or ask the government to not carry through with the legislation for the Income Trust that was done here earlier in the spring? I want to give some reasons, and I will not be able to give them all, but I want to be able to give some of why I think this should happen.

First and foremost, like the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Grand Bank, I, too, was in a meeting when the new board of directors came in to meet with us and we had a lot of concerns. I was always told when I grew up, and still use it as a rule of thumb now, that your word is your bond. If somebody told you something, you could believe it. Because if you could not believe what somebody told you, then you are in big trouble, and I do not mean joking around like we all do sometimes. When you have a serious issue, and the person gives you their word, then obviously you take it and hope that you can go and run with it.

I am telling you, that is not the case with FPI. They came in and they told us that Vic Young and the whole board of directors did not know what it was to run a company. They did not have the company at heart. They did not have the communities at heart. They were old fashioned businesspeople of doing things. They wanted a new way of doing it, a new way of growth so that the communities in the rural part of the Province, especially in the rural areas, could prosper and do well. We took them at their word, but do you know what? As the Leader of the Opposition has already said, and my colleague from the District of Grand Bank, within a year they were back in to us saying: We are going to lay off 700 people on the Southwest Coast, in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton. I am going to tell you one thing, they failed. Yes, we said no to them. I will tell you why they failed. Because they came at it and said: We are going to lay off people in Marystown, people in Fortune, and people in Harbour Breton. Do you know what happened? The communities galvanized together and said: You are not going to do it. The Mayor - I think it was Sam Synard from Marystown at the time. I am not sure if it was Alex Noseworthy in Marystown. I think it was Churence Rogers who was the Mayor or Harbour Breton at the time, came in and said: No, sir. And the people from Newfoundland and Labrador in the urban and rural areas stood with us and said: You're not going to do it.

Do you know what they did? They went back and devised another plan and the plan was to divide and conquer. I said that in the House last spring, and I am telling you they succeeded. They came here and said: We are going to close the plant in Harbour Breton. Do you know what they said? We will give Fortune Harbour Breton's red fish to keep them quiet, so they would not say a word. What is happening to Fortune now? I will make a prediction, and I do not want to say it for the sake of doing it - and the same for Harbour Breton - but I fear that it will never open again. That is the fear I have for the people who live in the communities. Do you know what? They even went further. Derrick Rowe - and I will come back to that in a moment. They are saying now: We are getting out of the groundfish industry altogether. We are only going to be a shellfish company. Then what happens to Marystown?

Last spring, when we asked in the House to have a quota of FPI's catch to be attributed and assigned to Harbour Breton as a community quota, we should probably have done it, because it is going to happen eventually if they get out to the groundfish industry. I want to go back. Do you know what? They said they were going to grow the company. They grew it alright! They grew the shares that were one time up to $12. What are they now? A little over $4. They grew it! What did they grow? They grew distress. They grew economic uncertainty. They grew depression. They grew everything on the people of Harbour Breton. I am telling you, if you were in that community you would see the houses are the same, but, I will tell you what, the people are not the same with what they have to live with, because of a company like FPI who perpetrated that on them. That is what they did. They were not honest with the people. They said something they were going to do and they did not follow through on it, and there has been a legacy of that all through.

I will tell you what, only recently, when Bill Matthews was on Open Line and Bill questioned the sincerity of FPI - and I have never ever seen it happen. I have been in politics here for just about sixteen years, seventeen years come the spring, and I have never seen it happen before. The communications person from the company came out and lambasted Bill Matthews, lambasted him because he told the truth, and even taunted him, you know, he should go back to his adopted party and see to his colleagues in Ottawa to get more support. I can tell you one thing, I got more support from Bill Matthews than I got from Russ Carrigan, the communications officer for FPI, the former communications person for Joe Clarke. This is not what you play politics about. It is people's lives that you are talking about.

I will tell you what happened after the day he lambasted Bill Matthews. Guess what happened a day after that? Derrick Rowe resigned. I could not believe it when I heard it. He resigned. He said: I can no longer lead this company as I had intended a couple of years ago. What has happened? Isn't that enough to question, a man who took over a company $75 million in debt and ended up with $300 million in debt, and giving him a freehand?

I will tell you what we should call into question; when they bought the new plant over the summer. Just think about it! Neither one of us would do it here on a private situation with our own finances. What he said was: We cannot afford to build a new plant in Bonavista or do the repairs in Fortune. The company is not in a position to do it. They go over to England and they buy a plant for $40 million and they built it on bridge financing because they thought they were going to get the Income Trust. They knew they were not going to get the Income Trust. They gave us false information last year. They tried to tell us that FPI was worth $250 million. The company was not worth $250 million, it was worth $105 million. They were going to sell part of the Income Trust and raise $100 million on $105 the company was worth. How long would you keep that person as CEO your company? You tell me.

What was the object of getting the new plant into Britain? I will tell you what the object was. The object was to take the shrimp that has been bought - and they did buy two factory freezer trawlers - to take the shrimp on those trawlers, send it into Britain rather than processing it in Catalina or up in Port aux Choix or wherever else they had gone. That is what they are going to do with it.

Guess what the other thing about it is? The other thing is, what are they going to process in the plant that they bought in Britain? They are going to process lobster and they are going to process scallops and other fish. Nova Scotia does not have the law that we have on our books, because it says once the fish is brought here then it has to be processed. In Nova Scotia you do not have to do it. Guess who is going to send the lobster and the scallops to the new plant in Great Britain? Who is going to benefit from it? It is going to come from Clearwater and John Risley. He did, deliberately, in my opinion, try to undermine the company right from the beginning. That is what happened. You had those people who saw that FPI was a great company, had a great marketing company and they wanted a part of it. They became envious of it. If they saw FPI be successful then they could not be themselves. What did they do? They saw the demise of the company so they could benefit from it, and benefit it on who? On the backs of the people in Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown and everywhere else. That is what they did. What we are saying is, all of these things added together cause us to have concern. Why not check it out?

I am sure that the former Minister of Fisheries had been frustrated to death with them as well. I am sure he had more meetings than I did with them, and I would say that day after day. Do you know why? They were never upfront. You cannot allow a company that really has so much control of rural Newfoundland - we are talking about the rural part of the Province here. Think of Harbour Breton. We are looking at the Connaigre Peninsula. This is the whole problem, the Connaigre Peninsula, the whole peninsula down there. What else are you going to put down if we do not have some situation of some fishery? I am telling you the community today is in a crisis situation. I know it.

I was in the community a couple of weeks ago and I was talking to a guy in the local garage there where people were putting on their tires. You know what he said to me? He said: Oliver, I have a moose licence and I cannot afford to go moose hunting. I cannot afford the gas. He said: If you are here 9:30 at night you will not see many cars going around the community. People cannot afford it. That is the situation that we have perpetrated on us by a company that was not honest and upfront with us in the first place. It is our people who we represent, and it is same situation in Fortune. I hope it never happens in Marystown or it never happens in Catalina.

Do you know what? It is my suspicion, and it is only me, but what I feel last year, when it came to the House and the Income Trust, I honestly believe from my heart of hearts that they promised to build a new plant in Bonavista so they could get the member's support. I really believe that. I really believe it. If they did not, they would not have done it. They divided and conquered. They did it to the Member for Grand Bank, that they are going to put some money into Fortune, and she did the right thing in supporting it because she supported her people. In my heart of hearts and in my mind I knew what they were up to. They had no intentions of doing it and we all see it now. We can all see it. I think it is time that all of us - because like last year when we talked about the Income Trust and we talked about what was happening, all of us can see it. You do not see it so much in St. John's, but I tell you one thing, you go outside the overpass and you will see it.

The other thing that really scares me, and it is not political - as I said, I have been here for seventeen years. Do you know what scares me? It is that the fight for a lot of these people has gone out of them. The fight is gone out of them. They are just, in a sense, accepting this. They say: What can I do? That scares me even more. That really scares me. The fight is gone out of them. The people are despondent, they are depressed, and they see, in a sense, there is nothing that they can do.

I talked to a guy only recently who was saying that his sister, I think, his sister or brother-in-law, worked at the plant in Marystown on the discharge. What did FPI do with that? They contracted it out. I guess the people who were working were probably making $6 or $7 an hour rather than the $13 or $14 that the people were making who were working at the plant. Where did he end up at sixty-one years of age? Up in Alberta. That is the type of problem that we have.

I have no allegiance to FPI. The only people that I have allegiance to are the people who sent me here, and I will work for them and do that as long as I can. That is what it is about. What I am asking is that all of us collectively, together, reminisce, go back, look at what FPI has done over the last number of years, and I tell you what, if you have a second sober thought about it, you will realize, as well as I do, that they have not been up-front with us, they have not been honest with us, and they have not given us all the figures. As a result of that, we are going to say to them: You can do what you like? You cannot do it, because I think it is morally wrong. Yes, you can do it, sure you can, but it is a situation where all of the people we represent - and it really hurts when you have a situation like that with people.

I have seen in Harbour Breton so many times this year where people's cars have been put on the truck and carried back to Grand Falls, because the people could not afford them. I have seen people who had to sell ATVs, which is a way of life for the people in the rural part of the Province. They had to sell them because they could not afford them. People have lost their houses because they could not afford them. People have had to declare bankruptcy because of the situation that they were in. We here, as individuals, sit in the House and sometimes we get (inaudible) to it. You know, we have all the things that we want, but really, when we look at it and see the people who are in situations like that, it is not very comfortable. They are in a situation, in a sense, where they cannot help themselves.

I find it very, very, very frustrating, because a lot of the people in the Harbour Breton situation, like in Marystown, these are older people, people in their forties and fifties who have spent thirty and thirty-five years working in a plant, giving all of the their lifetime, and are now not able to retire and have to take themselves to Alberta or somewhere else, leave their families at home for months and then come back again. I think it is untenable.

All I am asking for is to have another look at FPI and see what they are up to. If, at the end of the day, there is nothing there, then that is fine, but we would have preempted it by looking at it and saying: What are you up to? What have you done? What are the decisions that you have made? Were they in the best interests? If at the end of the day they were not, then probably we can do something about it to make sure that the people we represent are well taken care of rather than the people who sit around the board rooms of FPI and make $500,000 a year, and then when it is all over just walk away from it. The people in the rural parts of the Province cannot do that, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Today we are dealing with a private member's resolution, and I want to select just one part of it that I want to talk about for a moment.

It says: Whereas the operation of the company - in reference to Fishery Products International - is of critical importance to the future economy of this Province.... I think, Madam Speaker, what we have heard here today is very similar to the comments we heard back in June when we discussed Bill 41 at that time before the House. There is no question at all, Madam Speaker, with any member of this House, I believe, as we talk about how critical and how important Fishery Products is to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. All we have had to do is just look at those communities in which we have Fishery Products operations, look at those regions around those communities, look at the economies of regions, and it is easy to tell how important a role Fishery Products plays in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, this discussion about Fishery Products is only but one piece of how critical an entire fishing industry is to this entire Province and this economy.

As I listened to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune talk about some of the real, personal stories, and as he talks about - I have heard him many times in this House - what has happened in Harbour Breton and that area since Fishery Products has made an announcement with respect to their operation in Harbour Breton, each time I listen to him it really reinforces, I believe, the significant personal impact that this type of company, and decisions that they make in their board rooms, have on individuals, families, communities, regions, and an entire Province, I say, Madam Speaker.

No one at all will refute the importance of Fishery Products International. We look at the district that I represent, Trinity North, and if we look at some of the other people who spoke here today, they come from communities that historically have been well known and identified as fishing communities or fishing regions. Trinity North is a region, a district of this Province, that people would not automatically assume to be impacted by the fishing industry; but, let me share with you, Madam Speaker.

The District of Trinity North falls in the rural secretariat region of Bonavista-Clarenville. There are some 29,000 people in that region, Madam Speaker, and some 100 and some-odd small communities all tied to primary resource, tied predominantly to the fishing industry, a tremendous historic attachment. As we look at the community of Bonavista, when I spoke in this House back on June 9 as we talked about Bill 41, I said one of the positive things about the issue we were debating at the time was a commitment by Fishery Products to put a new plant in Bonavista. It was on the strength of that commitment that I felt obligated to support the bill before the House at that time, because we have in our district, in our region, an economy that each community is depending on the other. So, what happens on the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula has a significant impact in Trinity, Port Rexton, has a significant impact on Random Island, in the immediate Clarenville area, because we are a regional economy. So we all, I believe, have a full understanding of the significance of Fishery Products' operations in this Province. We have a full understanding of the significant impact they have on our local economies.

Madam Speaker, as we talk about this private member's resolution before the House today, I think members before me have spoken quite passionately about the evolution of the fishing industry in this Province. They have talked about their communities, their personal experiences involved directly in the fishery. When you talk like that, it is easy to get caught up in the momentum and the emotion behind that issue, because it is an extremely emotional issue. It pulls at the heartstrings of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because it is a reflection of our heritage, our history. It is a part of the mainstay of the economy of this Province, still, to this day; a different kind of fishery than it might have been twenty or twenty-five years ago, but it is still a mainstay in our economy. When you get caught up in a discussion like that, that is fraught with emotion, that is fraught with a lot of history and a lot to passion, it is difficult to look at some of this stuff objectively.

I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, yesterday in the House, in response to questions from members of the Opposition, tried to put it in some kind of perspective. As I look at this motion before us today, there are pieces of this that I do not think anyone in this House will disagree with. The question becomes: Is it an appropriate time to do it today? Is it reasonable for the House to make a decision today to not proclaim the bill we passed back in June? Is it reasonable for the House today to pass a resolution asking government to commission an inquiry into the operation of Fishery Products? That is the question.

You have to step back from the emotion, step back from the personal stories, and look at: Is it reasonable to do this today? I think what we heard the minister say yesterday is that he understands the need for government to stay on top of this file. He understands the need for government, and him as the minister particularly, to fully understand all of the issues raised in this House today. The Leader of the Opposition raised some issues around the operation of Fishery Products, raised some questions around the management, raised some questions around their future plans - all legitimate questions and issues that government needs to stay on top of, and particularly the minister.

We heard yesterday in the House the minister say quite clearly that he was, in fact, on top of this file. He was very much aware of the issues being raised, and was, in fact, staying in touch with the issues, staying in touch with the company, very much involved with the answers to these questions that are being raised here today.

No one is refuting the need to understand that. No one is refuting the need to stay on top of those issues. I think the question becomes for us here today - and the Member for Grand Bank is asking us to endorse her motion today, that would see us ask this Legislature, asking government, to immediately take an action to initiate an inquiry, to immediately take an action and delay the proclamation of Bill 41.

I think before we start, as a House and as legislators, rushing in and endorsing such a motion, we need to think about its implications. Madam Speaker, I am not certain that it is the appropriate time for us as a government, and for us as a Legislature, to be asking government to move in this direction at this point in time. We may find ourselves, in a month, two months, six weeks or three days from now, new information, something different before us, maybe coming to a very different conclusion.

I say, Madam Speaker, it is probably a bit premature for us to be voting on this motion today. I say that the questions being raised in here are valid, the points being made by any member who stood and spoke to the issue are valid points, and we fully understand. I fully understand the significance that Fishery Products plays in many communities. Fishery Products International does not have a plant itself in the district that I serve, but the district that I serve is an integral part of a region that is dependent upon a Fishery Products operation in Bonavista. So, I have a full appreciation for the implications of what happens with our region, what happens with our Province, what happens with our economy. If something were to happen to Fishery Products tomorrow, that it no longer exist as a company, or it became but a mere shadow of its former self, I fully understand and appreciate that, but I think, Madam Speaker, at this particular point in time I find it difficult - in fact, I was reflecting on the debate we had back in June in the House. I stood in the House in June, speaking to Bill 41, and said that it was very unfortunate. I found myself in a very precarious situation voting to support a bill that I had some difficulty with. As I said a moment ago, there was one redeeming issue that made the difference for me, and that was a commitment to put something in Bonavista.

Standing here today, looking at this private member's motion, I, too, understand and would echo many of the comments that have been made, many of the issues that have been raised, and not to, in any way, diminish the significance of the points being raised by the hon. members in this House, but purely to say that at this particular point in time today, as we stand here in this House being asked to vote on this particular motion, I say, Madam Speaker, it is probably a bit premature.

With that said, Madam Speaker, inasmuch as I said, I appreciate the points being raised. I think we all would agree, and fundamentally, that if this motion is not passed in the House today, no one in this Legislature, no one in this Province, should interpret it in any way as our not understanding, not appreciating, and not fully in touch with what is happening with Fishery Products or suggesting that we should let Fishery Products do their own thing, leave them alone, let them do what they want, let them make the decisions in the boardroom and let us know after. That is not what that would say.

So, if this motion is not passed in the House today, I think it would be important for people of Newfoundland and Labrador to reflect on the comments by the Minister of the Fisheries and Aquaculture yesterday, when he said clearly: That as a government - and him as a minister, particularly - were very much on top of this file, very much keenly aware of the significance or the operation of Fishery Products in this Province, and people should rest assured, that as a government, and as him as minister, would ensure that we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the best interests of those communities where Fishery Products currently operate and the best interests of a long-term viable fishery for this Province. That is what people should take from a message from the minister yesterday and that is the message that people should take from this government.

So, I say, Madam Speaker, in closing; unfortunately, I will not be supporting this motion put forward by the Member for Grand Bank today. In saying that, I would not want anyone at all, either in this Legislature or in my district, or in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to assume that I am not concerned about it, not keenly aware of the significance of what is happening with Fishery Products International. Not just because it is Fishery Products International but because they are such a major player in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the fishery is still a critical mainstay of the economy of this Province.

In closing, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on this important motion today, and I thank the Member for Grand Bank in bringing it forward because I think it is important for all of us to have a healthy discussion around this significant issue and it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to fully understand, as we debate it in the Legislature, the importance of Fishery Products as a major company and a major player, not only in the economy of this Province but in the fishery of this Province. So, I thank you for that opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this motion before the House concerning the very important role that Fishery Products plays in the Province. It is particularly considering the events of earlier this year when we were asked to vote on a package of proposals from FPI that included significant changes in the structure of FPI and the legal relationship of FPI to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a very difficult debate. I know members on both sides of the House had a lot of consideration to give to the propositions that were being put forth by Fishery Products International. A lot of people had difficulty with it. At the end of the day, the Premier voted against it; voted against it at the end of the day. Although, the majority of his caucus supported it.

We have a situation now where that legislation was passed on the basis of a package of submissions and a package of proposals and a package of commitments that were made, that I, on balance, supported; with a lot of misgivings, I have to say. Those of you who remember my speech, I did have to come to grips with the history of FPI as a public corporation; a public purpose private corporation, I called it then. It still is, in my view. We were asked to loosen a lot of the strings, a lot of the last sets of strings that we had really, on this corporation last spring and summer. Reluctantly, I supported doing so because we were convinced, or I was certainly convinced, that the communities that relied on FPI, for the most part - Harbour Breton is obviously an exception because they were closing down Harbour Breton, but the other communities that relied on Harbour Breton, who were given promises by FPI as to what was going to happen as a result of the Income Trust, who were told, as we were told, that the Income Trust is what would make it possible for them to go forward. Now the door has been closed on the Income Trust so far; not viable. May not be viable. We do not know what is going to happen in the new year.

So, I think it is right to support the continuation of not proclaiming the amendments. The government has not done so, so far. Obviously, they have concern enough, even though cabinet ministers support it. I do not know if the majority of Cabinet supported it. The majority of Cabinet probably did support it, but all it would take is a resolution of Cabinet to proclaim this legislation and yet, it has not been forthcoming to date. Why is that? It is not as if the government and the Premier have any political stake in proclaiming this legislation. The Premier voted against it. I think he said at the end he wasn't satisfied - some double negative - he wasn't satisfied that it wasn't a giveaway. Do I have that right? He wasn't satisfied that it wasn't a giveaway. So, therefore, he voted against it.

If he wasn't satisfied at that time, that it wasn't a giveaway, I am sure, Madam Speaker, he must be convinced by now that, in fact - under the current circumstances, at the very least - this legislation ought not to be proclaimed. That this company has to come back to the table with a series of credible commitments before any credence is given to the legislation that was passed back in the spring. I feel, and I think the people of Harbour Breton feel, and many other people in this Province feel that they have been had. That this company had - and maybe they were sincere. I am not questioning their sincerity at the time. I mean they put forth propositions they believed that they could follow through on, perhaps. I am not questioning their motives. I am suggesting, however, that their plan has failed, and the Chief Executive Officer has fallen on his sword. He has resigned. He has done the honourable thing. My plan has failed. My plan that I sold to the Government of Newfoundland, or to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I sold to the majority of the House of Assembly, has failed, has not worked out and he has resigned.

In that circumstance, Madam Speaker, before we move forward - and I am not saying I agree, by the way. I do not want to be on record as agreeing with every single thing - with all due respect to the hon. Member for Grand Bank - with every single word in all of the whereas'. It is not the whereas' that we are voting for. It is the resolution that we are voting for. Principally, the two items which calls for a public inquiry into the operation and management practices, I think a lot of people are concerned about that. What are they up to? What is the real plan here? A lot of people have been concerned about that. Secondly, that government ought not to proclaim that legislation until FPI commits to using the proceeds of an Income Trust for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a pretty broad statement. What I would submit is really necessary, is for this company to come back and say, here is what we propose, and have another vote in this House before anything moves forward in the way of approving or going forward with that legislation.

I think it is an important piece of parliamentary work. I think it is important that the member brought it forward. I want to thank her for bringing it before the House at the first opportunity to do so after the House was sitting in June. We are able, at this point, to still retain some measure of governmental and parliamentary oversight of this company; but, once this legislation passes, the amount of parliamentary or governmental oversight of this company diminishes considerably. Considerably. The last bit of control just virtually disappears. So, it is extremely important that we revisit in our own minds that debate of last June, and revisit the arguments that were made at the time, and ask ourselves whether they are still valid today in light of what we have seen happen, in light of their change in their commitments to Grand Bank and Fortune, in light of the people of Harbour Breton being totally unsatisfied with the kind of commitments that were made and to follow through on them, and in light of the expectation in Bonavista. How much confidence do the people of Bonavista have today? How much confidence do the people of Bonavista have today that FPI will be even able to meet its commitments, let alone whether they will or whether they will not. Will they be able to?

These are very important considerations, because I do not want to see a situation where, in six months time, we have FPI coming to the table here and looking for a massive subsidy. I do not want to see a situation where the same kind of circumstances that Abitibi Consolidated is facing in Stephenville are brought before this government on behalf of FPI and saying, where is the government subsidy equivalent to that? Aren't the jobs in the fishery as important as the jobs in the woods and the jobs in Stephenville?

These are the kinds of things that people are thinking in this Province today, that somehow or other the value of a job in Stephenville at the mill is more valuable than a job in Harbour Breton, or a job in Fortune, or a job in Grand Bank, or a job in Bonavista. It is not right that people in this Province have reason to feel that way, have reason to feel that this government is not as concerned about them and their future as it might be about the people who work for Abitibi Consolidated.

This is an opportunity, Madam Speaker, for this House to send a very strong and clear message, not only to FPI but also to the rest of the people of this Province, that this House still does want to exercise important influence on what happens at FPI.

Some on the other side may think it is premature. I heard a recent speaker say it is premature. Maybe if the government was prepared to commit to item number two we might not need an inquiry yet, but I have not heard that from the opposite side. I have not heard anyone over there on behalf of the government say, look, we are going to vote against this resolution but don't worry about item number two because we are not going to proclaim that legislation until everything is under control, until they come back with another plan. We have not heard them say that. All we have so far is wait and see, and the company not coming to its own defence but instead the Minister of Fisheries, the new Minister of Fisheries, is here in this House defending FPI, and FPI has its mouth kept quiet for some reason or other, has not said a word; has not issued a press release, has not done an interview, has not gone to try and satisfy the questions that are being raised in this House about what is going on in England and what they are doing in the UK. This is something that we expect the company to be doing, not the Minister of Fisheries coming in this House and defending FPI when FPI does not appear to be willing to defend itself.

Again, Madam Speaker, I am not saying that everything here is true, or I agree with everything, although obviously a significant number of tax dollars were invested in Fishery Products. It is of critical importance. They did make promises to make investments. They have borrowed money to make substantial investments in other parts of the world. This is a crucial point. Forty million dollars, or thirty-something million dollars, was borrowed on a one-year term -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-nine million.

MR. HARRIS: Thirty-nine million, on a one-year term, to buy an enterprise in the UK, a one-year term. Do we have a ticking clock here, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: I wasn't thinking of your time clock. I was thinking of a ticking clock, the one-year time. I see that I got the Speaker's attention when I talked about the ticking clock, but I am talking about a one-year clock, a one-year term. The Minister of Finance knows all about ticking clocks. He worries about something that is going to happen in thirty years' time. He tells us he is worried about the unfunded pension liability that is going to come due in thirty years. He is worried about that. He loses sleep at night. Imagine the shareholders of FPI knowing that in one year they have to come up with $39 million and they cannot float their income trust unless Mr. Goodale changes his rules before an election. All up in the air, Mr. Speaker, all up in the air.

Why did they do this before they got their income trust? Why didn't they do the income trust in September? They told us they were ready. They told us it was urgent that they do their income trust. They wanted the legislation passed yesterday, in June, but that wasn't fast enough to get it passed so they could float their income trust, and they did not do it. Then, when they waited so long, Mr. Goodale in Ottawa said we are not so sure we are going to give the same tax advantages to income trust as we have in the past. Whatever changes are made to income trust, Mr. Speaker, it is probably a pretty good notion that the existing income trusts are not going to be destroyed. So, if they had made the move then they would have had been able to raise the money to float this kind of purchase that they said. This was part of their plan. I remember being told that one of our plans is to get ourselves into the European market, probably buy some kind of marketing arm. It made sense. It made sense as part of the overall plan. Does it make sense now? I do not know. I do not know. I have a lot of concerns.

I do not want to do anything that is going to harm the future of FPI. I think FPI should be able to overcome this issue, but we have to have some more transparency about what they are up to, and we have to some more support for the communities that are affected by this before we can say yes, the plan that you put before this House last June is a plan that we can accept, because we obviously have serious doubts now about the package that was presented.

Having said that, that is all I would like to have to say. I know my colleague here would like to say a few words. I do not know if there are a few minutes left before the Member for Grand Bank gets an opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

I do understand we have about three minutes left in the allotted time, unless the Member for Grand Bank agrees to give you extended time.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few brief comments on the resolution here today, to say that I support the resolution as presented. In June of this year, of course, we had the amendments to the FPI Act presented in a special session before this House and I voted against that at that time. Today there is even more reason to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in my district there is not a fishery, but I can tell you, the things that cause me concern with what FPI has proposed and what they are doing are not merely related and restricted to the fishing industry of the Province. It is the things that all large corporations try and do to improve their lot in life while causing a lot of suffering for the people who work for them. Somebody, in particular government, has to be the buffer between large corporations and the people to protect them

Last June, Mr. Speaker, when we were talking about the changes to the FPI Act, there were many people, particularly on the opposite side of the House, who said they had a big decision to make, one that caused them to stay awake and lose sleep over the importance of the decision that they were going to make at that time. Well, I say to those members, they may have had to do that last June. I did not, but they may have had to do that last June. Today it should be easy for them to vote in favour of this resolution that would stop things from proceeding to the next step of being proclaimed. We have seen what happened from June to now and we have seen what happened to the people in Harbour Breton, hardworking people who, for centuries, made a living from the sea only to have it yanked out from underneath them by a corporation that was formed by a government of this Province.

I would say , Mr. Speaker, that the reason FPI was formed in the first place back years ago, if left unchecked, will be something that future governments will have to do all over again, because the fishery will be decimated and government will have to pick up the pieces, they have no choice. Government will have to pick up the pieces, restructure the fishery and probably take the same route that governments in the past had to take in order to protect the people of the Province and provide them with the access to a resource that they depended upon for centuries in order to survive in the actual environment that they survived in.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use up more time. I know the Member for Grand Bank is eager to wrap up debate. I will say that I support the resolution and I encourage all members of the House to look at this very seriously. If they had trouble in June doing it, they should not have any trouble here today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank making closing comments in this debate.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank all of the members of the House of Assembly who spoke to this motion today.

I particularly want to thank my two colleagues of the NDP, of course, because they indicated that they will, in fact, be supporting this motion. I gather, from the comments from members on the government side, that they are not. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because this is a perfect opportunity for us to work together. As the Member for Windsor-Springdale said, that he wanted to work with the Opposition to do what is right and in the best interests of the people of the Province. This is a golden opportunity for him to do just that, for us to send a message, as a group of MHAs concerned about the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, to send a message to FPI that: We are watching you.

Unfortunately, it does not look like the government intends to take advantage of this opportunity. Of course, there is nothing to stop the Premier from supporting this motion. In fact, when the vote was taken in June about the Income Trust he voted against the establishment of an Income Trust, believing at the time that it was not the right thing to do. Of course we all recognize that for what it was at the time, but here is an opportunity now for the Premier to really play a leadership role and support this motion calling for a public inquiry into the operation and management of FPI, and to post-pone the amendments to the FPI Act. They are not proclaimed. We still have an opportunity, in this Legislature, to have some say over the future of FPI and its role in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am calling on the government members to think seriously about this motion, to support it, because this may very well be our last opportunity to send a message to FPI that: We are watching you.

I have listened to some of the comments that were made, and I remember when my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, stood up and talked about what is happening in Fortune, what is happening in Harbour Breton, and alluded to the fact that the government would be okay with that happening because they are Liberal districts. There was a cry from one of the members opposite to say: Get out of here. Well, the truth of the matter is that the investment in Fortune and the investment in Harbour Breton are all linked to an Income Trust. However, that is not the case when it comes to Bonavista which is a district that is held by a member of the government. I know that in order to get the support of the Member for Bonavista it was not tied to the Income Trust. So do not tell me there was not politics played with this whole strategy around an Income Trust, because there certainly was, and the losers are the ones, as far as the Income Trust goes and the fact that it is not proceeding, who are in fact in Liberal held district.

What we are seeing happening with FPI today, I expect there will be a lot more losers. That is the sad part of this, that no matter if you are in Fortune, in Harbour Breton, in Bonavista, in Marystown, in Triton, any community where there is an FPI plant, if the government does not take its responsibility seriously and look at what is happening in FPI, look at the operation and management of FPI that has led to it going from a $75 million debt in 2001 to about a $300 million debt just four short years later, then there is something seriously wrong here.

In my earlier comments I talked about Mr. Risley, about John Risley, and I did that because, of course, he is the President of Clearwater Fine Foods, the largest shareholder in Fishery Products International. In fact, those are the two largest fishing companies in the country. I mentioned Mr. Risley because I have the experience of what he has been able to do in Grand Bank, in my hometown. That is why I really believe he is in a position to make a difference here, to change their minds, to change the minds of the Board of Directors of FPI so that they will take seriously what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I mentioned several quotes, and I want to mention another one because again it reinforces my belief that John Risley can, in fact, intercede here. At this point we need someone to intervene. We need someone to say that this is not going to happen, that FPI - you have a responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: You have a moral obligation to continue with FPI in the manner that we have become accustomed to when it was under a previous management. But, here is a quote from Mr. Risley in the column that he wrote for The Globe and Mail back in January of this year: It is my personal experience with rural Canadians that they are a proud and independent lot, qualities we should admire and celebrate. We must find ways to invest in these people, not belittle them. That is preciously what we are asking FPI to do, whether it is in Fortune, Harbour Breton, Marystown, Bonavista, or any community in Newfoundland and Labrador where there is an FPI fish plant.

Another quote that I think is really telling, and why I again think that Mr. Risley, if he wanted to, could make a difference here: The underlying problem is the speed at which the world's economies are transferring manufacturing and processing jobs to low-cost jurisdictions such as China. In the process of wealth creation, many traditional values are being compromised.

I could not have said it better myself. Why, then, if Mr. Risley believes this - I assume he does, since he wrote it for all to read in The Globe and Mail - is the focus on the creation of wealth to the detriment of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, people who have given their lives to this fishery, people who have worked for FPI for years, people who have made it possible for FPI to exist? Why is it, then, that the focus now is on wealth for a group of shareholders to the detriment of the people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

That is the sad part of this, because it is the people who helped to make FPI viable, both from their hard work and their tax dollars, because FPI would not exist today if it was not for the government of the day taking tax dollars and buying up all of the fishing companies that were struggling at the time and creating this one entity that would both be viable and competitive. We know that under the previous management and Board of Directors of FPI, the responsibility to the taxpayer, to the people who work in the fish plants and on the boats, was taken seriously. They acknowledged the social responsibility that came with the creation of FPI. Today, that seems to have gone out the window and the focus is on the creation of wealth for a few instead of a benefit for the many.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time - and we are fortunate to have this time, in fact - to look at what is happening at FPI. We are being given an opportunity here to take another look, a second chance, at FPI, to look at what is happening with that company that has seen it today in a situation where we are all fearful that it may not be around a year from now.

Of course, if FPI does not exist, and the plants do not exist in those communities that I mentioned earlier, then there will be no jobs and the out-migration that the government is predicting based on, I guess, the numbers they have done which shows 20,000 more people leaving this Province in the next ten years, that number is going to be a lot higher than 20,000. So, this is an opportunity for the government to do everything it can to ensure that does not happen. You have an opportunity now to get FPI to come to the table and talk to you about what is going on there and get them to refocus, get them to look at Newfoundland and Labrador as a place where they should be and want to be to do business. I am afraid that the investments that are being made by FPI, the latest one being in the UK, is nothing more than an opportunity to ensure that there is yet more wealth being generated for their shareholders.

Now, I know Mr. Rowe has stepped down. Given where the company finds itself today, I think that was an appropriate move, and maybe there are others. I heard one of the members on the government side talk about the need for FPI to look closely at its management, to look at how many they have filling these top positions, over at the head office on O'Leary Avenue for one. I think it is an opportunity here for John Risley to show the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador, as he has done in Grand Bank, that he is interested and concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Just as he said in his column that he wrote for The Globe and Mail, rural Canada matters and should not be written off, I am asking him to intervene and make sure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not written off because of the actions of the Board of Directors and the management of FPI.

Mr. Speaker, if the only way that we can make this happen is for the government to put the fear of God in FPI, maybe that is what we need to do, and initiate a public inquiry or even a threat of a public inquiry. If that is the only way to make it happen, then I am calling on the government to do just that and to postpone enacting those amendments to the FPI Act that would allow for the establishment on the Income Trust.

The time is right now. Not as Minister Rideout, the Minister of Fisheries has said, wait for the review. Wait for what? Wait for FPI to do its internal review and determine that they are going to close more plants, that Marystown is gone, that they are not going to proceed with a secondary processing plant in Fortune, that they are not going to do anything further in Harbour Breton, that they are not going to build a new plant in Bonavista? Is that what their internal review is going to show, that they cannot afford to do any of that? Well, then why are we going to wait for that to happen? The time is right now.

We need to get FPI to take us seriously. The government can do that. We need today, all of us, to stand together because it will be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador if we all stand together and say: Yes, we want a public inquiry into the operations and management of FPI. We want the amendments that were approved in June not to go forward until we are comfortable that they, indeed, will be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution say, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those in disagreement say, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the Speaker's opinion that the nays have it.

MS FOOTE: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called. Ring the bells.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the resolution, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Shelley, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. French, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey.

Mr. Speaker, eleven ayes, twenty-eight nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

In accordance with Section 9 of our Standing Orders, this being Wednesday, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, November 24, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.