June 11, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 27


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, Councillor Anita Hynes and Councillor Doreen Tremblett from the Town of Bishop's Falls.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be in attendance a week ago in Corner Brook, where three bright young individuals from Grand Falls-Windsor, members of the 842 Bomber Squadron, were presented with their Silver Duke of Edinburgh Award by the hon. Ed Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Katie MacKenzie, Kayla Sheppard and Rebecca Sweeney - I might add, is the granddaughter of our Speaker here in the House of Assembly - have worked very hard to reach this level of the program. Having already received their bronze award, requirements for silver involved community service, participation in expeditions and explorations, the building of a skill or hobby, as well as physical education. During the ceremony Ed Thorne, who is a leader with the 842 Bomber Air Cadets, was also presented with a Certificate of Recognition for his five years service to this organization.

Mr. Speaker, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award is an exciting self-development program available to young people, designed to equip them with life skills that will make a difference to themselves, their communities and the world. First initiated in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1974 by the provincial government, as a gift to His Royal Highness, Prince Phillip, this program continues to strengthen the development of its participants.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to Katie MacKenzie, Kayla Sheppard, Rebecca Sweeney and Ed Thorne on their accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Father Linus Coady on the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 8, I had the privilege of attending the celebration recognizing the accomplishments of Reverend Father Coady which was hosted by the Knights of Columbus in Bishop's Falls.

Father Linus Coady was born on April 21, 1932 to Ellen and Mike Coady in Harbour Grace. He attended Memorial University for one year and in 1951 he moved to Quebec City and studied theology at Laval University. He was ordained on June 9, 1957 in Harbour Grace by the most Reverend J.M. O'Neil.

Mr. Speaker, Father Coady's first assignment was at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Grand Falls from 1957-1959. He then went on the serve in La Scie, Norris Arm, Harbour Main, Brents Cove, Brigus, and in 1992 he was transferred to Sacred Heart Parish in Bishop's Falls where he has served to the present day.

Mr. Speaker, for the past fifty years Father Coady has demonstrated his faithfulness and passion to his vocation.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Father Linus Coady on his fifty years of dedication as a gentle servant to his vocation and church.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to a young Carbonear writer, Jamie Harnum, a Carbonear Collegiate student who is the recipient of the 2007 Arts and Letters Award.

Jamie won in the junior category for her short story, Comfort. The Grade 11 honour student, who skipped a year in school, gave a two-minute reading of her story during the awards presentation at The Rooms.

Mr. Speaker, her award-winning descriptive story focuses on the thoughts of a seven-year-old boy and his reactions when it appears his mother has gotten herself into some trouble.

Thirty-four prizes were given out in the junior division of the competition for entrants twelve to eighteen years of age, and thirty-six prizes were awarded in the senior division, nearly doubling the awards total from the previous year.

Prizes in both divisions were awarded in literary arts, musical composition and visual arts. The annual Arts and Letters competition has been recognizing artists in this Province since 1952.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Jamie Harnum, a Carbonear Collegiate student who is the recipient of the 2007 Arts and Letters Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 12, in Conception Bay South, I had the privilege of taking part in the three hour challenge - I might add after a significant lobby from my eight-year-old daughter. This was an event sponsored by the Pride in Your Community Committee and the Town of Conception Bay South. From 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon an astonishing 7.5 tons of garbage was collected by the residents and delivered to Robin Hood Bay.

It was promoted as an incentive for local residents to come together to clean up their homes, schools, parks, and the many public places throughout the town. A significant number of the people involved were young people and students from the various schools. Each school's participation was counted and St. Edwards School in Kelligrews had a remarkable ninety-one students take part. Upper Gullies Elementary finished second with ninety students and both schools received new computers for their efforts.

At the rally held at the Conception Bay South stadium after the clean up, some 1,200 people were treated to free hot dogs, pop, coffee, Timbits and hot chocolate. There were free t-shirts and hats for each participant, as well as free run in several big bouncy air toys for the kids. Live entertainment was provided and a large flat screen TV was drawn for to award one of the lucky participants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you win?

MR. FRENCH: I did not win the TV.

I ask all hon. members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I only had two.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the organizers of this great event, acknowledge the contribution of the various corporate sponsors including Tim Horton's, I say to the members across, Home Hardware, Jungle Jims and many others; and, most importantly, congratulating the hundreds of school students and youth groups for taking pride in their community and keeping it clean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Douglas Parsons of Bay Roberts, recipient of the 2007 NLTA Bancroft Award.

The Bancroft Award was established in 1980 to mark the ninetieth anniversary of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teacher's Association. This award recognizes outstanding service at the Branch level of the NLTA for the betterment of education and professionalism for teachers.

Mr. Speaker, a teacher for thirty years, Doug was an active member of the Bay Roberts Branch for over fifteen years. At various times during this period he filled the role of treasurer, political action officer and member at large for the Branch. He also filled the role as strike paymaster for one year and was school representative for fifteen years of his career.

Doug was a member of the local Education Week Committee for twenty-two years and he chaired the committee for ten of those years. He was active on the Retirement Committee and the Social Committee, and spent many years in the capacity of chair of these committees as well as a member. He was an organizer of the 100th Anniversary Committee for activities in Spaniard's Bay and Bay Roberts, and was an organizer and a participant in the High School Math League for the Bay Roberts area. He attended ten of the conventions of the NLTA and had arranged for the upkeep of the NLTA monument in Spaniard's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, Doug as a national winner of the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in 1993 and Doug is currently retired.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Douglas Parsons, recipient of the 2007 NLTA Bancroft Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the many individuals who participated in the Canadian Cancer Society's Fifth Annual Relay for Life event in Labrador City-Wabush, which took place this past weekend for the twelve-hour period from Saturday evening until 7:00 o'clock Sunday morning.

In addition to the participants and many volunteers, I would like to recognize the event's chairperson, Ms Thelma Rickett.

Forty teams participated, including four teams from across the border in Fermont, Quebec, and each team consisted of twelve to fourteen people. The event began with eighty cancer survivors participating in a victory lap around the soccer field where the event was hosted. The victory lap gives survivors an opportunity to share and celebrate success in their battle against cancer. It gives hope to people living with cancer, and to their families, and it is a way to thank everyone who helped them through their battle with cancer.

Surrounding the track, the soccer field, were 1,872 luminaries, bearing the names of cancer survivors and loved ones who have lost their battle with cancer. These luminaries provided light and inspiration for participants as they walked around the track throughout the night.

The single largest fundraiser was Mr. Harold Clark, who raised just under $4,300, and the largest team amount of $7,100 was raised by Carla's Dream Team. The total amount raised at the Labrador City-Wabush event was an exceptional $86,320, certainly the largest amount to date for our area.

Mr. Speaker, the results of this relay could very well add years to the lives of those who are or who will become affected by cancer, and this is definitely a commendable act of kindness by those who participate and support the Relay for Life.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing and congratulating all participants, organizers and volunteers in another successful Relay for Life in Labrador City-Wabush.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed further, the Chair would like to also recognize Mr. John Butt, a former member of our House and former member of the executive.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to announce new enhancements to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program which will improve access to health care services to our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, there are many individuals and families who incur a significant financial burden as a result of travel costs to receive medical services. Through these enhancements, our government will provide increased financial assistance for eligible residents who pay substantial costs when travelling for insured medical services such as cancer treatment or surgery. The cost to implement these changes is approximately $525,000, with a total budget for the program of $1.7 million.

As we announced in the Northern Strategic Plan, effective May 1, residents of Labrador will now be reimbursed the first $1,000 for eligible travel expenses during a twelve-month period, up from $500. Residents of the Island portion of the Province will also receive a greater level of assistance, with the annual deductible reduced to $400.

Many more changes will also put more money back into the hands of our residents of the Province who travel for medical treatment. For example, government will now cost-share eligible expenditures over $5,000 at an increased rate of 65 per cent as opposed to the current level of 50 per cent.

Furthermore, effective July 1, 2007, caps on eligible expenses will be increased for eligible patients and escorts. Registered bus services will also be considered an eligible expense.

These changes provide more financial assistance to individuals with substantial travel costs for medical services and improve the overall equity of the program.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enhancements we are making to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program, we are also investing in infrastructure with $67 million designated this year for new and redeveloped health care facilities across the Province and we are investing medical equipment and new communications technologies so that residents can benefit from treatment closer to their home communities.

More detailed information on changes to our Medical Transportation Assistance Program have been issued in a news release today. I encourage any residents who use this program, or who may be eligible, to visit the provincial government's Web site for further information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister, of course, for an advance copy of his statement today.

When I read it, I was reminded of the fact that, obviously, we still have lots of people in the Province who have to travel to receive medical services. We do not expect to have every single medical service close to home, but, Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a call from a resident in my district of having to travel to Corner Brook, which was about an hour-and-a-half drive for her, simply because she could not get an EKG done in her own community. This machine, which was readily available in days gone by, was out of commission there today. When I think of that very basic service that she could not receive, I would like to see somewhere during this program here, that the transportation for her would somewhat be covered. We see this, of course, with people who have to travel for lab results as well.

I am also reminded here that the $5,000, or a 65 per cent component of that, still leaves people paying up to $1,750 out-of-pocket. A few weeks ago I asked the minister if they would include travel costs to receive treatments like Avastin. I do not see anywhere in this program where that would include those types of benefits as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. BALL: Thank you.

I will conclude to say that this program, certainly the enhancements, I am happy to see that. It will help, but I would like to remind the minister, as well, that there are still some basic services that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are still having to pay out-of-pocket expenses to receive.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Obviously, any help is an improvement but we still have a long way to go before we have equity, because when one compares somebody who is living next to a facility or a service to somebody who has to travel, the cost differential is far from equitable. We have a long way to go in this Province.

Even though it is not included under medical transportation assistance, I, once again, need to mention the whole thing of the cost of ambulances and the fact that one can be five minutes away -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just to say, once again, that I do think we have to continue to consider looking at ambulance costs. Somebody can live five minutes away from a hospital, have to get an ambulance either for an emergency or disability purpose and have to pay $230 return for the trip. I think that really is unacceptable. We have a long way to go. I know government is concerned about that but I would like to see some things move a bit more quickly and certainly the costs around medical transportation, including ambulances, I think do need to move more quickly.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries why his government rejected the Barry Group of Companies bid for the purchase of FPI, because it was our understanding that that bid was for all of the company, including the marketing and secondary processing division.

I ask the minister: Can he tell us today why his government rejected the Barry bid proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the undertaking that I gave the hon. Leader of the Opposition on Thursday when he asked a question relative to that matter and I took it under advisement. The fact of the matter is, that, no, neither the OCI bid or the Barry bid - and Barry had two bids, as I explained to the House last week - neither of the Barry bids or the OCI bid made, as part of their proposal, the acquisition of the marketing arm; neither one of them.

Now, in terms of why we rejected the Barry bid; after a very careful analysis it seemed to the Province, after doing our due diligence and after submitting a list of questions to both sides, OCI and Barry, for their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: - review and their comment, it was the government's conclusion, at the end of the day, that the bid that best met the public policy positions of the government was the one submitted by OCI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries made it known to the Province that he had asked for an investigation into the sudden jump -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - in share prices of FPI. In fact, I think at the time he even mentioned insider trading.

Can the minister tell us today who he asked to carry out that investigation and if he can give us an update as to what is happening with that investigation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the request from the Province, on behalf of the Province, would be made to the superintendent of securities. That is the process that we took. Where it goes from there, of course, is the purview of the superintendent of inquiries. I have no further knowledge, other than passing along the information that it was our - in fact, it was public knowledge. If you want to go to certain Web sites, you can see there is a Web site for insider trading. You can tell, yourself, who has traded what, because it has to be disclosed, and how many shares are sold and all that. Then we had that from other sources.

That information was passed along to the superintendent of securities with a request that the appropriate investigations be undertaken. Where it has gone from there, I have no knowledge.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year FPI purchased the seafood company in Great Britain for $40 million. The Minister of Fisheries from our Province is on record earlier in this session as saying that company was probably now worth $80 million.

Can the minister tell us if that company has been sold, and if so, who will benefit from that $40 million profit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm to the House and to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the company has not been sold. However, there are discussions ongoing between FPI and a company called - hopefully, I am pronouncing it correctly - Glide, I believe it is, Brokerage, a Netherlands firm anyway, to reach final binding agreements to sell the company. Based on certain conditions, we have said we would conditionally approve that sale. One of the conditions, for example, is that any proceeds from the sale of the company do not go to the shareholders, they go to pay down debt that the parent company owes, not only the debt for acquiring the seafood company but company debt in general. The Fortune plant is a precondition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Fortune plant is a precondition. There has to be an agreement to transfer out the Fortune plant at an agreed-on price to Cooke Aquaculture, and also the $3 million for the workers, the worker transition fund, is a precondition. So, all of these things must be met before the government will give final approval - if, in fact, it does give final approval - for the sale of the seafood company to what we understand at the moment to be European interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that there are a lot of preconditions on a lot of things, and the seafood company, as you just said, has not been sold yet, but today, Mr. Speaker, we are asked to debate the scrapping of the FPI Act in the House of Assembly. We are going to be introducing a bill in a half an hour from now to repeal the FPI Act. We do not know if, for example, the seafood company in Great Britain is even going to be sold. We do not know any of the final details as to what this deal entails. We also do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the board of directors and the shareholders of FPI will even agree to the sale, because they are not even meeting until August of this year.

Can the minister tell us why the haste to pass that bill this week in the House of Assembly when there are so many unknowns out there concerning the sale of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there isn't any haste with passing the FPI bill. The fact of the matter is that there is a clause in the bill which says that the act, even though passed - and this is quite standard in legislation, it is not something unique or new to this piece of legislation - it will not be proclaimed until a date when all of this stuff falls into place. Now, if it never falls into place then the act will never be proclaimed and the FPI Act, as we know it, with all its numerous amendments going back to when it was first introduced in the 1980s, will still be the law of the land. It will still be on the books of the Province and will not be touched unless and until all of the agreements that are pending here are reached.

Mr. Speaker, the only schedule here is the parliamentary schedule, and the parliamentary session will wind up some time over the next week or two or three, maybe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Therefore, the bill needs to be dealt with so that if we need to proclaim it and make it the law of the land we can do it, but we will only do it if all of the other preconditions are kept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question. The minister has basically indicated today that there are a lot of unknowns about this deal yet. Yet, we are supposed to sit here and give it a stamp of approval. We are going to be asked to vote on this deal some time by the end of this week, with a lot of details unknown to us. What you are saying is: Trust us. Vote in favour of this, and later on down the road we will determine whether or not the conditions that you want are met.

We were given this presentation by your own staff. We do not know, for example, in a week or two or three, or in six months from now, whether or not these conditions will be met, and we will not have the opportunity to view those conditions and details before the deal is finalized and FPI is sold. So, why are we being asked to stand today, or later in this week, and give consent to something without knowing these details, especially in light of the fact that the Premier is on record -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: - on numerous occasions saying that we should not vote for anything until we know all of the details?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition, when the time comes to vote, can vote as they please. The fact of the matter is that the commitments and the undertakings that we have sought from OCI and FPI will be before the House. They are before the public. We have briefed the Opposition on them. We have briefed the media. We have briefed everybody. If those commitments are not met, then there will be no deal.

Look, if you do not want Fortune to go ahead, well, then, kill it. If you do not the worker transition fund to go ahead, we will take it off the Order Paper. If you do not want the FPI plants to operate and start up in Marystown -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: - to carry on operations under OCI-FPI management in Bonavista, Catalina, Port au Choix and Triton, well, then, we will shut it all down.

If that is what the Opposition wants, Mr. Speaker, we can accommodate that, too, but I suspect that the union and the communities where FPI operate will have something to say about (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Oscar Howell, Vice-President of Medical Services with Eastern Health, was quoted on Saturday that Eastern Health will issue a public statement and provide further details about the review being done once a more detailed analysis is completed.

Now that the patients and their physicians are being contacted, can the minister tell us exactly what they are being told if the analysis of the review is not completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the individual patients who are being contacted now, the radiologists have read the exams and they have provided written reports back to the attending physician. Those reports, very specifically, focus on individual patient issues. That is the information that is being communicated to the individual patients. Each individual patient will get the information with respect to their particular exam.

The information that Dr. Oscar Howell is talking about, in terms of it will be analysed, is the accumulation of all the evaluations that were done, in terms of the nature of the kind of errors that may have occurred, a summary of all of the X-rays that were read in particular categories and if there were any conversions and what numbers might have existed, and to what extent there may have been errors in various types of tests. That is the analysis that has been done, but the information, clearly, that has been communicated directly to individual patients is with respect to their individual circumstance, which is what their physician needs to know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: - in order to ensure that the appropriate treatment continues for those individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, three times in this House of Assembly the Minister of Health and Community Services said that the patients affected by the review of the radiologist's report at the Burin Health Care Centre would be contacted as each report was reviewed. Obviously, that did not happen. We now know that they are only being contacted now, their physicians and the patients.

I ask the minister: Did you know the difference, or is this another example of not being on top of the file and putting out false information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is too serious an issue, this is too important an issue, not only to the people of the Burin Peninsula but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No one in this House is trying to withhold information. Whether it is this issue with X-rays, or this issue of ER/PR, no one is trying to withhold any information, I say, Mr. Speaker; not at all. What I shared with the members of this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - when I shared in response to the member's question last week or the week before last, I believe it was, as I understood the information as it was flowing from Eastern Health, as the radiologists were rereading the exams that information was being communicated back to the treating physicians, the attending physicians. That attending physician was making contact with the patients as they were getting the reports. All of the reports were not collected at the end. Eastern Health did not wait until Friday to start sending the information back to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

The critical thing here I think, Mr. Speaker, is for the member opposite, once again, to try to fearmonger in this issue is very inappropriate, I say, Mr. Speaker. As individual physicians get information with respect to their patient, they will in fact do the appropriate thing, make the contact and treat the patient.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister has two versions of what he says in this House. At no time does he ever answer the question. I specifically asked you several weeks ago in this House whether or not the patients would be contacted directly as their review was completed and you told me that they would be. Now that did not happen. You told me on three occasions in this House that would happen. These people are still living in fear. They are living under stress because they do not know, and now you are telling me their physicians are being told. Well, I am anxious for the patients themselves to find out.

I am wondering now what the percentage of error was. Can you tell me that? Will the patients affected be told when they will be retested?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important, very important, if you are asking questions you need to understand the subject matter of which you are asking the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Very clearly, there is something very important to recognize here. If I phoned a patient today and said: By the way, we just rechecked your X-ray, the results are coming in a few days. What good is that to that patient? What that patient needs, I say, Mr. Speaker, is the attending physician, who is armed with the appropriate information, in the best position to treat that patient, best position to, if necessary, change the treatment as a result of any changes in diagnosis.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when Eastern Health had their radiologist complete these exams, those reports were provided to the attending physician. It is the attending physician who is in a position to take that information with an accurate diagnosis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: - and then prescribe, if necessary, appropriate treatment on a go forward basis. That is what is important, I think, Mr. Speaker, in this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not admitting what he told me in this House of Assembly, that each patient would be contacted directly once the review was completed. I would expect that once the review was completed there would be someone who would determine what the results were and how they would go forward in terms of being retested. That is what patients want to know. That is what the 4,600 patients who have been retested, or their tests being looked at, want to know. When are they going to get a chance to be retested? This is serious stuff.

I ask the minister: What is the status now of the radiologist in question of the health care centre in Burin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: With respect to the preamble, I say, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about retests, let's visualize this now. An individual may have had an X-ray on a broken thumb back three months ago. That X-ray now is being reread and someone says the thumb was not broken, contrary to the initial report. Now, doing that retest, is that any value, I say? The physician will make that decision, I say, Mr. Speaker. When the physician gets that test result back, they will determine whether that test result needs to be done. It is not my responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the administration of Eastern Health, but it is the physician, the attending physician, who is in a better position, more qualified, more competent, to make that determination of whether or not that individual needs to have the test redone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the status of the radiologist in question, I say, Mr. Speaker, that is an issue right now being dealt with by Eastern Health. There is a mechanism in dealing with privileges of physicians that is governed by the bylaws of that Health Authority and they are following the methods outlined in those bylaws and that (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Minister, as you are well aware, the strike by support staff at Voisey's Bay mine site has gone past its second month. Tension is at an all-time high and safety has become a huge issue.

I ask the minister: What are you doing to personally get involved to help solve this outstanding matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, representatives of the Department of Labour are on the ground with the affected parties. We are actually in negotiations, as we speak, trying to bring both parties closer together. We have been discussing that with the parties for the last number of weeks. We are making some progress, and, as I said, as we currently speak today, we are in conciliation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, replacement workers have been brought in and, as a result, the strike at Voisey's Bay mine drags on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: Most of these replacement workers, Mr. Speaker, are from outside of the Province, taking away work from those in the Province, particularly in Labrador, who have waited a long time to secure these good paying jobs.

I ask the minister, again: What are you going to do to see that this strike comes to an end sooner rather than later?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as everybody realizes, the parties themselves will have to come to an agreement on that. We will not be able to impose a settlement on either of those parties. Both of those parties will be able to come to an agreement. Our role in this dispute is to try and conciliate, mediate, between both parties. We have been doing that. We are currently still doing that, and we are making progress. Hopefully, if the conciliation efforts continue, we will have a settlement that all parties can agree to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

During the last IOC strike in Labrador City, the Premier stated publicly that the company should get a quick settlement with its striking workers and work hard to improve the low employee morale.

Mr. Speaker, the Torngat Services workers on strike at the Voisey's Bay mine site want salaries, benefits and working conditions similar to that of other workers on the same site doing the same jobs for different employers.

My question for the Premier is: Is he ready to make a public statement regarding the unjust treatment of TSI workers striking at Voisey's Bay, and the need for a quick resolution of their situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, we are, as I indicated before, involved with both parties up there trying to come up with a settlement that all parties can agree to.

There are a number of outstanding issues. We have identified those issues. We are working with the parties to try and bring them closer together, and the way to get this dispute settled is to address those issues. That is what our conciliation team is doing, and we hope to be able to have a settlement sooner rather than later, as all people wish to have.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, my questions continue to be for the Premier who did speak out with regard to the IOC strike.

Mr. Premier, it is only fair for bargaining units to meet on an equal footing with employers. When a company brings in replacement workers, the striking workers lose the effectiveness of their legal tool, the right to strike. Companies gain the upper hand because they have no incentive to settle, and discord and bitterness are the result.

During the current strike at Voisey's Bay, replacement workers have endangered the safety of other workers - a crisis, as far as I am concerned.

So, my question for the Premier again is: Are you willing to say publicly, on behalf of this group of striking workers, that you believe the use of replacement workers is unfair and unacceptable?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very positive labour relations climate in this Province. We have had it because of the fact that we have an employment relations subcommittee; a strategic partnership between unions, employers and government.

I have indicated before in this House, and I will restate our position now, that subcommittee is working towards reviewing all of the labour legislation in this Province. We are not going to rush into something. We are not going to force them to do something before it actually gets to the table with them.

The union, the employers and our government officials, as a committee, are sitting down and reviewing the whole labour relations legislation in this Province, and when they get to whatever issues they get to and they make recommendation back to government, we will take those under advisement.

That committee is doing good work. It has done good work in the past, and we are prepared to let it continue to do the work that it is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister that we have good labour relations in this Province, and that is why I am so concerned about what is happening in Voisey's Bay. We now have the tip of an iceberg going on there with regard to replacement workers.

So, I want to know: Will this government make a public statement that they do not believe in replacement workers and that all replacement workers should be removed so that the union and company can negotiate in good faith?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated before, our role here is to try and bring the parties together. It is not to try and get in there and inflame one side or the other by making comments about the positions that either side have taken. We are in there in the conciliation mode. We are identifying the issues that are keeping the parties apart, and we are trying to bring closure to those issues. That is the role of the Labour Relations Agency. We are making progress on that. As I indicated, we are up there today. We are speaking and meeting with both parties, and we hope to bring this impasse, I guess, to a conclusion very soon.

That is our role. We will continue to pursue that role, and at the end of the day we will have a settlement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Budget 2007 announced $1.4 million to provide insulin pumps and supplies to children under eighteen diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Individuals affected have been waiting ever since for news of the availability of this important management tool.

Can the minister provide, in his response, please, just the date of the implementation of this program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Janeway Hospital is organizing the implementation of that. There are now, as I understand it, identifying those individuals who would benefit from and will be eligible for the pump. As they identify those names, they will be acquiring the pumps as a mass purchase and making them available to the individual patients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Many people are still questioning the date, and we still do not know, obviously, but while the new pumps will be provided for children trying to manage their disease, there are still many already using this valuable tool.

Given the fact that those pumps have a limited lifespan - really, it is a four year warranty on the insulin pump - will the minister commit to paying for the supplies for the current users of insulin pumps, as well as to help replace the existing pumps once they are no longer effective?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as we announced in the Budget, we announced the launch of a new program. We did not announce the launch of a one-time purchase. We have launched a program that will provide those pumps to a certain segment of the population. So, if the pump is purchased today and it fails tomorrow, the child still gets another pump, because it is a program; it is not a one-time purchase.

With respect to the second piece, those individuals who may have already acquired the pump in that age group, and some of them may have already done so, we have committed, because part of the program - there are two pieces to it - is the acquisition of the pump, and the second piece is the supply associated with it, the program itself reflects that commitment and the supplies will be provided to those individuals who may already have the pumps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: My final question on this matter pertains to what happens when someone is using an insulin pump, who passes the age of eighteen. This program will remain in place, according to the press release, up to age eighteen. Can they expect any help further from this government to pay for these pumps and supplies, or will they be left to finance their own therapy, on their own, once they pass the age of eighteen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular program was launched to target a very specific population who are at the highest risk and could benefit the most from having those pumps. We did not want to have a situation where people in the Province, who may not have the financial resources to do it themselves, find themselves not being able to provide that to their children. So, the scope of the program very clearly targets that age group under eighteen because we believe that it is critical at that stage of their lives, in managing the diabetes, that they are able to actually have access to that pump to ensure that the long-term implications of having diabetes at a very early age is brought under some control; because, without that kind of benefit, I say, Mr. Speaker, as children age and as individuals get older, if they have not been able to manage their diabetes appropriately at the early age, it leads to further complications down the road.

The target population very clearly was very intentional. It was to target those under the age of eighteen, because they are the ones who are most critical, to ensure that we make sure that they get the proper management early in their lives so as not to lead to many of the chronic, devastating diseases that many people find themselves living with later on in life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, again this week we had the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils calling on government to make some immediate changes to the math curriculum. Parents are also telling us that the actions announced by government earlier this year are not sufficient.

I ask the minister: Is she going to listen to parents and experts in this area and alter her plan, or does she just intend to ignore the concerns that are being raised?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard concerns about the math program and, as a result of hearing the concerns, this year in the Budget we have announced $11.3 million so we can look at the math curriculum. In doing that, Mr. Speaker, we are doing a review of the curriculum and there will be some changes implemented in September of this year. We are also going to be reviewing the textbooks, professional development, and see what other supports are needed; but, Mr. Speaker, we have heard there are problems and we have responded with over $11 million to make those necessary changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister that the $11 million is wonderful but the concerns that are coming forward from the people of this Province say that money cannot fix the problems that our students are going through.

Mr. Speaker, another area where this government is failing to act in a timely manner is in addressing the needs of students in our school system in allocating adequate resources to implement the ISSP/Pathways Model.

I ask the minister: When is she going to realize that these students need adequate resources now and their problems cannot be addressed through vague political statements of future intentions? When is she going to realize that and provide the necessary resources for these people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just like the math curriculum, the ISSP process was something that we inherited from the former Administration. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of processes that we have inherited. Even how we allocate the student assistants, we got from the former Administration.

We have heard there have been years of problems and, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to reviewing these issues to make sure that the processes in our education system are more streamlined and certainly more in line with what parents and students expect from their education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn tomorrow, Tuesday, June 12, at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to actually give a very serious petition in this House of Assembly.

I was notified today by the Town of Robert's Arm concerning the health care crisis at Green Bay South. They sent to my office a petition with 289 signatures on it. It is concerning the closure of the clinic in Robert's Arm. Two doctors from Grand Falls-Windsor are about to close the operation there on June 21.

I have the prayer of the petition, but I will give you just the last line: We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to avert the closure of the Robert's Arm Medical Clinic and ensure that two physicians be immediately contracted to fill these positions.

We have a very serious issue in Green Bay South, Mr. Speaker. It is the rural area of Newfoundland and Labrador. This issue concerns 3,500 residents of Green Bay South, and eight communities: South Brook, Robert's Arm, Port Anson, Miles Cove, Pilley's Island, Long Island, Triton and Brighton. Right now it is served by two doctors from Grand Falls-Windsor, and the people of Green Bay South have been trying to get a meeting with the Central West Health Care committee. It has not happened. They have a meeting scheduled for after the clinic actually closes.

We heard Dr. Alteen in the media over the weekend and he was giving an explanation, saying that the people of Green Bay South should have their clinic. They are saying that it may not look like the clinic they now have, and it might be by the use of nurse practitioners and telecommunications and so on, but there has been no official word from government whether or not two physicians will remain in the clinic in Robert's Arm, or how the people of Green Bay South will be looked after.

We do not know what is going to happen to the clinic in Green Bay South. You cannot afford now to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is getting more difficult by the day to access services.

The lady who called me today from Robert's Arm told me that one of the residents out there had a heart attack and, rather than pay the $115, which they could not afford to pay, the lady took the man in their pickup truck and drove to Grand Falls - and it was a serious heart attack - in the middle of the night, because they just did not have the money to look after an ambulance situation.

This is a clinic that operates two days a week, and now there is a threat of that clinic being closed. The doctors have given actual notice to the people of Green Bay South that the clinic is closing June 21.

Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. They do not have anything to go on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Can I have thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For this issue to come to me - I represent the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, a neighbouring district - they know and they understand how serious this issue is. There has been nothing said by government, no official word, that gives them any comfort that the clinic will not be closed and that there will be a service for the people of Green Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I say to government: Put the fears of the people of Green Bay South aside and do not close this clinic. Give them the service they need. Thirty-five hundred people cannot be left without doctor services in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to enter a petition here in the House of Assembly on behalf of certain concerned citizens in the Burgeo & LaPoile area, actually, in the Port aux Basques and surroundings areas, in the Codroy Valley - from the Member for Stephenville East. It concerns the use of the parks, and this fee. I do not know what it is that this government has going with the businesses in Quebec, but they certainly like to shovel a lot of money that way.

The first concern, of course, that they had was: Why are we, as a Province and residents, being required to pay $10.60 to a Quebec company to register to use one of our provincial parks?

Now, the Minister of Environment and Conservation was out last week talking about our great environment, and the conservation efforts of this government and so on. Meanwhile, here we are with a $10.60 fee that you have to pay to pick up the phone to book a reservation - and, by the way, you can only do it for a week. If you have two weeks' holidays, you cannot get it for two weeks; you have to call back again and pay another $10.60.

In fact, it even gets a little bit more ridiculous because, if you have made your reservation and paid your $10.60 and you find out for some reason - it could be the most valid reason in the world - that you cannot keep your reservation, and you call back and try to get it changed, they will charge you for cancelling and then charge you to re-book, another $10.60. Now, that is how ridiculous this is with this park fee. We are talking about using our environment and our resources so that the people in this Province can enjoy it.

I thought the polar bear licence was a joke, but this is even a bigger joke than the polar bear licence. When you foist this kind of fee-grabbing technique on the people of this Province, it is just absolutely unacceptable.

Even in the Quebec case, for example, somebody said: Well, nobody came forward in Newfoundland to offer to do the contract.

Well, I guess, it seems like this government, when it comes to fibre optics, or when it comes to ferries, we can exempt everybody from the Public Tender Act and internal trade agreements. Yet, when it comes to anything like a park reservation system - nope, we have to let it go to Quebec. When it comes to long-term health care facilities - nope, we have to let it go to Quebec.

People are seeing this contradictory approach by government. Why can we say internal agreements and tendering acts do not apply in some circumstances but, yet, if it comes to giving $15 million to your buddies, we can find all kinds of good reasons in the world to exempt it? People are lost with these obvious contradictions when they see this coming.

The people out there are very concerned. Ten dollars-and-sixty-cents means a lot to the average person who works on a minimum wage or slightly above a minimum wage job and they want to take their family to the park for the weekend. Meanwhile, before they ever leave home they have to pay $10.60, plus when they get there they have to buy their firewood. You have to pay for your firewood as well. Of course, God knows what other fees. You have to buy your park fee to get in. You have to have a sticker to put on your vehicle to even get in. To what extreme are we going to go?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a very important issue - just a moment to clue up - and as long as I can certainly present the concerns of the people of that area on this most ridiculous, ridiculous tax and fee grab by the people of this Province, I will continue to do so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, before moving to government orders I would like to call Motion 1. I move pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, June 11.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Also, Mr. Speaker, again, I move pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Monday, June 11, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, second reading of Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited." (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, on behalf of the government, to introduce second reading of Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

The essence of the act, Mr. Speaker, I do not think is lost on anybody. The major purpose of the act, I guess, is in clause 2. Clause 2 states categorically that the Fishery Products International Act is repealed. There is a provision, of course, as I indicated in Question Period today, and as I indicated some time ago, that the act itself will not become law and will not be proclaimed into law unless and until the Cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is satisfied that all of the agreements that we have entered into have become final and binding.

We have entered into non-binding, at this point, definitive agreements with OCI, which I will talk about in more detail in a minute. We have entered into similar non-binding agreements with High Liner, which, again, I will talk about in more detail shortly. We have indicated that there are a number of conditions precedent to the government proclaiming the FPI Act into law.

So, while those conditions precedent are still outstanding, Mr. Speaker, the act will not be proclaimed. That means that the act will not become law, it will continue to be an act. Once it is proclaimed it becomes the law of the land, but it will not become the law of the land until the government is ready and the government ensures that the details of the non-binding agreements become binding. In terms of OCI, that should happen in the matter - it may even happen today but it should happen in the matter of a day or so.

In terms of High Liner, of course, they are a publicly traded company and before their non-binding agreement becomes binding there are provisions inherent in securities trading and in laws surrounding the Securities Acts and the trading of securities that have to be adhered to. So, it will take a little longer, perhaps in terms of the High Liner piece of all of this.

Of course, we have to remember that FPI itself is not a privately held company. FPI is a publicly traded company. Many of its shares - the majority of its shares are held by people who are readily identifiable. In addition to the four or five or half a dozen shareholders who hold significant holdings in FPI, there are several thousands of other people, probably hundreds of thousands of other people, who hold smaller blocks of shares and who have rights as shareholders as well. Their rights have to be protected in law, and they have to be protected under the Security Exchange Act where FPI trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is not lost on people that I was the minister back in the 1980s who introduced the legislation allowing for the return of FPI to the private sector, with conditions. It was FPI up until - in the mid-1980s, after the collapse of the groundfish industry, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Atlantic Canada. FPI was formed from the bankruptcies of several companies. I am not going to go through all of the history. Everybody knows who the companies were and where they operated, and so on.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the two levels of government, the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Bank of Nova Scotia, created a Crown corporation. That Crown corporation held the assets of FPI in this Province and some outside. That Crown corporation held some assets that had previously been operated by Fishery Products and JC Penney, the Lake Group, and some that had been operated in partnership with then National Sea Products, who were actually owned by High Liner. It went across the industry pretty widely. It was a Crown corporation that was owned, approximately 66 per cent, by the Government of Canada, about 26 per cent or so by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and around 12 per cent or so - in round numbers - by the Bank of Nova Scotia.

That company, after a few years in operation, made a proposal to the government of the day that would see the company return to the private sector via a public offering. That was the presentation. That was the vision which was made to the government of the day, that there be an FPI Act, and that in that FPI Act there be a restriction on the number of shares any one individual or group could control. That restriction was set at 15 per cent. That was incorporated into the act to return FPI to the private sector.

There were other qualifications put in the FPI Act. The majority of directors had to be resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a provision for shares to be held by, to be gifted, I guess, really, in essence, to FPI employees, and there were all of those things that were built into the act, the act to privatize FPI.

Over the years, from the time of the initial privatization up until last spring, I guess, that act has been amended by this Legislature several times. Sometimes the amendments were minimum in terms of interference in the company and the ability of the company to manage its affairs on behalf of its owners, the shareholders which owned the company, and sometimes those amendments were fairly intrusive. For example, the amendments that were approved by the House last year in terms of the government having to give approval for the sale of assets held by FPI.

You know, a lot of people in the business community - to put it mildly, there were pretty raised eyebrows among a lot of people in the business community that a government in a Province of Canada would go that far, but the government - not the government, but the House, because there was support on all sides of the House for that type of an amendment - the House felt that it was in the public interest that those kinds of restrictions and those kinds of buy-ins be tied to Fishery Products International in terms of what it could do.

All through the bit and piece, Mr Speaker, it became clear that FPI was a troubled operation; there was no question about it. A lot of commitments had been made by the Board of Directors of FPI when they finally succeeded in ousting Mr Young, and the people who were running it with him, back some time ago. Those commitments, rightly or wrongly, were never achieved.

Now, depending on who you talk to - if you talk to people involved in the company, the owners of the company, the board of directors, they have one set of reasons. If you talk to the people who work for the company, they have another set of reasons. The bottom line, though, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, is that there was no longer any trust between the owners of FPI and the workers, and the communities where FPI operated, that this company could be trusted to live up to commitments that it had made, or would make, to communities and to employees. So, with that in mind, there began to evolve, over the last couple of years, some interest in other people acquiring bits and pieces, some or all, of Fishery Products International.

We, as a government, were approached just about two years ago now, I guess, by the Barry Group, saying that they had a piece of paper, they had an agreement, signed by a major shareholder in FPI and a member of the board of directors, that under certain conditions and for a certain sum of money they could acquire the Newfoundland based assets and the quota, the offshore quotas, from FPI. That process was explored for some weeks. In fact, perhaps it was for some months.

During the process of that particular option being explored, government was approached by OCI and said: Look, if this company is for sale, we wouldn't mind making a bid for its Newfoundland assets.

Of course, our response was: Well, that is between you and FPI. If you want to make a bid for its assets then, from a government perspective, we have no impediment. We are not going to put any roadblocks in your way. If FPI is entertaining bids, perhaps they will entertain one from you as well. We know that at least one major shareholder of FPI had signed a commitment to the Barry Group that would see them, for a certain amount of money, acquire certain assets of FPI.

So, OCI proceeded and they developed a proposal and they made a proposal to the Board of Directors of FPI for its consideration.

Again, after several weeks which, I guess, just going by memory, dragged into months, it became apparent that FPI was not prepared to enter into an arrangement with OCI at that time. I am not talking about the present situation, now; I am talking about a year or so ago. It became apparent that FPI was not prepared to enter into an arrangement with OCI. It was apparent that they were still prepared to carry on with the signed deal with Barry, with the Barry Group; but, by this point in time, of course, there was a significant ask from the Treasury, from the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to make that proposal happen.

After some negotiation between the Province, Barry and FPI, the Province clearly indicated that it was not prepared - while it was prepared to enter into arrangements that would see FPI quotas and licences come to the Province, for offshore fish to come to the Province - we were not prepared to enter into financial commitments on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador that would facilitate the proposed arrangement to the extent that those financial commitments were required. We were not prepared to do it. The ask was, in our view, too large. It could not, in our view, be justified. The security that the Province wanted just was not there, in our view, so we sent word to both Barry and FPI that we were not prepared to bankroll the proposal, that we were not prepared to get involved in negotiating the financial detail that would make this proposal work.

The whole thing kind of died, I guess, Mr. Speaker. It went away for several months. Maybe it went away for a year or so; but, anyway, it went away. In all of this time, Mr. Speaker, everybody will know that FPI closed down a year Christmas past, I guess, their only offshore operation left in Marystown. That has not operated since then. They also announced that they were not about to reopen Fortune, that did not have any future in the FPI organization; and, of course, as part of all of this and leading up to all of this, they also announced that Harbour Breton did not form part of their future plans any more. They also announced that, because of competition in the international marketplace, because of the Canadian dollar, because of a whole bunch of other things in their business arrangements - not the least of all was an expired union contract and so on - that they had no immediate plans to reactivate their Newfoundland operations. That led to a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, a lot of involvement by government.

I remember the minister, the present Minister of Natural Resources, and myself spending hours hid away, I suppose, cloistered away, in one meeting room after another around the city with representatives of the management of FPI and the union trying to find some common ground, trying to find a way in which we could make something happen positively for the employees of FPI and, hopefully, get the union and the company to agree to some kind of a labour agreement which would allow Marystown to reopen and would allow the other plants that FPI operated in other communities to carry on operations, and which would allow a future for Fortune. At this point in time, a decision had been made on Harbour Breton, but certainly Harbour Breton was still part of the discussion as to how that might be facilitated and how that might be handled.

Well, that went on for quite some time, as everybody knows, Mr. Speaker. Then, a few months ago now, FPI indicated that they were prepared to entertain, once again, proposals for the sale of the various assets that they have. Again, the Province waded in pretty quickly and said: Look, if you are going to do this, then we are going to use whatever authority we have under the FPI Act to try to ensure, as best we can, that there is a package deal here, that the assets are not picked off one by one, piece by piece. There has to be some kind of a package here that makes sense and we reserve the right, at the end of the day, after conducting our own evaluation, to determine which, if any, of the packages that you receive or proposals that you receive, meet the requirements, the public policy requirements of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, that went through a process that took months. In the course of that, Mr. Speaker, we made it known, again, publicly, to anybody who would listen, that we wanted, from a public policy perspective - the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to exercise some degree of control over the offshore quotas and licences. We did not want to take the risk of facing a situation without some guarantees, without some legislative or contractual requirements that those quotas could disappear from Newfoundland and Labrador; that fish could be harvested offshore in a factory-freezer trawler perhaps, frozen at sea, landed somewhere else and shipped, say, for example, to China for processing. We wanted to have some requirements that fish would be landed for the long term in Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit the communities that have historically depended on those quotas and that fish.

Our first thought, Mr. Speaker, was that the Arnold's Cove model was a given. That was our first thought. What the federal government had agreed to previously in terms of Arnold's Cove was a template, that this would be the model on a go-forward basis for anything we would do with FPI. It is on that basis that we indicated we would only be prepared to give our blessing to the sale of FPI assets if the quotas and security could be guaranteed to Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it would be held by a Crown corporation, like the Arnold's Cove model provides. The Arnold's Cove fish is held by a 100 per cent Crown owned, Newfoundland and Labrador owned Crown corporation. That is the model. We then leased that to Icewater Seafoods, principally Bruce Wareham, on a commercial basis. I believe it is a twenty-year term or a twenty-five year term, but the term is not important. The term is something that could be negotiated with whoever the operator is, but in the case of Icewater, it was a twenty-year term. The company then chooses to access that fish, as it did when High Liner owned it. They can trade some of it, they can harvest it, they can process it in Arnold's Cove, or they can trade some species that they are not into for something else, to somebody else, that they can, as a result of that trade, process in Arnold's Cove.

So, it has worked very well. There has not been, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, one complaint lodged with anybody, with the federal government, with the union, with anybody. There has not been one complaint lodged since the Arnold's Cove model was put in place. We thought that was an ideal model, on a go-forward basis, for the privatization of FPI. That the FPI quotas and licences would reside with the Province, some form of a Crown corporation, and we would then deal with whoever the successful operators were, assuming that FPI finished up, closed up business and moved on.

Mr. Speaker, we indicated publicly, and then had that conversation with the federal minister. We had it with federal officials going right back to November and December of last year. All the way through the bit and piece, right up to a few weeks ago, we had that conversation and it was understood by everybody with whom we spoke, that the Arnold's Cove model was a very doable model. The Arnold's Cove model was one that created no problems. The Arnold's Cove model was one that we all knew. The Arnold's Cove model was one that we could all live with. That was the clear understanding, all the way through, until a few weeks ago when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided that, out of the blue, without any warning, he could not live with another Arnold's Cove model. It had to be something different. His different idea was to put a condition of licence on the fish and the licences that would be granted to the new FPI, the successor to FPI.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we quickly pointed out, publicly, to the federal minister that a condition of licence had done nothing for Burgeo. A condition of licence did not stop the Burgeo fish that had been historically landed and processed in Burgeo from going elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. So we made it abundantly clear that a condition of licence just did not cut it from our perspective. It was not something we could agree to and we would not sign off on this deal with just a condition of licence only. Then, of course, the scramble began. There were quickly called meetings in Ottawa. Flowing from that, the minister made a commitment that he would explore the legal parameters. That was the understanding that came out of Ottawa. The minister would explore putting legal parameters around a condition of licence and that those legal parameters would be such that it would restrict the licence holder as to what they could do with the fish, where they could land the fish, and the fact that the fish would have to be processed here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well it quickly became apparent, within a day or so of the Ottawa meeting, that those legal parameters would take perhaps weeks or months to negotiate and would then take further weeks or months to put into legal effect because they would have to get Cabinet approval in Ottawa, they would have to be gazetted, there are a whole bunch of things that would have to be done to put those legal parameters in place.

Then another thought came to mind and we began to explore a new holding company, a corporation that would be held 51 per cent by OCI, if they were to conclude the final deal with FPI, and 49 per cent by the Province, and that company would hold the offshore quota and the licences. If there were a default by the operator, by OCI, then that quota and those licences would revert to the Province. Newfoundland would hold 100 per cent of the corporation for a two year period, and the control of those licences and the quotas would revert to the Province. The Province would have two years to find a new operator. The Province would have a right of first refusal to buy the Marystown plant, because that is where practically all of that offshore quota, with the amount of quota we have available to us now, is designated and is expected to be processed, and, as a result of that, we were able to reach an understanding. We were able to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between ourselves, the Government of Canada, OCI and FPI, that this 51/49 per cent Crown corporation was a vehicle that had some merit and that we were prepared to live with.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the federal government agreed that the minister had the authority under the present act, the present Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, to assign those quotas and those licences for a nine year period, and the minister agreed that he would do that. That, of course, is eight times better than what you would get under normal enterprise allocations.

The Arnold's Cove model today, a Crown corporation controlled and owned by the Province, owns the quota in the sense that we control it. Nobody ever owns quota. I mean, the federal government got their knickers in a snit because people were going around talking about owning quotas. Well, John Risley goes around talking about owning quota, FPI goes around talking about owning quota, Arnold's Cove goes around talking about owning quota, Bill Barry goes around talking about owning quota, but in theory nobody owns quota. Quota is owned by the Government of Canada, held by the Government of Canada, and given out on a yearly basis. Normally renewed, there is no question about that, normally renewed year after year. Enterprise allocations have been around now for something like twenty-five years and, other than cutbacks for conservation measures, I know of no case where the federal government has taken away enterprise allocations. So, it is fair to say they are normally renewed but, in theory, the quota allocation is a yearly quota allocation. It is done by the minister every year and the minister, in theory, can take them away at the end of that year if he wants to.

So, under the act the minister has the authority to assign those quotas for nine years and he has, in fact, agreed to do that, and that is part of the agreement that we have entered into with the Government of Canada - that the Province, under my signature, and the Government of Canada, under the signature of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, have signed off on.

We now have a holding company that is 51 per cent held by OCI and 49 per cent held by the Province, that will have ownership of FPI's offshore quotas for a period of nine years. If there is default at any time in that nine year period then 100 per cent of the shares of that holding company revert to the Province, the Province becomes the sole owner of the corporation, of the holding company, and the Province has then a two year period to find somebody else to operate Marystown, to take hold of Marystown, if it wishes, and to dispose of the quotas to another operator. That, in essence, is the magnitude of the decision regarding the holding company and the holding of the quotas.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk for a few moments about FPI and its marketing arm. There are those who say that the FPI marketing arm is the crown jewel of FPI. I have heard it mentioned here in this House. I have heard it mentioned outside. The Province believed that it was important for this Province to retain ownership and control of the FPI marketing arm, and the union - to give them their due, and to give them their credit, Mr. Speaker - believed, in a similar fashion, that it was important for the Province, for the FPI marketing arm to be maintained and held by a Newfoundland and Labrador entity.

The union approached us in that regard as part of the renewal process that we started a year ago in May under the Premier's leadership. We held two or three different meetings on that issue alone with the union and with the representatives of the processors, the Association of Seafood Processors, ASP, and SPNL, the other independent processors that are not part of - most of them that are not a part of ASP are into this group called SPNL, Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ourselves and those two associations and the union met on at least two occasions to try to determine a way in which the marketing arm of FPI could continue to be held and controlled by the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier proposed a co-operative, of which the union would be a shareholder and the two associations would be a shareholder. The Premier proposed that we would finance that co-operative, that we would finance, in other words, the purchasing of the FPI marketing arm, and once it was purchased we would turn it over to the industry. When I say industry, I mean the processing sector and the harvesting sector as represented by the union and the processors. We would turn it over to the industry to operate.

We did not think it was a place for government to be, in the business of operating a fish business. We are not experts when it comes to that. We could be experts in getting the industry in trouble, but we are certainly no experts in operating and marketing and selling and determining prices and all of that. We thought that was better managed and done and carried out by the industry itself, but we offered to facilitate it. We offered to finance it. We offered to make it possible for the Newfoundland and Labrador industry to purchase and control the marketing arm of FPI if they wished.

We put it to them and we left it. We gave them some time to think about it. In fact, I believe we went back twice, to different meetings, to hear their response. On each occasion, with the exception of the union, the response was that the Newfoundland and Labrador industry did not want and would not participate in such an arrangement.

Therefore, that part of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador attaining the marketing arm of FPI was out unless we wanted to take it and run it ourselves. You could buy it, I suppose, or you could nationalize it. You could do a number of things and run it ourselves, but I do not know anybody who was - nobody that I know of was giving us advice at the time that, that was a sensible, prudent approach for us to take over the marketing arm of FPI and to operate it ourselves as a government.

We did offer to facilitate it, to facilitate the purchase, and to hold that asset in Newfoundland and Labrador to be operated by business people in Newfoundland and Labrador for the foreseeable future - forever, I suppose, as long as they wanted to - but that did not happen, despite our best efforts to make it happen.

So, after that particular idea was disposed of, there was a period of time when not much happened and then FPI finally called for proposals for its assets. The disposition of the assets was done in recognition of the Province's desire that, as best we could, the assets be sold as a package, realizing that it might not be possible to sell every one of the assets to one particular individual or a consortium of a number of companies.

For example, I indicated here in the House today that neither of the proponents from Newfoundland - and there were three proponents from Newfoundland. Well, I suppose there were four, really. There was OCI, there was the Barry Group with two proposals, there was the Quinlan Brothers with a proposal for some of FPI's assets, and there was a group called the management group, which were made up of senior managers over on O'Leary Avenue who had made a proposal to acquire some of the assets of FPI. So, there were really four suitors, four people pursing the assets of FPI. Out of that, once we had an opportunity to look at each of the proposals, it was our conclusion, as a government - well, let me backtrack for a second.

FPI set up an independent committee of their board to evaluate the proposals. After they did their homework they came to government and advised us that in their opinion two of the proposals met their minimum requirements. They told us they could live with the Barry proposal or they could live with the OCI proposal. Either one of those proposals met their minimum requirements. The management group did not, the Quinlan Brothers proposal did not, and one of the Barry proposals did not, but OCI and one of the Barry proposals did.

So, we then did our own due diligence. We concluded, after engaging both OCI and Barry in an extensive dialogue as to what their business plans were, what they were prepared to put on paper and confirm on paper, what they were prepared to dismiss as nonsense - which, in some cases, one of the proponents did in fact tell us that it was none of our business; that some of the questions we submitted were foolishness and they had no intention of answering them. But, at the end of the process, when the process was done and analyzed, it was our conclusion that the proposal that best met the public policy objectives of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was the OCI proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I will be good for another five minutes or so yet.

So, we came to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal that best met the public policy objectives of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was the OCI proposal, and from then on the detailed negotiations began between OCI, FPI and High Liner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's make it clear what we have here. We do not have perfection, and I do not know of any government or business group that can deliver perfection to anybody, but we have, what I believe, is a better situation on a go-forward basis than we have today. I believe we have hope for the communities where FPI presently operates, that the uncertainty and the turmoil and the mistrust of the past is yesterday and that people want to turn their attention to tomorrow, and whether or not they can depend on an operation run by somebody who used to be, at one point in their working lives, run and operated by FPI. I believe that is where the vision of the 2,000 or the 2,500 people who work for FPI is. They want to know that there is some certainty. They want to know that the troubles of the past are behind them. They want to know that they can move on. They want to know that they are going to have certainty in terms of their employment periods in their communities and what it is they can depend on and what it is they cannot depend on. I believe we have, by and large, achieved that. As I said, is it perfection? No, it is not. But, in my view, it is a good deal and one worth supporting and one worth bringing in this bill to repeal the FPI Act to make it happen.

Now, I have talked about the quota and how that arrangement was arrived at and how that will rest with a holding company owned by OCI and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to talk about other things. We made it a precondition that Fortune be taken care of in this proposal. We had made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, as a government to Fortune. We could not guarantee Fortune that there would be an operation after FPI. We could not guarantee them FPI fish because FPI said we do not have enough fish to operate Fortune from a wild resource. We could not guarantee any of that. Even if we held a quota, we could not guarantee any of that.

Fortunately - no pun intended - for Fortune, there was another interest, and that interest was from Cooke Aquaculture based on an aquaculture operation. Cooke made it clear from the get-go that Fortune was of interest to them, and that if they were to operate an aquaculture operation in Placentia Bay and Fortune Bay, then Fortune was ideally suited to be their processing operation. So, therefore, we made it a precondition of anything that we would be prepared to sign off on with FPI, the future of the Fortune plant had to be taken care of.

FPI started off willing to sell Fortune to Cooke for an outrageous sum of money. That is all I will say at this point in time, but in our view, and in the view of Cooke, it was an unreasonably, outrageous ask from the present owners of FPI for Fortune. Keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the side was blown out of that plant by an explosion some months ago and FPI got a significant settlement as a result of that. So, when OCI came on the scene, they indicated to Cooke that they were prepared to transfer the assets of Fortune on the closing of a deal from OCI to Cooke. They arrived at a price, which in the view of Cooke and us was far, far, far less onerous and would give Fortune a chance to succeed than the demands that had been made by FPI. So, suffice it to say, both Cooke and OCI agreed on a price and they agreed on a transfer of the Fortune assets to Cooke.

The Province undertook publicly, through commitments made by the Premier and reiterated by myself and other ministers, that whatever we have to do from an infrastructure perspective to make Fortune acceptable to Cooke, we are prepared to do it. For example, there has to be some relocating of municipal infrastructure - sewer disposals, for example, if the plant is going to be suitable for aquaculture purposes. We are prepared to finance that, along with the town, and make sure it happens. There may have to be some dredging in Fortune Harbour. That is not quite determined yet, but if it does, we are prepared to facilitate that piece of infrastructure work and make it happen.

So, from everything I see, Fortune, Mr. Speaker, has a new lease on life. There is reason for Fortune to be optimistic. There is reason for Fortune to feel that they now have a long-term sustainable future based on aquaculture, because Cooke, as we all know, just before Christmas, announced a massive aquaculture development project on the south coast. A $155 million project, actually, with $10 million from the Province, $10 million from the Government of Canada, and about $130 million, $135 million of their own corporate money. So, a massive, massive aquaculture development that will see a quantum leap in the amount of fish available for processing in Fortune. Well, starting in another year or so because in the interim, Cooke also acquired the assets of Northern Aquaculture Limited and now have fish about ready to be processed anyway. So, Fortune, it appears, has a good future and one that we are very optimistic about, as are, I believe from everything I can hear, the people of Fortune.

In terms of the other FPI operations, Mr. Speaker, OCI is committed to operating all of them at about historic levels: Marystown, Port au Choix, Triton, Catalina, Bonavista. While I do not want to do too much talking publicly about seals, and seal related activity, there are some of the OCI operations that are going to be taken out of, sort of, the groundfish part of the company and go into ownership by other people who will be into other activity. There appears to be, from everything we can see, a sound commitment by OCI to operate near or above historic levels in all of the places, including Marystown, where FPI has operated in the past. There are penalties if they do not.

Now, there are people who pooh-pooh penalties and say that penalties do not work. Well, all I can say is: Why, in God's holy name, would anybody offer to spend tens of millions of dollars to acquire an asset and then spend $5 million to close it down? I am not a business man or a business person, I understand that, and I have no expertise to offer when it comes to giving business advice, but it seems to me to be rather elementary that if you are going to acquire an asset and spend tens of millions of dollars to operate it, and make commitments to communities and unions and all of that, that you are not going to find a quick exit by paying $5 million additional shutting it down - to do what? What you going to do with the assets that you have acquired? You cannot put turnip through fish plants. They do not feed on Kentucy Fried Chicken. They feed on fish.

The people who are behind OCI are not just fly-by-night operators. The Sullivan brothers and Ches Penny and family are people who have a solid business connection in the fishery in this Province but also a solid business reputation in the Province in many, many aspects of business, and are respected in the communities where they operate. They operate now in Lawn, St. Lawrence, Carbonear, Jackson's Arm, and in a couple of places in Prince Edward Island. They have a solid, sterling reputation so people trust them. People, from everything I know, are welcoming OCI to their communities and looking forward to them taking up business residence in their communities.

The same can be said for High Liner and Burin. The largest amount of fish that FPI ever put through Burin is 14.5 million pounds. This year they are proposing to put through perhaps less than 10 million pounds. Their business called for 11.5 million pounds of throughput, but we understand from union and other sources that perhaps less than 10 million is actually planned to go through there. High Liner has made a commitment of a minimum of 17.5 million pounds throughput for Burin.

Now, Mr. Speaker, throughput in terms of a secondary processing plant is where it is. You could put millions of pounds of fish through a primary processing plant - like, for example, pelagics, mackerel, herring, caplin. Millions of pounds of that can go through a primary processing plant and you do not get a lot of person years employment with it because most of it is just cleaning and freezing and packaging and it is gone, but secondary processing is a different matter. Every million pounds that you put through a secondary processing plant sustains and creates employment to hundreds of people.

High Liner has committed to a minimum of 17.5 million pounds of throughput for Burin. They have committed to a penalty over and above anything that the Labour Standards Act implies. They have committed to a penalty over and above the $2.5 million of seven cents a pound if they do not put that amount of fish through. So, High Liner has put its reputation and its dollars on the line for Burin and we believe that High Liner - we know High Liner. High Liner is a company that had a very good reputation in this Province and, when they decided to get out, got out in a very honourable way by helping Bruce Wareham take over and finance the takeover of Arnold's Cove. So, High Liner is not a stranger to Newfoundland and Labrador and we believe High Liner when they tell us and they signed off on those commitments to the people of Burin.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, where does it leave us? It leaves us, I believe, with the basis, if all of this comes together - and let me address that for a second. None of this will happen unless all of the agreements that I have outlined are in place to make it happen.

The Memorandum of Understand on fish and quotas is in place. That has been signed off between the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and FPI. That is there. We expect that the non-binding agreement with OCI will be a binding agreement before the end of this week. We expect that the non-binding agreement with High Liner will be a binding agreement within another week or so, and we have the majority owners - the majority shareholders of FPI have agreed unanimously that they will vote their shares. So, you know, one of the shareholders cannot back out now, because they have signed this unanimous agreement saying that they will vote their shares to support this sale.

So, as long as the definitive agreements, the definitively binding agreements, can be reached between OCI, FPI and High Liner, this deal will become final, and we have no reason to believe that it will not. On its becoming final, Mr. Speaker, then we are prepared to trigger the repeal of the FPI Act - not before, not unless it happens, not if it does not happen.

If it does not happen, it does not happen and the FPI Act stays the law of the land; but, if it happens, and we believe it will, if all of the ifs become reality, and we have reason to believe that every single one of them, Mr. Speaker, will become reality, when that happens and all of the agreements are binding and the shareholders of FPI have given their approval, as they have signed their names to a piece of paper saying they will, when that happens, and only when that happens, will we trigger the repeal of the FPI Act.

That is a solemn commitment, Mr. Speaker, to this Legislature, and one cannot make any more of a solemn commitment, as far as I am concerned, than what you make on the floor of this House. That is our solemn commitment to the people in the communities where FP I operates.

We are not offering you a perfect deal. We offer you a deal that we believe offers stability, that we believe gets a lot of the anxiety that you have experienced in the past behind you.

The marketplace is going to continue, Mr. Speaker, to be very difficult from time to time in this industry. That has been the history of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have ups and we have downs, and we have swings, but, you know, the strong tend to survive and make a go of it, and we believe that OCI is one of those strong companies with strong leadership, with a strong financial commitment, with strong financial resources, with strong management, that can make this industry work for the long term.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we believe that High Liner is such a company, that has marketing arrangements with OCI, that has marketing arrangements with other independent producers in Newfoundland, and that will continue to have them as long as those independent producers want High Liner to be a marketer for them.

So, all of these things have been achieved and they have been signed off, and when they become final and binding, Mr. Speaker, then and only then will we trigger the repeal of the FPI Act.

As the minister who introduced this piece of legislation in 1985 or 1986 - I became minister in 1985, so I guess it was about 1987 or so when we finally introduced the act to give effect to what had happened during the privatization period.

As the minister who introduced it, I want to say that I am blessed, I suppose - is the only word I can think about - to have the opportunity to be able to be here today to introduce an act that will repeal all of that and return what used to be FPI to the private sector once and for all. I believe that is where it will operate best. I believe that is where it will have the best opportunity to succeed. I believe that the people who end up owning what is now FPI, which is OCI and High Liner, are stalwart people, stalwart business people who bring a lot of reputation and a lot of commitment to this industry and to the future of the communities where they operate.

It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that this is a good deal. It is a good deal for the communities, not a perfect deal, but a good deal and I believe it presents a better opportunity for tomorrow than FPI offers today, or that FPI could offer if, in fact, they were to stay. I believe that the communities out there want the end of FPI, they want the end of the present ownership of FPI and they want to move on with somebody new. They want to move on with OCI and High Liner. They have made that clear. Their union has made that clear and we are prepared, as a government, to do what we have to do to make it happen when all of the agreements that I have referred to in this debate so far become final and binding. If that does not happen, then this will not happen, but when that happens, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be proclaimed. Therefore, the FPI Act as we knew it, up until today, will be no more.

With that, I am pleased to, on behalf of the government, move second reading of Bill 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to address the bill which will, in effect, eliminate the FPI Act. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not feel blessed to be voting in favour of this, as the Minister of Fisheries just said, that he is blessed to be able to stand here and vote in favour of the elimination of the FPI Act because the plants associated with FPI should be passed back to the private sector. Mr. Speaker, in the next hour I will tell you why I will not be voting for this act, by the way, to repeal the FPI Act and I do not feel blessed.

What I also find, Mr. Speaker, is the irony in this because it was a government with which the Minister of Fisheries sits today, a Tory government, that brought in the original FPI Act in 1984. He was not the minister at the time, but he did amend the act when he was minister in 1987.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked briefly about how FPI came about. It came about in 1984 as a result, I guess, of a culmination of bankruptcies in the fish processing sector in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a number of plants that had experienced severe economic difficulties and had closed their doors, and there were a number of communities. Because everybody knows if there is a fish plant that goes down in a community, not unlike a pulp and paper plant that goes down in a place like Stephenville, it causes severe economic hardships on that community and makes it very difficult for that community to survive if there is no employment in it. What usually happens is that people move out and the community dies or suffers severely, economically, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 1984, because of the downturn in the fishery, because of potential and real bankruptcies in the fishing industry, the government of the day, along with the federal government in Ottawa, made what I consider to be a very important decision. That is, they were going to set up what basically amounted to a Crown corporation called FPI. What they did, between the provincial government and federal government, they put some $300 million into the company that they set up called FPI. They went out and started running those fish plants over which they had control, and they were located all around the Province. At that time they did close some of them. They did not close them all, but they did make sure that there were fish plants in areas where they thought should be fish plants. They tried to do it in a way that would have the greatest socioeconomic impact on the individuals in certain communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when they set up this, of course, it was supposed to be the flagship of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, it was going to be a large company and unlike the other companies that were involved in the fishing industry at the time in the processing sector, most of them only owned one facility, maybe two, but FPI was going to own many fish plants in the Province and, as a result, they became the largest fish processor. But, they were left with some social obligations. In other words, they had to make sure that they looked after the people and they did not compete directly or overtly against fish companies around the Province, the independent ones.

Mr. Speaker, the act was amended in 1987 by the current minister, the member who now represents Lewisporte. When he was the Minister of Fisheries in 1987, he amended the FPI Act so that they would sort of semi-privatize it. By that, I mean the government would back out of it. They would allow shares in FPI to be sold to shareholders around the world, which would give them some capital to pay off the money that they owed the government, the $300 million that they owed both the federal and provincial governments. As a result, the Province says: Okay, it is no longer a Crown corporation but we are going to bring in an act to govern it, and it is called the FPI Act. It is called the FPI Act, and that is the amended version that came out in 1987. Under that amended version, even though we were going to sort of privatize it, it still remained a quasi-Crown corporation. Even to this day, we treat the company FPI in this Province unlike we treat any other company in the Province, simply because we were the ones who set it up originally and that we wanted to maintain control over it.

Today, as we speak, we still have control over FPI, through the FPI Act in the Legislature. We do not have control over any other company, that I am aware of, by an act in this Legislature. As a result, in 1987 when they semi-privatized it, there were a bunch of stipulations in the act. It was very important, because we did not want to lose control of it. Even though we were going to privatize it, we still wanted to have control over the company if we required it. We made conditions. The first one was that the company must remain the flagship for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one thing. The other thing was that no individual or group of individuals could own more than 15 per cent of the company. Now, you might ask why that was necessary. The intent of the government in 1987 - the Tory government again, I might say, who did the right thing - they did not want one individual to own all of FPI or one company to own all of FPI. They felt that if it was spread out around enough shareholders, who could not own any more than 15 per cent of the company, then we could control it more tightly. So that was another thing. No individual or group of individuals could control more than 15 per cent of FPI.

We amended the FPI Act back in 2002 when I was the minister. We also amended it again in 2005 when FPI wanted to do an Income Trust. We added some clauses that even tightened up the FPI Act even further. We put more control over FPI. Some of those were that FPI could not sell any of its assets, whether it be the boats, a fish plant, the secondary processing facility in Burin. They could not sell the marketing division in the United States. They could not sell anything in the company without the consent of government. In other words, before they could get rid of the draggers that they got rid of on the Burin Peninsula, that came into Marystown, they had to ask permission of government. In other words, government could keep a close eye on FPI and if they thought that they were doing something that was detrimental to the company itself, or to the communities in which FPI operated, then the government could say: Hold on here, now, we are not going to permit you to do that.

I do not see anything wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

The other thing is that its head office had to be located in Newfoundland and Labrador. The head office of FPI is located on O'Leary Avenue. In fact, there are 140 people, or 120 people, working at that headquarters on O'Leary Avenue as we speak today. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, once we pass this bill, and once the company is sold, those 120 people will be without employment, because the individual who is head of High Liner, Henry Demone, has already said that he has little interest, if any, in hiring any of them, and OCI already has their corporate management group, so I doubt very much if any of them will get a job with OCI, so we are losing 120 people on O'Leary Avenue.

The reason we thought that clause should be in there, that it should be headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador, is because it would employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are loyal to our Province, rather than have the corporate headquarters, for example, in Nova Scotia or in Danvers, Massachusetts, where individuals who are running the company did not even know where Newfoundland and Labrador was, did not even know it existed. That was the reason we put that clause in there, Mr. Speaker, that it had to be headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other one was that the majority of the board of directors had to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the majority. There was a good reason for that, I say, Mr. Speaker, because, if you were born and raised in this Province, then obviously you have an attachment and an affinity to this Province, and we thought that if there were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians making up the majority of the board of directors that, rather than making decisions based solely on economics and on what is best for the business, they might have also thought about: Well, I make my living here in this Province. I live here. I call it my home. I raise my family here.

Maybe they would think, for example, if they were closing Fortune plant, knowing the geography of the Province, maybe having relatives in Fortune, maybe they would think twice before they made that decision. That is the reason we wanted the majority of the board of directors being Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that, even though FPI has witnessed some rough times over the past twenty-two or twenty-three years since its inception in 1984, it has weathered the storm and it is still, provincially, nationally and internationally, recognized as the flagship of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, just like President's Choice, for example, is recognized nationally as belonging to Dominion or Loblaws.

When you see the sign FPI anywhere in the world, I know I associate it, and I am sure everybody who sees it associates it, with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the logo of FPI is showing nationally and internationally it is recognized as Newfoundland and Labrador far more than the new slogan or the new logo we have for this Province, the pitcher plant, I will guarantee you that. You go anywhere in the world today where anybody buys fish and you see the FPI logo, I am sure that the people who see that recognize that as a Newfoundland and Labrador brand far more than they recognize the pitcher plant that we spent $1.2 million putting on as our brand last year.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I still believe that FPI has done a good job over the years, but I think what has happened with FPI, you can probably go back to what the minister said in his closing statement: he feels blessed to come in here and axe the FPI Act, because FPI should go back into the private sector and it should be run like a business, and it should live or die based on a business decision rather than a social obligation or an obligation to the communities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that I dislike the most about this deal is that we are asked to abolish the FPI Act and the government has given us an outline of what they think the deal should be with High Liner and OCI. The thing that bothers me the most, Mr. Speaker, is that we are breaking up that company and we are selling off the marketing division and the secondary processing division to High Liner, a Nova Scotia based company, and we are selling the remainder of it to a company that is composed of - a Newfoundland company is the main shareholder in OCI, but also in this bid to take over the assets that remain here in this Province is a 30 per cent ownership by a company in Iceland.

Mr. Speaker, the minister got up there this afternoon and he talked about how no one wanted the marketing division. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think he missed the point, because anyone who knows the fishing industry or the processing industry, anyone who knows much about FPI, such as the former board of directors, will tell you, that during the moratorium when the groundfish stocks collapsed and FPI didn't have much to put through the plants that remained here in the Province, it was the marketing division in the United States, in Danvers Massachusetts, the marketing and the secondary processing, that was the part of the company that was making a profit.

Let me tell you why. Many years ago, FPI decided it was going to buy a company, I think by the name of Cloustons. It was a marketing company down in the Massachusetts area of the United States. They were going to use that to market Newfoundland and Labrador fish, through this marketing company, once it entered the United States. Over the years they have expanded that division. I had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of that marketing division in Danvers Massachusetts on a couple of occasions when I was the Minister of Fisheries. It is a nice office building located in Danvers. They have a group of, what I call, top-notch salesmen, executives. What they do, Mr. Speaker, is not only do they market the fish that is produced by FPI in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they also go out and buy and sell fish that is caught all over the world.

For example, if there is a company catching fish off the Coast of Africa, FPI might call them up and say, listen we will market that fish for you somewhere in the world and we will charge you a fee for doing it. That is what they have been doing. In fact, Vic Young told me, when he was the CEO of FPI, he was buying a whitefish - I think it was called talapia - out of Lake Victoria in Africa. Now, that fish that FPI bought in Victoria Lake in Africa wasn't brought back to Newfoundland and Labrador for processing, it was bought and it was sold somewhere in the world to a customer who wanted to buy that fish. They made money from that. That money came back in one way or another to Newfoundland and Labrador, to the headquarters on O'Leary Avenue. They did that all over the world.

Just last year, FPI bought and sold $750 million worth of fish. That is a large amount of fish, Mr. Speaker. They bought and sold $750 million worth of fish. Now, I don't know how much they made off of that fish, because they do charge a fee for selling it, but I would say that the amount was substantial. During the moratorium when there was very little fish to be pushed through the groundfish plants that FPI owned here in the Province, because our quotas were depleted, what FPI did is they were buying fish, buying Russian fish from the Berent Sea. What they were doing was, they were buying it, head off, gutted and frozen, aboard Russian factory freezer trawlers in the North Sea, in the Bering Strait, and they were bringing it back to this Province, thawing the fish, skinning it, filleting it, packaging it, and sending it down to the United States for a profit.

The reason they were doing that was so that they could keep their employees working, providing incomes for the families of those who would have otherwise been out of work, and the only way they were able to do that was because of the marketing division. Because they could not just go out and buy this frozen, head off, gutted fish from the Russians, sell it and make a profit, so they were subsidizing it with the money they were making off the marketing division in the United States.

That is the way the company should have been run, because that was the intent when the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada established FPI in 1984. That was the intent. It was supposed to not only be a financially sound company - in other words, not go bankrupt, not run large deficits - but it also had to protect the social interests of the Province and the communities in which it operated.

Mr. Speaker, what had to be weighed was, how much profit you wanted against how many people you wanted employed. It was the intent that FPI should employ as many people as it possibly could in the Province without showing a deficit, without going bankrupt, and they did that, Mr. Speaker, for twenty-three years, up until just recently.

In 2004 the current board of directors, the new one led by John Risley, came in and said: No longer are we going to operate FPI the way we operated it in the past. No longer are we going to subsidize one division that is not making money with a division that is making money.

In other words, here is what he did: He said, the marketing and the secondary processing division is going to be one division, the groundfish division is going to be another one, and the shellfish is going to be another one, and you are going to stand or sink on your own in these three divisions.

That is what happened to the groundfish sector. That is what happened to Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown. Because, once FPI made that decision, because there was not as much profit in the groundfish, that portion of the company basically started to sink, and that is the reason they closed plants, and that is the reason today, basically, we are selling off this company.

The marketing division, the secondary processing division located in the United States, was making money, and the shrimp and the crab part of the company is still making money on that side, so they were making money on both the right and the left-hand side, but they were not subsidizing the groundfish division. That is the reason we have the problem with Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton.

The reason for that, that was a decision that was made around the boardroom, because all of a sudden you had a group in there that were not interested in the social fibre of communities in our Province. They were not interested in the individuals who worked for the company for thirty or forty years. They were interested in the bottom line, and a business decision based solely on giving more profits to their shareholders. That is what it was based on.

That is what, basically, the minister stood today and said, that he is proud - not only is he proud, he feels blessed - to be able to turn this back into the private sector where every decision is going to be based on the bottom line, more profits for its shareholders. I am sure that the minister, who is now listening to me, is thinking to himself: I should not have made that statement.

That is the difference, Mr. Speaker, between a Tory government and a Liberal government, because a Liberal government would never make a decision based solely on economics. We would have to weigh the cost of the social problems that you would create as a result of making a business decision, and obviously that is not it.

That is the reason I think that FPI is in the state that it is in today, because this government allowed FPI to run a company based on the bottom line. We would not do it, and you know that because you were part of a committee that I struck in 2002, when I was Minister of Fisheries, and you remember it well.

FPI's Board of Directors made a commitment to us, when they took over that company in 2001, that they were going to grow the company, they were going to employ more people, and they were going to redevelop and upgrade all their fish plants. We said: Fine, you made the commitment to the people of the Province, you made the commitment to its workers, we are going to force you to honour the commitments. You are not going to break them.

You remember that less than a year after they made those commitments to the Province they went out and announced to the union that they were going to lay off 700 people on the South Coast and the Burin Peninsula. We stood our ground, Mr. Speaker, because they said they had to, for business reasons. They had to, to increase their profits to the shareholders. We said: Hang on here, now, we are not interested in profits to your shareholders. We are interested in the livelihoods of those 700 people located on the South Coast and the Burin Peninsula. We said: You are not doing it.

When I struck that committee, Mr. Speaker - you, representing Bonavista South - we were on that committee and we travelled around the Province. We heard from the people, how important their plants were, and the need to protect them against a business decision. We travelled to Fortune and to Marystown, we travelled to Harbour Breton, and you remember that night quite well, Mr. Speaker, because I tell you that was the most touching night of my life. We travelled to Bonavista, we travelled to Triton, we travelled to Port aux Choix and we were told in a single voice: Do not let FPI destroy this company, destroy our towns, simply to increase profits for the shareholders.

The minister stands today and says he is blessed to be able to do this because that is exactly what is going to happen to FPI. Whether it is going to be this year, next year, five years from, I am telling you right now that the commitments are not in this contract that we are asked to vote for that is going to guarantee anything beyond five years. Personally, I do not think there is anything in this that is going to guarantee that these plants are going to stay open beyond the day that we scrap the FPI Act. That is what is scary about it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you can understand where I am coming from, that FPI was established for the people of this Province, not for a group of shareholders who live outside of the Province who want to make large sums of money on their shares. That was never the intent. That is not the reason the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador invested in FPI when it was established in 1984. We were not concerned about shareholders living outside this Province, or inside. We were concerned about the communities in which these plants operated and the people who worked for FPI in those fish plants or on their draggers.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible)

MR. REID: My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank says that is who the main shareholders should be. That is the interest that you should have and that is what we have.

Mr. Speaker, you remember at the end of the day when we wrote the recommendations FPI backed off and they did not layoff 700 people. They did not close fish plants and they did not close - we hear the Premier saying this is not going to happen under my watch. It said Stephenville would never close under his watch. It did.

I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, we told the Board of the Directors of FPI in 2001, we will not let you do this under our watch, and we did not. When we left government in 2003 FPI was open in Harbour Breton, FPI was open in Fortune, FPI was open in Marystown, it was open in Bonavista, Triton, Catalina and Port aux Choix. We held them accountable.

With this new philosophy on how companies are supposed to operate, that you have to be more concerned about the bottom line than the individuals who gave their lives for FPI and the communities that were built on FPI, then there is something wrong. That is the difference between a Tory philosophy over there and a Liberal one because we would not let it happen.

I certainly will not be standing here today and saying that I am blessed to be able to scrap the FPI Act. I am certainly not going to be. I think it is probably the blackest day for the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador - the blackest day! - because not only are we giving away FPI, we are giving away a resource, because we control no other fish plant or nothing in the fishing industry as much as we control FPI. The federal government controls the quotas. The Newfoundland and Labrador Government has no control, no say whatsoever, about how much fish can be caught by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The provincial government has no control over saying that the fish have to be landed in this Province once they are caught, because any fisherman or fisher woman in this Province who goes out today and catches a fish does not have to land it here. The only control we have is over where fish plants should be located. If fish is landed in the Province it has to be processed here. We have no control other than that over the number of fish plant licences we are going to give out and that the processing has to be done here in the Province. That is the only control. The most control that we have in the fishery is through this act because we control the company that owns six or seven fish plants in the Province. We are giving that away today. We are giving it away.

Let me go through the deal and tell you the problems I have with it, because I do not think that most people understand the details. Again, we are being asked to vote on this today or tomorrow and the final details have not been ironed out yet. We do not even know if the Board of Directors of FPI are going to agree to sell it until they meet in August, and this is June. So, you are asking me to vote for this and say, oh yeah. Listen if they do not honour all of their commitments we will not sell it. That means that I have to put my faith and trust in the group opposite who ensure that everything they said will be contained in that final agreement, without looking at it.

Mr. Speaker, you sat in the Opposition in 2001 and 2002 when we did the Voisey's Bay agreement, and your Leader, who is the Premier today, railed against something like that, being asked to vote on an agreement that you have not seen, have not seen the details. That is what he said: How can you expect me to vote on an agreement where I have not seen the details? Well we have not seen the details of this. All we have seen is a presentation by some officials in the Department of Fisheries. We do not know if it is all there. We do not know if all the details are in this. It is pretty scanty as it is.

What they are being asked to do is - okay, right off the bat the problem I have- I will tell you some of the problems- right off the bat we are going to sell the marketing and secondary processing division to a competitor in Nova Scotia. No longer will you see FPI's brand anywhere in the world, you are going to see High Liner. You are not going to see FPI's brand anywhere in the world again. You are going to see High Liner because they own the marketing now. If this goes through, they will own the marketing in the secondary processing division. OCI has their own brand, so immediately FPI disappears in the marketplace. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, a logo that took twenty-five or thirty years in this Province to be built up so that it is recognized internationally, that is gone. We have a Nova Scotia company - and if you read the Halifax Chronicle a couple of weeks ago, the people in Halifax cannot believe what has happened.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is on the airwaves across the country saying, no more resource giveaways, and they are over in Nova Scotia wondering, in the paper, in editorials, how did Henry Demone suck the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador into selling the flagship of the fishing industry. Just think about that. He is on bawling and shouting about everything under the sun, we are not doing this, we are not doing that, no more resource giveaways, and now we are passing over half of the largest fish company in the Province, half of the company that is recognized throughout the world as a Newfoundland and Labrador Company, to a Nova Scotian who is going to erase the name FPI worldwide. How he did it, I don't know.

Maybe the Premier can stand in Nova Scotia and stand here and tell us why he capitulated to John Risley and Henry Demone, both of whom are from Nova Scotia, and allow FPI to be chopped up and sold off piecemeal knowing it will never exist again. That is the biggest problem I have with it.

The minister can stand and talk all the time, that no one wanted to buy it. We will hear the truth on that too one of these days.

Now, let's go through High Liner first. Here is what they are saying. High Liner is buying the American marketing division located in Danvers Massachusetts. There is a secondary processing plant down in Danvers Massachusetts. I toured that as well. They used to take fish that was landed and processed here, put into cod blocks, sent down to Danvers Massachusetts and they would run it through a plant and make fish sticks out of it; cut it up with a Band Saw, dip it in batter, give it a quick deep fry and put it in a package, just like the fish sticks you buy in a store.

I visited that plant. That is the plant they have in Danvers. They have the marketing division in Danvers and they have the secondary processing facility in Burin. That is going to High Liner. I happen to think it is the most profitable part of the whole company of FPI. That is going to High Liner.

Here are the conditions that we are allowing that to be sold. We are going to say that you have to keep the employment levels that you have today for five years. How are you going to do that? The government is saying: If you don't, you are going to have to give the Province $2.5 million.

Just think about that. High Liner is probably going to pay anywhere from $50 million to $150 million for that division, the marketing division, so what is to stop them from kicking in another $2.5 million and saying: Here, boys, we are closing that plant. We are moving the equipment out of Burin and down into Danvers, Massachusetts, because it is cheaper for us to do it down there than it is to ship fish into Newfoundland and Labrador and then ship it back out to the marketplace.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, it is rather complicated but it needs to be said, I am not convinced, for example - right now, under the Labour Relations Act, if a company closes down a plant and lays its people off you have to give them severance. In the case of Burin's plant, the people in Burin, if FPI said today, for example, they were closing Burin, they would have to pay the workers down there sixteen weeks' work. They have to pay them sixteen weeks. If they do not - well, they can write them a cheque for sixteen weeks of work, and what we have calculated is that the penalty of $2.5 million looks to be right in line with what FPI, or High Liner, are obligated under the law to pay them anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to stop High Liner, in the next five years, from closing the Burin plant. In fact, the day that the deal goes through there is nothing to stop High Liner from closing the plant, give them the $2 million, which I happen to think they are entitled to under the Labour Relations Act anyway, closing the plant, moving it out and telling the people to move to the mainland to find employment.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about a lot of conditions but that is the only one there that is protecting the employment of those people involved in the Burin plant, and that is, if they do not, if they want to close the plant tomorrow and move out, all they are going to lose is $2.5 million. That, in the scheme of what they are going to pay for that company - High Liner is going to pay - is insignificant. It just might be the cost of doing business.

Let's look at the terms and conditions that were negotiated with OCI. Again, they have to keep employment levels the same for the next five years. If they close any of the plants they have to pay between $2 million and $5 million. Why $2 million and $5 million? Why do they have to pay $2.5 million - High Liner pay $2.5 million and OCI pay between $2 million and $5 million if they close down any of the plants here in the Province? I happen to think it is tied to what they are obligated to pay under the Labour Relations Act because, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing stopping OCI from closing those plants, the remainder of the plants that they will own in Marystown, Bonavista, Catalina, Port Union, or Triton; because, again, all they would have to do is pay the $2 million and close the plant.

All of these conditions, under OCI's agreement, says that they keep the status quo with the number of workers that they have involved in those five or six plants for the next five years, but then it says, right in here, some variation depending on the final configuration, but there has to be a provision for quota changes and price fluctuations.

Mr. Speaker, if you ever talked about an off-ramp or a loophole that you could drive a Mack truck through, there it is, because what that is saying right there - because currently I believe there is somewhere between 500 and 600 people on the seniority list in the plant in Marystown. According to this, they have to maintain these levels for the next five years, but only if the quotas remain the same. In other words, only if they can get the fish and only if the price is right. Because, if the price for groundfish fluctuates or goes down, they can lay people off.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you right now, the price is fluctuating, because every time the Canadian dollar goes up we have less chance of selling that fish in the United States. So, what is to stop, for example, if the Canadian dollar goes to par with the U.S. dollar, OCI coming back and saying: Hold on, now, there is a price fluctuation. We are going to lose money on our groundfish so we are closing Marystown.

There is nothing to stop them from doing it. Now, I am asked to vote yes on that without seeing the final details - provisions for quota changes and price fluctuations. I am asked to vote on that now and see what happens down the road. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am not voting on something like that. I can tell you that, I am not voting on something like that.

The reason I am not voting for it - if, for example, OCI wanted to buy all of FPI and we would change the name of the act from the FPI Act to the OCI Act, I would not have a problem, I would be voting for it. The thing that galls me the most is that they are selling the most valued part of it, the marketing and secondary processing division, and that they are not putting enough terms and conditions in this contract to protect the people employed by FPI.

Under the FPI Act that we have today, we can do anything with that company we so desire. We can do anything with them that we so desire. They cannot even sell a portion of it without asking our permission. So we are going to scrap that act, it no longer exists, and we are going to be asked to live by the terms and the conditions outlined in this? Not a chance, cannot do it, cannot vote for it because you can drive a Mack truck through it.

If OCI wanted to buy - or High Liner, or the Barry Group - if they wanted to buy all of FPI, call it what they want, as long as we amended the act to read, just change the name of the company that it is governing, I would have no problem with it.

Under this here, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing stopping High Liner or FPI from closing any or all of these plants after five years. So, even if things went according to plan, there is nothing that says in five years from now that either of these plants are going to remain open, because they are off scot-free, no FPI Act after five years. These plants then will be run like all the rest of the plants in the Province, no terms and conditions placed upon it, and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because what we are doing is, we are breaking the company off, we are selling it off piecemeal, and the Minister of Fisheries feels blessed for being able to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel blessed to say that we are able to do it, because this company means too much to too many people in this Province, because FPI employs approximately 2,000 people in this Province and in five years from now, if not sooner, there is a possibility that none of them will be employed here, because everything from now on in will be based upon a business decision.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we can speak again to this in third reading of this bill, and I will later on tonight, I am sure, and I also get to speak when we do the Privacy Act tomorrow, so I will get to speak for another hour at that time.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I can tell the minister right now I do not feel blessed to be even discussing this act in the House this afternoon, let alone throwing it out, and I will be voting against the repealing of the FPI Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in preparing for this debate I have been kind of thinking about the whole FPI scenario since I got into elected politics. Certainly, FPI is not something that has only been involved in my life since 2003, I can tell you that.

I do not want to repeat it too often, but the fishery on the Burin Peninsula is what brought my people to the Burin Peninsula in 1968. It seems that since I have gotten into politics here in 2003 it is an issue that has been front and centre the entire time.

For so long we have recognized the challenges around the fishery. The Marystown plant is one that is certainly impacted by all of the debate that is going on and the entire situation. For the past number of years they have recognized that finding work for the workers that were at the plant was a challenge. They worked out a system of job sharing and that has kind of accommodated them, but it finally came to a point a while ago where tough decisions were made. If we look at the plants that have been impacted on the Burin Peninsula we can take a look at the Fortune plant, we can take a look at the Marystown plant, and we can take a look at the Burin plant. Everyone in this Province recognizes that, for the number of people we had employed in the fish plants, especially the ones that I have just mentioned, there was not enough product there to provide year-round work for all of the workers who were there.

This debate has been ongoing now certainly since 2003 and as the Opposition Leader mentioned, the committee that travelled around the Province - and I remember specifically when they came into Marystown. The impact that the processing sector has had on the Burin Peninsula has been a historical one, it has provided for the Peninsula.

When we talk about the plants in Marystown, Fortune or Burin, these were not plants that only catered to and provided jobs to the people of those specific communities. There were people who undoubtedly - I cannot say for sure about Fortune but I would assume that there were people probably from Marystown who travelled to Fortune to work and visa versa. There were people from Grand Bank, Fortune, Lamaline - you can go around the entire boot - who would have travelled to Burin and to Marystown and they found work there.

We have seen a fishery that has drastically changed. It has not changed as of the last five years, or the last four years. We have been going through this transition for a number of years. People have spoken about Burgeo, Ramea and other communities of the Province that have been drastically affected by, I suppose you could call it, the devastation in terms of the fish stocks. As a result, things have changed.

The FPI Act that was in place in 1984 - we are in a different place right now in this world and in time. The recent report on the Northern cod stocks tells that things are not rebounding in the manner that we had hoped they would, and as a result of that and other factors related to the fishery, we have a changing, a very drastically different fishery than we had twenty years ago.

The Act that was put in place back in the eighties is not a fitting one right now. Well, the changes that were happening on the Burin Peninsula, I suppose, were destined to come, so how do we deal with it?

I am not going to belabour too long the point surrounding FPI, the change in management and point to too much blame, but I can tell you one thing that changed drastically in the last two or three years, and it is a word that is fundamental and basic to all human interaction and that is trust. I do not know if the current management of FPI, even if they came up with some tremendous compensation that they could put to the workers and whatnot, I do not know if it would even fly then, because there has been an atmosphere of mistrust that has developed. As a result of it, I think the workers on the ground are ready to see changes. They definitely wanted changes in terms of the management and the operation.

The Marystown plant was a seasonal facility. If we speak to Burin, it was a completely different situation. These were people who were basically working for forty, forty-two and sometimes forty-five weeks, and beyond, in a year. They were in a very stable situation, and then, as this started to unfold, the stability that they had for years and years started to diminish. Likewise, that atmosphere, the mistrust that was around company operations, and in some cases some of the actions that they were seeing, it being closed down for a week or two here, that feeling of mistrust developed within the Burin operation as well.

We arrived at a point where, now what is it that we do? Well, we can stand and discuss the merits of who should buy and who should operate and so on and so forth, but the companies that presently have entered into negotiations with FPI are not fly-by-night companies. The ones that are purchasing the assets of FPI are certainly not fly-by-nighters. If you talk to people who work for OCI, they compliment the management there. High Liner has certainly been established for quite a long time.

The Leader of the Opposition just mentioned that these companies will operate just like other companies in the Province. Therefore, I would assume that if you are in a business climate it is a company that would operate in the Province just as others would. If we are dealing with a product such as fish, and we have companies that are out there buying, well maybe this is a company and these companies should be in that same realm. They operate in the business world, as do all other companies.

I guess around the repealing of this Act, this is not something that would be finalized here today. This is something that, once all the details are worked out, then the final decisions come about as to the final repealing of the Act. In terms of involving people, well, in this entire process, as the sales have unfolded and the details have unfolded, one thing that has been certain is that union representatives have been informed.

I know, certainly, that there has been an impatience there, because as union representatives and as government members, as we are informed, there are details sometimes that we cannot release as they are told to us. The frustration of waiting is always one that people find difficult to deal with.

Throughout this entire process, I have to say that the union leadership on the Peninsula, if they phone me, I would return the calls to them. Likewise, if I called them, they have returned calls to me. We do our utmost to keep the information that we put out to the workers current so that decisions, and as they go to meetings and so on and so forth, that we keep them up to date as much as we possibly can.

In terms of the deals around these companies taking over, I do not suppose there is ever 100 per cent guarantee in anything that we have in life, but you do to the extent that you possibly can, you put in guarantees around the operation. We, as a government, in dealing with OCI and in dealing with High Liner, have extracted from the deals the best possible conditions that we feel we can garner at this particular time. As we worked through this, we found workers in very difficult situations. In particular, the people who worked in the Marystown plant at one point looked to a job enhancement program of six seventy-five. You know, as a result of government recognizing that Marystown was in a unique situation here, the grants were provided around eight seventy-five. It was far below what their wage was when they were working, but at least it supported them to some degree and helped them through this most difficult time.

I am certainly hoping, Mr. Speaker, that as the details unfold here we will see the operations in Marystown opening up. I know that in Opposition some of them are for and some of them are against, but I notice a headline in the June 5 Southern Gazette says: Foote calls FPI sale positive news for the Peninsula. She was waiting for it, I think. She was probably expecting it. Whether it be this one or when we were talking about the Income Trust, we have to vote on and support what we, as representatives of the people of our districts, feel is best for the people of our districts. In this particular case, the details that we worked through here are the best that we have. I certainly hope that in the end it will prove to be beneficial to the entire Burin Peninsula.

Likewise - and I have said this in this House on a couple of occasions before - business people on the Peninsula will tell you that how go the fish plants on the Peninsula so have gone the businesses. I am certainly hoping that as the plant in Marystown gets up and running and Burin becomes stabilized, the business men and women of the Burin Peninsula will say that again. The final numbers that will be there - I just heard recently that we are anticipating that the first shift in the Marystown plant will stay in a very short while. That being the case, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it will be a welcome sight for me to see people go down to that fish plant.

As I said, as well, we are at a different place and time right now. So, is it time, or some people - the workers that you talk to, some of them will say to you: If this deal goes through then what is the need for the FPI Act? Well, like I said, we have entered a different time and place, therefore it would be time to repeal this act. But, again, only and when the details are unfolded. If we did not have that stipulation in there, one of the fears would be that if we signed off on something today that - I spoke about the issue of trust with FPI management. I think people would not be very trusting, that they would continue with the negotiations and probably pull out of it. So, it is very important that we have that stipulation in there, and that before anything else happens, that all of the details - before anything happens with repealing this act, that those details have to be worked out and that we will, indeed, not only see the details worked out but we will see people back in the plants and the plants back in operation.

We have put in a stipulation around there about landing and processing. There was a time when we were not certain how that was going to work out but I felt very confident, as did people in my area, many of them I spoke to had confidence in the Minister of Fisheries, who is very experienced in this entire fisheries issue, has been there many times. They felt that if their interests were going to be represented, whether that be in speaking with the federal government or in speaking with the companies or in speaking with the union, that he was a good lead on this particular file.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know, without having to repeat myself, that is basically where I see it. That we have come to a point where we are going to see a revamped fishery on the Burin Peninsula. I know FPI works provincially but in my particular case, I speak specifically to that. My aim and my wish in this is that we see the operations up and running before too long. That with this deal, Fortune, through the deal that is worked out with Cooke Aquaculture, will see people back into that facility up and operating. Once all of the conditions that we have stipulated around OCI and High Liner, and the deal that we are working with Cooke, when all of these things come together we will see a - I do not know if we would see a smaller fishery because if we can get the numbers they are talking about up and back to operation and working, then the numbers may not be drastically different from what they are now. In any event, in order to find out the exact number that they are going to get back, then all of those details need to be worked out.

Finally, before anything happens, all of the details have to be worked out before the FPI Act becomes repealed. Again, we are in a different time and place and now it is time that we get on with the business of this.

I can tell you one final thing, Mr. Speaker, for eighteen months now there are workers in the Marystown plant who have not been there. These are people who went into these operations, some of them thirty-five years or so ago, who have gone in there day in and day out, have given their utmost to the companies that have gone in there and operated. I can assure you with confidence, that the people who will go into these plants again will give of their utmost. Those are the types of workers. In fact, one of the things that was said to me, in terms of the work grants that were put out this winter, the quality of work that was put into the projects, people will tell you, shows you the commitment of these people and the work ethic of these people. They are people who give of their time and effort over and over again and they will do so in the future.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I thank you for the time and I look forward to listening to others debate this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited. I want to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: I would ask the members opposite - no comment from the peanut gallery. Just let me speak to this important issue. This is really an important issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - an important issue for the people, particularly in the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for the people on the Burin Peninsula. Irrespective of what the Member for Mount Pearl thinks, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed, that we need to speak to. Yes, I will speak to my news release that talked about the sale of the three plants on the Burin Peninsula and what is happening there.

Let me first make reference to what the Member for Burin-Placentia West referenced, in that there is always time for change. Change is bound to happen, but change needs to be for the better. Change needs to be for the better. If we are going to go down that path, it is really important to make sure that we do it because it is the right thing to do.

Now, what we have seen happen on the Burin Peninsula for the last couple of years is people have been held to ransom, I would say, in some respects. They have not had any kind of steady employment, no consistent employment. People really have not known where to turn. They have been looking to their union leadership. They have been looking to government especially, and they have been looking to whoever there is out there who can help them. They have called their MHAs to try and get this file moving. Am I happy that this has happened in terms of these plants being sold or the possibility of these plants being sold to FPI? What I would be happy with is employment, long-term employment for the people on the Burin Peninsula; for the people who have a history in working at the fish plant in Fortune; for the people who work at the fish plant in Marystown; for the people who work at the secondary processing plant in Burin. That is what is important here. While people in Fortune and surrounding area, who are looking to Cooke Aquaculture to come in and do something there, create some employment for them, there is a serious issue here.

Contrary to what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said to me when I asked him in the House of Assembly about whether or not it was a done deal with respect to Cooke Aquaculture and OCI, if, in fact, that was agreed to. I look at the publication by Cooke Aquaculture, the spring publication, and I quote Ross Butler here - and Ross Butler, by the way, is the newly appointed Vice-President of Operations for Newfoundland and Labrador. He said: As we go to press - and this is in respect to the Fortune processing facility which remains closed - we have engaged in discussions with Ocean Choice International, the company that has struck a non-binding agreement with FPI, to purchase their East Coast Canadian assets. Once this deal gets completed, we are hopeful of concluding an arrangement with the new owners to acquire the Fortune facility.

Now, to me, that does not sound like a done deal. In fact, it sounds like it is a ways removed from a done deal, and that is an issue for me at this point in time. I would be very, very concerned that nothing might transpire in Fortune with respect to Cooke Aquaculture. I am hoping that will not be the case, because I can tell you, the anticipation in Fortune is great, the anticipation that something serious is going to happen there and that we are going to see something happen in terms of long-term employment.

When I read something like that from the very individual who has been charged with the responsibility for doing something in Fortune - or that is what I understand - and then he says: We are very hopeful.

It is not hope the people need. It is some concrete action, something that will tell them that this is, in fact, going to happen if this deal ever goes through.

I am concerned about the deal. Even though, as I have said, if the sale of FPI assets goes ahead, that would be positive news in terms of long-term employment, at this point in time the Board of Directors of FPI have made no decision. In fact, they are not going to meet to discuss this until August. Then there is no indication that it is very high on the agenda, that it is a priority for them in August.

Now, we are looking at plants that have been closed for a significant period of time, we are looking at people who have been unemployed for a very significant period of time, so this is a serious issue. This is very serious issue, and they are now wondering what the future holds, if anything, for them.

We talk about the secondary processing plant in Burin. They are wondering if, in fact, it is good news for High Liner to come in there. They are wondering if there are enough guarantees in what we are seeing as the proposal, if there are enough guarantees there to ensure that High Liner will stay around. That is an issue for them.

They are wondering if the competition today, who is looking to purchase the secondary processing plant in Burin, is purchasing for any other reason than the wipe out the competition. We are hoping that is not the reality of it, but we do not know. We do not know. Today, what I am hearing in terms of what the possibilities are in terms of the ifs, and the conditions, and whether or not it is a done deal, or whether or not there are still questions out there, these are all serious matters for people who work at these facilities.

Then we look at Marystown, where they have been looking and waiting for employment for so long. They are being asked by OCI to go to work for forty-six cents an hour less than what they are presently making. Now, as I said in the news release that I put out, I guess that is better than the two dollars and seventy-something cents an hour that the Premier suggested they should take back when they were negotiating with FPI, but the reality of that is that these employees, these workers, negotiated the wage that they were making with their employer at the time. They negotiated their benefits packages. They have been working there for years and years and years, and they worked hard to get the salary that they are making and the benefits package that they are getting.

Am I happy that they are going to make forty-six cents an hour less? No, I am not, but the bottom line in all of this is employment. The bottom line is for all of these people to be able to get jobs.

When I hear the Member for Burin-Placentia West talk about: Change is inevitable, we have to expect change, it happens - we should make sure, because we have the authority to do it, we should make sure that change is change for the better.

Like the Leader of the Opposition said, when the minister stood and said he felt blessed today to be able to stand in the House and speak to this, blessed that this was unfolding, blessed that OCI was going to be purchasing a part of FPI, that High Liner was going to be purchasing the facility in Burin, and that Cooke was going to end up with a facility in Fortune, we do not know that any of this is real. We really do not know that any of this is real today, and we are being asked to speak to this, we are being asked to vote on something that we really do not know if any of this is going to come to fruition. This is a serious issue.

I stand here representing the District of Grand Bank. A lot of my constituents work at the plants in Marystown and in Burin, and Fortune is in my district. I hear every day, particularly from the people in Fortune: When can we expect something to happen? Have you heard anything else? Is Cooke really going to buy the plant? Are we going to go to work? How many people are they going to employ? What is going to happen to the union's seniority list in terms of Cooke Aquaculture?

These are all questions that they are looking for answers to, and I do not have the answers. What I have heard from the government certainly does not give me any assurance that the government has answers to any of this.

Repealing the FPI Act because the government intends to go along with the decision of OCI to buy a part of FPI assets, and because High Liner wants to come in and buy Burin, and because Cooke wants to come in - or, I am not sure Cooke wants to come in any more and buy the plant in Fortune. I really do not know, based on what Mr. Butler has said here. I really do not know if that is for real. I really do not know if, as the minister assured me, that it was a done deal, whether that is going to happen.

There are so many questions here. We are going to be asked to vote on something without really having a firm grasp on even what it is the Board of Directors of FPI will be considering when they meet in August. I say considering, because there is no indication that even when they meet in August that they will make any kind of a firm decision with respect to those facilities.

It is a serious issue for the economy on the Burin Peninsula. It is at rock bottom. It is at rock bottom. I can stand here today and tell you that, when you turn down on the Burin Peninsula Highway, there is very little happening in terms of actual jobs being created down there, or people working down there. You go into the communities, one by one, you will hear about how people are out working in Alberta, or they are working in New Brunswick, or they are working in B.C.

Some people on the government side say: Well, you know, our stats are showing that our unemployment level is actually down. Well, it is down because people have left and you do not have the same size of a workforce any more here in this Province. They have moved on. So, if you are going to gauge it based on the number of people left in the Province, of course, you will probably get a lower unemployment rate. While, yes, the people who are working away may, in fact, be sending a portion of their income back to the Province, the numbers are not here. The numbers just are not here, and it is those numbers that you need to be able to offer the types of services that we need to be offering, particularly in rural Newfoundland, whether it is health care services, whether it is social services, whether it is highway services or putting money into infrastructure. These are serious, serious issues, and to suggest that getting rid of the FPI Act is a good thing, it is not a good thing.

The fishery has been the mainstay of this Province, and my fear is that in repealing the act, in breaking up the company the way the government is agreeing to do, that we are destroying the industry that has been the mainstay of this Province, that has built this Province.

My fear is what is going to happen years from now, whether it is next year, two years or five years from now. What is going to happen? It is being sold off piecemeal. There will be no act. There will be no act governing any more, and the level of comfort that we had with the FPI Act, that piece of legislation that allowed the government to have a say in that most important industry in our Province, that piece of legislation that was there to ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador was able to have that economic base - and, yes, not all plants made money, but there were parts of FPI that did make money, and we know it, and it was those parts that subsidized the other parts of the company, and that is not unusual. It happens all the time with companies.

You will always have those weaker elements of a company that will be subsidized by the stronger components, and sometimes it is until the weaker components get on their feet or see a turnaround because there are changes made in the company, but what we are doing here is just throwing out, with the repeal of the FPI Act, any possibility - any possibility - of ensuring that this company, FPI, will continue to exist. It will not.

There will be nothing governing OCI. There will be nothing governing High Liner in this Province. There will be nothing with respect to Cooke Aquaculture. They are all individual private companies who are going to have control of our fishery, who are going to make decisions about our fishery that are not necessarily going to be in the best interests of the people of the Province. The decisions they make are going to be in the best interest of the shareholders of OCI, of the shareholders of High Liner, and of the shareholders of Cooke Aquaculture. Those three companies, these are businesses, and their only responsibility will be to their shareholders. It will not be to the people of Fortune or the people on the Burin Peninsula with respect to any of those three facilities: the one in Fortune, the one in Burin, or the one in Marystown. We are throwing out any leverage we have with respect to FPI and what we are able to accomplish by having that piece of legislation.

Why would a government agree? Why would a minister be blessed, feel blessed, to be able to do this today? It boggles the mind. It boggles the mind why anyone would be able to stand and say this is a good thing to do, to try and run the fishery in this Province like a business, without taking into any kind of account what it means for rural Newfoundland, taking into account our history.

My fear is that what is happening today is exactly what the Board of Directors of FPI have been trying to do ever since they moved on the scene, ever since Mr. Risley got involved. You know, and I will tell Mr. Risley this any time, he made commitments along with the other members of the board of FPI, commitments to grow the jobs, commitments to improve on the fish plants in this Province, commitments to always, always keep in mind rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are commitments he broke. Unfortunately, what is happening today is that the government is playing a part in helping him do that. He is getting exactly what he wanted. Contrary to what we were told, contrary to what he led the government of the day to believe, he is getting exactly what he wanted.

My question is: Where are the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are serving on that board? How can they, with good conscience, allow this to happen? You know, I guess that is all elementary now, because once you have a government that buys into that concept, that agrees with them, that this isn't such a bad thing - in fact, this is a good thing, according to the government. We are going along with them. We are going to go along with the Board of Directors of FPI, and we are hopeful that come August they will agree -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MS FOOTE: Here we have a Board of Directors who are going to meet in August, and we don't know, again, whether or not they will deal with this issue. They will go into a meeting with all the confidence in the world that they have the support of this government to do exactly what the company wants to do, and that is to sell off, dismantle, FPI and do exactly what Mr. Risley and his cohorts have wanted to do from day one, and they will do it with the blessing of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is sad, Mr. Speaker, that is sad.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I will take part in debating a bill, Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

When you look at the bill, it is three simple sentences, Mr. Speaker, "This Act may be cited as the Fishery Products International Limited Act Repeal Act." "The Fishery Products International Limited Act is repealed." And, "This Act shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

While it is a simple title, a very brief bill, obviously there are great concerns being expressed and there is some doubt. I guess it is a new beginning.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, right from the top, that I firmly believe this Legislature should not be involved in the fishing business. I firmly believe that. Every time that I have stood here in the past to talk about the FPI Act, strengthening the Act, talking about the Income Trust where FPI came forward to try to bring in and take advantage, or be part of an Income Trust where they could raise millions of dollars, and promises made in order to do better things within the fishing industry and the towns where they have had a presence, I think every time I stood here, I said at that time, that I would feel much better if I was standing here today to repeal the Act rather than the strengthen it. I firmly believe that government and this Legislature should not be involved in any type of business, not only the fishing business. If private industry cannot make a business work and provide benefits, then I doubt if government can do it.

The minister stood here just a couple of days ago and talked about the sale of Wabush Mines, a new company taking it over; not a murmur. North Atlantic refinery was sold; not a murmur. Mr. Speaker, the mill over in Corner Brook, a number of years ago, was sold; very little talk about it. But, we mention the fishing industry or we mention Fishery Product International and the whole world gets upset. They claim ownership of it, and probably for very good reasons, but let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that FPI was not the greatest business that operated in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Go down to Charleston and ask the people in Charleston what they thought of Fishery Products International. Go up to St. Anthony and ask the people from St. Anthony what they thought and what they think of Fishery Products International. Go down to Trepassey, ask the people in Trepassey what they think.

Mr. Speaker, going back a few years ago - and I have made many trips, and I have said this before, but I will repeat it again because we are talking about Fishery Products International, a company that I worked for, for thirteen years. There is not a plant that they own that I have not been into or have worked there. Places like Gaultois - I spent five winters out in Gaultois. Harbour Breton, Charleston, South Dildo, Triton - there was a joint ownership down in Triton at the time with Dorman Roberts Limited and H.B. Nickerson & Sons. The same thing in Lewisporte. I say to the hon. Member for Lewisporte, when Fishery Products International was created, a company that I worked for at that time, H. B. Nickerson & Sons Limited, was into a joint ownership with A. Northcott Limited that owned a buying station as well down in Bridgeport. I think that buying station is still there. Mary Lou Peters, who has since passed away, but one of the most knowledgeable people within the fishing industry that you could find, took over her fathers business and did a great job with operating it.

Mr. Speaker, I worked at head office for two winters, but there is one thing I found different in dealing with the people that were there at that time and the people that are there now. Vic Young was there. You could go in and you could have your meeting with Fishery Products International. We went in there at least twice a year with a group, the workers, their representatives, their union representatives from Port Union, and at least twice a year with the Town of Bonavista. We would go in, sit down, put forward our concerns, and ask what the plan was for Port Union and what the plan for Bonavista. There is one thing you could be assured, when you left that board room that day, in dealing with people like Vic Young and Kevin Coombs, Mr. Speaker, as you left the board room you were told the worse case scenario. If they were not planning on doing a certain species they told you that and they told you the reasons why. If they were only going to hire back 200 people rather than the 300 that they had the year before, they told you that and they told you the reasons why.

Mr. Speaker, when the new Board of Directors took over this company there was a sudden shift in the information that was coming out of O'Leary Avenue. We went there many times, as in the past, but it always seemed to have been in a very argumentative way. It was not a point of going in, finding out what the company's plan was, or where they were going or to work with the company. It was very confrontational. You go there, Mr. Speaker, and, in fact, the last meeting that we had with Fishery Products International and the Town of Bonavista, Fishery Products International was as good as told by the town - not me, Mr. Speaker, I do not decide what happens in the plant in Port Union or the plant in Bonavista. The people working there know the business, they know what is right for them, they know what they have done in the past, they know what they can do, Mr. Speaker. Those people as good as told Fishery Products International that: It is time for you to move on. It is time for you to move on. Prior to this, they were going in and they did not want to hear tell. FPI paid good money, there is no doubt about it. The Leader of the Opposition said Fishery Products International was a good company and they were. I think he went on to say that they are still a good company. I do not know if I would go that far. They are a good company in marketing, they are a good company in sales, but I'm not so sure they are a good company when it comes to the social aspect of looking after the people that work for them.

Mr. Speaker, you go Bonavista and you see people with twenty-nine and thirty years seniority being laid off and told that they are finished still needing two and three hours to qualify for EI. That happens on a regular basis. There is lots of work to be done, anybody knows anything about a fish plant, lots of work to be done where you could look after people, especially the people who have been so loyal to you, the people who have made the profit for you, Mr. Speaker. There is no profit made on O'Leary Avenue. As much as it hurts to see and to know that there are 120 people working there, they are doing a job, they are skilled people, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that a lot of them will be looked after in this transaction that is about to take place. There is no money made on O'Leary Avenue. The money is made on the floor of the plant in Port Union, on the floor of the plant in Marystown, the floor of the plant in Triton, in Bonavista and South Dildo. Those are the places, Mr Speaker, that make money. Those are the people that go out and generate and create money for Fishery Products International like every other company.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of fear about the company that is taking over. I heard the Member for Carbonear talk pretty well about his thoughts of OCI. They have gone to Carbonear and they have closed down the crab plant that was there. I think they did approximately two million pounds of crab in Carbonear. Mr. Speaker, that particular crab now is being shipped to - my understanding is there is a million pounds going to Bonavista and another million pounds going to St. Lawrence. Let me say to him, while there might have been forty or fifty jobs there - I think there was sixty, he said - it is my understanding that most of the people who work there are still working with this particular company, and the people who have lost their jobs are working in places like Old Perlican and Hant's Harbour, have found a job within driving distance and commuting distance doing pretty well what they have done all their lives.

Mr. Speaker, that particular plant now will be refurbished and turned into a seal operation, and I can tell them, with my experience of a seal operation and with my experience of the proponents of OCI - and I am talking about Martin Sullivan and Blaine Sullivan who were the two people who initiated and built the plant with the help of Mr. Bill Barry, who was the owner. Those were the people who had the expertise and went overseas and brought the right people over here to get involved in the sealing industry, in the processing of seal pelts. I can tell him, he is in for a surprise if he thinks that this particular plant is not going to employ people and have better jobs than they had there before if they are just depending on crab for their twelve or fourteen weeks work.

In Catalina right now, that particular seal plant that Bill Barry built there and the people from Ocean Choice International operated when they worked with Bill Barry, is now employing fifty to fifty-five people fifty weeks of the year and up to in excess of 100 people for a number of weeks of the year when the sealing activity is taking place by the harvesting of seals.

Mr. Speaker, I have not gone into a plant before to see people assume ownership of their workplace like I have in that particular seal plant. Those are people who lost their jobs. They worked with S.W. Mifflin, who was a fish processor at one time. When that particular plant closed, they went out the door. Bill Barry went to Catalina, built a seal plant, and now they have a new lease on life. You see those people now saying: We do not want to go back to the way it was.

So, we are talking about good people here. We are talking about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians taking over this particular industry, Mr. Speaker. We talk about generating hope. We are going to be talking on this particular bill here and the people on this side are probably going to say that this is something that should happen and we believe in it. People on the other side are going to raise all the fears that might happen if we allow this transaction to go through, but I take my thoughts back and I seek my advice from the people who are closes to the industry. Call Earl McCurdy, I say to people opposite, and have a chat with him about what he thinks of this transaction. Call Allan Moulton down in Marystown and ask him what he thinks of this particular transaction. Call down and talk to Barry Randell and Bev Dyke and Ray Reid down in my district and find out what they think, and find out if they feel that Ocean Choice International will create some opportunity there. Are there going to be challenges? Absolutely, and we might be back here this time next year talking individually and saying: Boy, what a mistake we made. Those are the people who know the industry. Those are the people we should seek guidance from, instead of standing here ourselves and just for our own reasons, or put forward the fears that might happen, let's talk to those people and find out where they would like to see us going with this particular act.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the all-party committee that went around the Province. I was part of the all-party committee, and there were several members on the other side part of that committee, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Leader of the Opposition, who was the fisheries minister at the time, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for the Bay of Islands was part of it.

We went to all the locations, and others, I might add, but we did make sure we went to all the locations where Fishery Products International had a presence. At that particular time, that was probably the first big ripple that we saw. When the new board came and took over Fishery Products International, I think it was in 2001, when this committee went forward, when they had proposed to have a big layoff of people on the Burin Peninsula, 600 or 700 people being laid off, that was the first time there was any doubt that FPI may not be a good company.

Up until that time, other than Beothuck Fisheries, I say to my hon. friend from Bonavista North, they were the companies that paid the high salary to the workers who came to work in those fish plants. You have two companies, FPI and Beothuck Fisheries. They were the flagship, as far as the workers were concerned. Those were the employers. This was the industry that set the pace and looked after their employees. Talk to the union and they will tell you that those were the companies that led by example. Up until that time, nobody wanted to hear of Fishery Products International moving out of their community because they knew if somebody else was moving in, it meant lower wages. If you are going to work for any employer for fourteen, or fifteen, or eighteen weeks of the year, a 50 per cent cut in pay or a 10 per cent cut in pay, or any cut in pay is certainly not palatable. Not only does it reflect on the fourteen or fifteen weeks that you are working, but it will also reflect on what you get in Employment Insurance to feed your family for the rest of the year.

So, at that particular time, when we went around to all the communities, some people had some strong comments, some people had some very strong comments on what was happening with Fishery Products International, but they were very guarded. They kept their, I guess, unkind thoughts for the most part to themselves because they did not want to do anything which would allow this company not to provide the employment that they were used to in their town.

Mr. Speaker, if you go back today and meet with some of those people and talk to the same people who attended some of those meetings, you will find now that there is a whole new thought on this particular company. You will find that the time has come for this company to move on. They do not trust Mr. John Risley. They do not trust Mr. Armoyan. There are some Newfoundlanders on that board, too, people respected. People who have been good business people, but it seems like there are one or two individuals - even though Newfoundlanders form the majority of the board of directors, there seems like there are one or two individuals who have the most say or pull the strings and take this company in a direction that the ordinary worker does not want it to go in.

So, I cannot say that I am proud to vote for this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I am glad that it has finally reached the floor of the House of Assembly because I think it is time that we have taken it out of here. We could not have taken it in a better direction and we could not have had more safeguards than what this Premier and what this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and what the Cabinet and the fisheries committee have been able to get out of this new employer.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about dividing up the company and selling it. Well, that is true. It is, because there are going to be three owners now of this particular company. But, what do you do, Mr. Speaker? What do you do when the Premier approaches other processors in this Province and says: We believe that the marketing arm is very important to this operation. We believe it is profitable and we believe that it should be kept intact to look at the business that it does for the fish processors who use it here in this Province. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Guess what? There was nobody. There was not one processor, and the government was willing to put their money in, to put taxpayers' money in, to put their money where their mouth was and say: We will help you purchase this particular arm of Fishery Products International. Nobody wanted it. Nobody wanted to buy or to become a partner in that particular arm of Fishery Products International. That is the reason why High Liner Fine Foods has been able to buy Burin, and that is why High Liner Fine Foods is willing to take on the marketing arm of FPI, because no processor within this Province was interested in taking either.

Ocean Choice International indicated what they were interested in buying, and they put their safeguards in place. While we might say that five years is not a long time, while people might say that we need assurances greater than five years, I can tell you, there is no assurance with Fishery Products International. While we might have had an act there that says we could get up and talk about Fishery Products International, and talk about the fishing industry right here in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, when push comes to shove we will either have to bail out the company, get involved in the fishing industry again - and I am not sure anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador wanted their money spent not only in the fishing industry but in any industry, because it is not the place that government should be.

I have always said, and I will say it here again today, that no company should have to come here and call Roger Fitzgerald, or the Member for Springdale, or the Member for Bonavista North, or you, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and say: We want you on side in order to do this for our business. It should not have to be done.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: In conclusion, I say to members opposite, there are two bills, actually, to do with Fishery Products International. We are debating Bill 1 here today, and some time between now and when the House closes people will vote on it, and it will get passed, I say to members opposite, but there is one assurance that I will give them about the new owners, Martin Sullivan and Blaine Sullivan. Like I said, I may be standing here or in a private conversation six months down the road and have a whole different thought, but you can only speak as you find.

I worked with Martin Sullivan, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years in my other life and found him to be an honourable man. He kind of reassured my thoughts and put me at ease a little bit when I think back to the summit that the Premier had down at the Fairmont Hotel some time ago. We all gathered there. There were representatives from the industry, the processors, the union, from the towns, well attended. From the time that people started talking, up until about 10:30 or 11:00 o'clock that morning, when Martin Sullivan spoke, he took on a whole new turn, a whole new change. That particular meeting went in a whole new direction, because up until that time it was negativity. There was nothing any good happening. It was not a place to be doing business here in this Province. The fishing industry was bad. People were expecting too much. It was not there. The expectations were too high. The profits were not there. Only a few of us were going to survive.

Martin Sullivan spoke up on behalf of Ocean Choice International and talked about the things that he saw happening in the fishing industry, talked about, Mr. Speaker, the opportunities that he saw, talked about moving forward and giving younger people an opportunity to go to work. The meeting took on a whole new beginning. The meeting took on a whole new positive approach.

When I heard that those individuals were putting, with the help of Mr. Ches Penney - and nobody needs to say any more about Ches Penney in this Legislature than to mention his name to know the business sense he has and the opportunities that he has created here in this Province. Mr. Speaker, when I heard that those were the proponents that were about to take over, or put in a bid on Fishery Products International, I can assure you that I was buoyed. I was buoyed because I knew that, with their approach, with their knowledge and with their work ethics, that if there was any way to make this work, and if there was any way, Mr. Speaker, to make those plants have a brighter future, then I think those people can do it.

I, for one, as the Member for Bonavista South, that has two Fishery Products International plants, make a pledge here today that I will work with those individuals. The people that I represent there are going through tough times in the fishing industry. They need somebody now with a positive approach, somebody they can talk to, somebody they have faith in, somebody who will generate some hope and work with them in order to create an opportunity to have those communities survive and allow those people with twenty-five, thirty, forty years seniority to continue in an industry that they built, an industry where there are professionals, and hopefully be able to provide opportunities for younger people who might come after them so that we can still maintain our communities and maintain rural Newfoundland as a vital place and a good place to do business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nearing the hour when we would break for a dinner break anyway, so, rather than continue with the debate, I think, by agreement, we will take the supper break now and come back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.


June 11, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 27A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): Order, please!

Continuing debate at second reading on An Act Respecting FPI Limited, Bill 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues.

Seven o'clock after dinner; I will try to keep myself on my feet.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited. In spite of my jocular beginning, I actually find it rather sad to have to stand and speak to this bill because it feels like a tremendous loss that is going on here.

As I prepared for this moment I read back over a lot of the Hansard when my predecessor spoke at various times throughout the years with regard to FPI, at the various times when amendments were made to the FPI Act. Reading over the things that the former Leader of our Party had to say you get quite a sense of the history of the development of the fishery over the last twenty-five to thirty years. Knowing all the moments at which changes happened and we thought this was a change for the best, or some people thought it was a change for the best, and looking back now you think, what were people thinking. I fear that it has led to this moment. That is how I see it, that the things that happened over the last twenty-five to thirty years have led to this moment where now this company that was formed between 1983 and 1985 is no longer going to exist.

Because of the direction in which things have gone then the legislation is no longer going to exist. What I fear is that we are really losing a tool that brought the fishery, constantly, into the discussion in the House. Obviously, we are not going to stop talking about the fishery, I think we know that, because the fishery is too much a part of our life, our economy, the life of the people in this Province and the life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. There was something special, but every time there was an amendment to the Act some wonderful things got talked about. Values got talked about, the values we hold as a people in this Province and the values that we hold with regard to our fishery and the role of the fishery in the life of the people, and the principles on which we base ourselves. These discussions went on almost every year because of amendments to the FPI Act. That is why I say I fear that we have lost something extremely important because we have lost this concrete thing that gave us the opportunity to speak to the issues. Now, obviously we have lost the company as well. We have not lost the business, that is going to go on, but I am not sure in what way it is going to go on.

When I was doing this thinking and reading Hansard and thinking over the history of where we have gotten to with FPI and where we are now, I thought back to 1983, and not just to the formation of FPI but I thought back to the Michael Kirby. I think we will all remember that there was a federal report of a Task Force on Atlantic Fisheries. It was Michael Kirby, now Senator Kirby, of course, who was the chairman, as it was called then, the chairperson of the task force.

I want to read something that Senator Kirby wrote. It is sort of like the executive summary of the report and I think it is an important thing for us to listen to: To try to create an economically efficient industry as an end in itself without regard to social values, or to try to preserve a way of life without part of that life being meaningful, self-supporting work is like trying to separate body and soul. Our approach therefore recognizes explicitly the inseparability of economic and social issues in the fishery. He then goes on and quotes the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers' Union, right after saying that. He says: The union's sounded what we regard as the appropriate note in its brief to the task force. This is what he quotes: Long-term government policy should provide in the overall for a rural society that can develop its own dynamic and be in a qualitative sense a society of consequence. I think it is really quite important to hear what Michael Kirby said and to hear what the union said at that time because that is the reason why we are here tonight having this discussion.

I was a bit dismayed when I heard my colleague from Bonavista South earlier today refer to, that there was no need for the fishery to be discussed in the House, that this is not a place where this discussion should be happening. I guess he and I are diametrically opposed on that point and I think I am standing with how I understand what Michael Kirby wrote in this report. That understanding for me is that the fishery is the very foundation of who we are as a people, the fishery is an essential part of the fabric of the society of Newfoundland and Labrador and it does not have to be happening in every single village or every single community or every single outport for that to be true. It is part of the basic fabric of who we are and therefore it is in this House that we talk about it, it is in this House that we deal with it, because it is so much a part of the life of the people in this Province. I just cannot imagine that we would not be talking about it. I cannot imagine that we would have had governments who did not always have to think about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I find lost, that is really what concerns me, that the discussion is going to change because we lost the opportunity that I know my party always thought we should have taken and that was the opportunity to privatize - excuse me, to make FPI a Crown Corporation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nationalize

MS MICHAEL: Nationalize. Thank you, colleagues.

AN HON. MEMBER: You almost had it.

MS MICHAEL: I almost got it. I told you, it is hard speaking right after dinner.

To nationalize that arm of our fishery. I think it was a lost opportunity and I am not one of those people who think that a Crown corporation is something that wastes money or a Crown corporation is the wrong way to do stuff. If we believe that, why do we still have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? We actually put a new bill in place to make greater it's role in natural resource development in this Province. We saw fit to do that. We have no questions about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro being a Crown corporation, but every time the opportunity came to discuss the possibility of having a Crown corporation dealing with the fishery it just seemed to be the most awful thing somebody could think about. I think it was a lost opportunity because I think that if we had done that we would not be here tonight getting ready to dissolve the act respecting FPI, to the dissolve the bill, to dissolve it because FPI is no longer going to exist. It is very, very sad.

One of the things that strikes me is, that everything I have read over the last few days in preparation for this debate today and tonight reminds me of what the main goal with regard to FPI was all about. I think it was my predecessor who brought this phrase into the House, although he did say he recognized that he did not coin the phrase, but he acknowledged that FPI was a private corporation with a public purpose. It was a public purpose private corporation. What that meant was, as we know, it was privatized, it was run by shareholders and a Board of Directors and they made profits from it. It was supposed to keep in mind that it was there for the good of the people in the fishery, that it was there for the good of the communities where those people lived. That was the public purpose.

I think tonight I would like to put on record once again - because it has been done before in this House, but I would like to do it again - what the public purpose was that FPI had to pay attention to. There were four purposes actually. I want to read them and comment on them because I hope that we are not going to forget the public purpose. My concern is, I do not know how we, as the people elected, are going to be able to hold the new companies accountable for the public purpose. Let me remind all of us what the four purposes were of FPI.

The first part of the public purpose: It says that the purpose of the Act was to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador. That sounds pretty stalk, but without that we lose a sense of why the fishery has to be paid attention to, that it does play a fundamental role and it has always played a fundamental role.

The second purpose clause, because that is what was put in the Act - many of you sitting in this House put these clauses in the Act in 2005 - the second purpose clause, to continue the company, meaning FPI because this was an amendment, it was when the new Board of Directors was put in place, to continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flag ship for the industry whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province.

Why wouldn't the flag ship of the industry have been nationalized? Why would that not have happened? It blows my mind that, that did not happen. It was called and many of you in the House called it the flag ship of the industry and thought that you could manage to control it and keep this purpose alive, having this private company with legislation covering it, and we now know it did not work.

The third purpose clause that was put in the FPI Act as an amendment in 2005 was: To recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province. That sounds familiar. It sounds like some of the things that we have heard being said today. I am sorry by the way, this was done in 2002 when this amendment was made, not 2005. The third purpose: To recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions. Obviously, any company that we would have working with the fishery that is what we would want for it, because without that purpose the company is not going to go on to be there for the good of the people.

Then there is a forth purpose clause, and the forth clause was: To ensure maximum employment stability and productivity to employee participation in the company. Now I know, and I will acknowledge, that the government has said that they are concerned about these purposes. I think I have heard them say it in different ways, and I believe it. They have said it about employment, there is no doubt about that. They have said it about the need for the company to operate on the basis of sound business. They cannot use the language so much any more of the flag ship because I think that is gone. I think with the buying out of FPI by two companies, separating out the different parts of the company, we have lost the flag ship, and I think that is really sad because the flag ship was something that I was proud of and I think a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were proud of. By having a company that was a strong company - because at one point it was a wonderfully strong company, and it was a company that rode the hump of the 1990s, that got over it and found ways to get over it. It was a strong company and we were proud of it, and there will not be anymore that kind of a company.

It is because I really do believe that we actually wanted a nationalized company that we reacted to FPI that way. We wanted it to be a company that belonged to us, we wanted it to be a company that we could say, that is ours, even though in reality it was not, but we had that legislation that made us feel that way. It made us feel as if we had control over this company. Now we are losing it. It really does feel extremely sad to me. It feels, in some ways, like we are wiping out a history, that when we make this decision, which is going to be made some time tonight - and I will not be able to vote for this because of it - that in voting to get rid of the legislation we are wiping out a history. I find that very, very bothersome. No more will government be able to have the same role that it had because of the legislation.

The thing that bothers me even more is not just that we are doing that, but we are doing it without seeing a lot of the detail of the agreements that are being put together. We know what we have been told. We have been told some of the things that are going to be in the agreements, but until an agreement is finally in place, hands have shaken, signatures have been written, nothing is an agreement until that happens. We are being asked tonight to dissolve the Act respecting FPI Limited, to dissolve that bill, we are being asked to do that, and yet, we are not sure where we are headed.

I have heard colleagues on the other side of the House almost ask us to trust - and even one of the colleagues today said: Well, maybe in a year's time we will find out we made a mistake. This will be an awfully costly mistake if it turns out to be a mistake. I am concerned that we are being asked to vote for a bill not knowing the details, and that is why I will not be voting for the bill because I will not be able to.

The other thing that bothers me is that we, as a government - and all of us take responsibility for it even though we may not have been the decision makers at the time - when FPI was formed, the government of this Province made a big investment, $177 million actually went from this government into the formation of FPI. Some money also went in from the federal government and some went in from the Bank of Nova Scotia, I think it was, but the bulk of the money, the largest percentage, went in from this government. I guess we can say, well, all is not lost, because we are still going to have the assets owned - FPI is being taken over by the two companies, High Liner and OCI. We know that is happening, so the people are still going to be employed, which is wonderful, plants are going to run and in that sense our investments are not lost. Ultimately, at some point, it is, because ultimately at some point we will not have control anymore. and I just find that sad.

It bothers me that we have a five-year-agreement. I am going to be optimistic enough to hope that in the short term things are going to look good for the communities where OCI and High Liner will be, that things are going to look positive for them in the short term, but we have no idea what is going to happen in five years time. I know that we will have the quota agreement for four more years after that, but to not know at this moment where things are going to go really concerns me and bothers me. Now, somebody could tell me, that when FPI was formed in the 1980s we did not know where it was going to go either, but I think we had more of a sense then than we do now in terms of the control of government, in terms of government having a say. How are we going to assure that the new companies that are taking over the assets of FPI are going to live up to these purposes that we saw as the purposes of FPI? I know there are some things to protect in the first five years of the contract, but are they really protecting these purposes? I think they are making sure we get some money back if the companies do not honour the agreements -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: To clue up, by leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is being requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: I will get another opportunity to speak again, so I will just say, that for now I have laid out my major concerns and they are very serious concerns. I have put a lot of thought into my expression of these concerns. I sense that my concerns will not change the minds of my colleagues on the other side of the House when it comes to voting tonight, if it is tonight that we vote, but I hope, at least, they will take seriously what I have said because they are real serious concerns. I will speak more to those concerns later on, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud tonight to rise and have a few words to say on Bill 1.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very straightforward, simple bill. It is An Act Respecting FPI Limited. There is not a lot of detail. It is pretty simple. The Act states that the Fishery Products International Limited Act is repealed. That is pretty simple and straightforward. I guess there are a lot of questions in a lot of people's minds too, as to how did we get this to this point and where did we come from. I guess, the way I look at it is, if we do what we always did then we will get what we always got.

Since 1999 I have been in this Legislature representing a community with an FPI plant. We see from time to time that the plant out there is not doing that well. The people in the area certainly sometimes get frustrated, confused and disappointed. From time to time we have to make decisions, we have to do something that is going to make things better. We all hoped that the FPI Act and the FPI company would survive and do great things in the districts and in the communities where they have plants, but we see now that this is not so. The people in my district now are to the point where they would like to see something change. I guess it is our responsibility now to look for something better and try to give some hope to the communities that have plants.

Like my colleague from Bonavista South alluded to earlier in his comments on it, there are a lot of companies in the Province that change hands, management changes, companies change and there does not seem to be that much concern. Most of them are pretty successful when they change hands. They have new ideas, new owners and a new philosophy on business. It seems like companies move forward and get better and do better work and create more business. That is what we are hoping with this bill, with repealing the FPI Act, of course, looking at the stakeholders and the people who are interested in taking over FPI. Of course, as our minister said earlier, there were several groups that were interested and put forward proposals and OCI and the High Liner group, it seemed like their proposal was more acceptable and palpable by people in the Province.

This government took the responsibility and, of course, through consultation with FPI and consultation with a lot of stakeholders, decided that the OCI proposal was probably the best one that we could accept, that was in line with our policies and, of course, in line with the way that we want to deal with our fishery in this Province. That is a good thing, that is where the change comes in. A company such the OCI group, we know that they have an excellent track record. We know that the proponents and owners of OCI have certainly proven, not only to their workers but to the people in the Province and other business people in the country, that they certainly can do the job and they certainly would be a good company to take over FPI.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that FPI was a creature of government, I guess, is what everybody was saying, back in 1984. They had to form a group and a company that would save the fishery processing in rural Newfoundland. From what was happening back then, with many companies going bankrupt and having to find a way to make sure that the fishery survives in rural Newfoundland, then of course FPI or Fishery Products International became an entity in the fishing industry in this Province. Of course if was a Crown corporation and the government put forward the FPI Act to protect the company and to make sure that it survived in this industry.

Of course, from time to time we do have to change things. This world would not exist if we did not have change. We change everything in our lives from time to time and, of course, FPI was no different. When the time came in 1987, when, I guess, the government of the day decided that it was now time to let FPI spread out and put their shares on the market to raise necessary dollars to help FPI expand and survive, we all know that in the beginning there were many millions of dollars, over $300 million, invested by both federal and provincial governments, and, of course, the banks of the day, to make sure that it survived.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, FPI has proven itself as a great company in those days. It certainly became very viable and lucrative and ended up paying off the debt to the taxpayers of this Province. The debt that occurred in those days was paid back to the banks. The banks were satisfied and the federal and provincial government were satisfied that the debt was paid back, and, of course, FPI went on to be a great, great company in this Province in those days.

Mr. Speaker, I know the plant in my district, in the Triton area, was, back in the 1980s, one of those plants that was struggling and heading of bankruptcy. It was owned by some prominent business people back then, the Roberts and the Nickerson's, and through the development of FPI and what happened in the 1980s, the plant survived. In the last twenty years there have been millions and millions of dollars invested in that plant. Today we have a very modern plant in Triton, a very good workforce. It is strategically located on the Northeast Coast with a very good inlet there to be accessible for the fisherpeople to come in and unload their catch.

We see today, even though times are not great in the fishery, we still have some people who want to hang on and stay in the communities. We still have people who want to stay in Green Bay South and be part of a fishery and be part of a processing industry. Sure, we are no different than anywhere else in rural Newfoundland, we have had a lot of young people who had to move away, a lot of families had to move away to follow their children, but we are hoping now with this change that our plant in Triton is going to be revitalized to a point where we do not have to depend on one company making decisions that limits the number of hours that our workers get in Green Bay South. From the last number of years, there was so much uncertainty, there was so much frustration, that the people out there are just tired of it, something had to change or they just all wanted to move away. We recognized that, our minister, our Premier and our government, recognized that the change has to happen. Now this opportunity, of course, that was spearheaded by FPI itself, who put it out on proposals to have a look at what was out there with respect to somebody taking over FPI and running FPI - and we have had some really good proposals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: OCI, with their record, certainly seem to be one of the best things that could happen at this point in time. Like my colleague from Bonavista South said, maybe if it is a mistake probably in four or five years, we would come back and then we would have to deal with that. I think for the most part, most of the people of the Province and most of the people in communities that have FPI plants are quite satisfied and quite willing to give it a chance and let something better happen in the fishery with respect to processing in our communities where the plants are.

I know it is not easy for everybody. We have members on both sides who depend on the fishery, depend on FPI, depend on processing. We would like nothing better than to maximize our processing abilities in the Province and do more secondary processing, valued-added, because that is where the jobs are, Mr. Speaker. We know we can bring product into a plant, clean it up, package it, freeze it and send it out. It does create jobs. It is very important to our people in our Province. Of course, the value-added process is what makes it more lucrative and more important to our people in our rural communities who depend on the fishery and those processing jobs. We recognize that and we want to maximize that.

We have a company now that does have the resources. They have financial resources, they have expertise resources that look at doing more things in the plants that they are going to take over. We are just waiting for the day when the plant in Triton will be doing more than crab. We have tried other things in the past. We tried groundfish. We brought in H + G cod. Of course, everybody knows what happened to the groundfish industry. It pretty well collapsed. It is very hard to make money in that industry, but there are other species out there that a private company could invest in. This company, the OCI company, certainly does not mind, is not afraid of investing and taking chances on expanding businesses so they can make profit. I am sure they will be successful. I would like nothing better than to see the plant in Triton do other species, some palagics species. There is no reason why we cannot do more of the caplin and mackerel. Of course, there was some talk that we might be even doing some mussel production processing out there, but it takes something better than what we had in the past to make those decisions. FPI, of course, was making the decisions at the top. We did not have hands-on right at the community, on the stage and in the fish plant there, representing the workers of the plant and recognizing the abilities of our workers right at the plant level.

I think this company will do that. They will look at the expertise they have and the abilities of our workers. If we can do mussels, if we can do more capelin - we did do some - and mackerel, whatever, certainly then the people in my area are willing to give it a try and give it sauce. Their main interest is to create more hours of work, because as I said last week when I spoke a little bit about it, some of our people in our communities do no mind staying. They do not mind working for less wages then they would get in Alberta. Not everybody wants to go away but everybody wants some security and everybody wants some consistency in their life. They need some assurance that there is going to be some work there, not only just twelve or fourteen weeks a year. Most people in these rural areas where fish plants are want some assurance that they are going to get maximum time working. There would nothing better than a twelve month a year job working in the fish processing business in rural Newfoundland.

Even through that day may come, we need to strive to work with the stakeholders to encourage private spending, we need to do the things that we are about to do now, to make sure that livelihoods in rural Newfoundland are going to be expanded; this idea of repealing the FPI Act and letting the private business take hold of what they feel should be done to make a successful business out of fish processing in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that years change things. We recognize that at this point in time it is a little different than it was back in 2002. Back in 2005, of course, we had to do some amendments. I have been here since 1999 and I was here during the NEOS proposal. That was a very difficult time. It was a difficult time because we all were not sure, we were very skeptical, and people in our districts were very afraid. I know of dozens and dozens of calls and the meetings of the committee that went around the Island with the committee members in 2002. We listened to people express that they were afraid of the NEOS deal, they were afraid of Mr. Risley, they were afraid of what could happen, but I do not hear that today. I do not hear the same type of worry and skeptical views on what is going to happen now. The people are positive. They did express a lot, that the time has come, enough is enough, do something, we cannot continue on the way we are, FPI certainly have not proven to be the be-all of the fishing and processing industry in this Province and now the time has come.

I have no problem, on behalf of my constituency, to support the repel of the FPI Act. Of course, we will be going into Bill 31 later and that bill will be discussed and debated too. We are in the second reading of that one. They are very important issues with regard to the marketing arm of FPI. This government has been very diligent and very concerned, and expressed to the public that they are interested in helping in some way, for somebody to take over the marketing arm, and are quite willing and prepared to put financial assistance into that.

We learned that here wasn't anybody interested in this Province, through a co-operative way, to take over the marketing arm, and there was nothing this government could do about that, if there wasn't anybody out there willing to take it over. It was a great opportunity for members, stakeholders and communities to get involved in the marketing arm. That is a very important part of our fishing industry in this Province. We have the product, we have the expertise, and we need the marketing ability. That will continue. I am pretty sure and positive that the marketing of our products worldwide is going to be second to none. If we can maintain and keep quality and quality assurance to our customers, then the fishing industry will have a bright future in this Province. That depends on all of us. Everybody in this Province has a part to play, Mr. Speaker, in how we develop, enhance and maintain our fishery. We have to be proud of what we do, we have to be proud of the quality that we produce and we have to make sure that quality gets better and make sure that our plant workers and our fishery people get every opportunity in the world to make their business and their livelihood continue.

Mr. Speaker, if we keep on looking at the fishery and worrying about certain things - you know, they are hypothetical. We do not know what is going to happen, and some things do affect a lot of people. There are quite a few employees at the head office here in St. John's. The Leader of the Opposition alluded to the fact that there were 120 people in the office there, but when you make changes there is always some downside to things. I am sure the ability of the people in that office is going to be recognized by other companies and probably the new company will recognize it and place these people wherever they can. The main crux of this repealing of the legislation, of course, is to help our plants survive in rural Newfoundland.

Some members have great concerns, but there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees this is going to work. Even if FPI continues, there are no guarantees there will be an FPI in a few years. It may be so bad off and financially strapped that it might disappear altogether. We do not know that. If things are not getting any better and we do not do something, there is a possibility that could happen. Under this new deal, a new company taking over, then the possibilities are a lot better that we could have a very viable private business in this Province.

I have no problem congratulating the OCI group and High Liner and wishing them the very best for all of our sakes, for our children, our grandchildren and people who want to stay in the fishery in this Provinces. They deserve that right, they deserve that chance. If there is anything we can do, if there is anything I can do as a member representing fishing communities, then I think it is my responsibility to do that. I really and truly feel that this is the right move at this particular time. Maybe four years ago I did not. Maybe four years ago I was like some of my constituents, I was very skeptical of what would happen if the Risley group did take over FPI. Of course we had some reservations then when we had to amend the Act again to allow for Income Trust. There were some mixed feelings and emotions throughout rural Newfoundland on that one. Of course, if FPI had any chance of surviving, they needed to raise capital, they needed to raise the money to do the necessary work that they had to do in some of the older plants. In my colleague's plant in Bonavista, there had to be millions of dollars spent there to make that more viable.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a couple of minutes left, but I think everybody in this House understands the situation of the fishery, they understand the situation in the processing business, and we are all hoping that things are going to be a lot better. It probably does not matter to most of us here because a lot of us are probably in the downside of our careers and a lot of people do not have fishing districts and fish plants and fisherpersons in their districts, but I think it is very sensitive with every member in this House, it is very sensitive with every member on this side. What is good for the fishery in rural Newfoundland is good for everybody. It is good for the economy of the Province, it is good for the government, it is good for the Opposition, it is good for our future, our families, our future children and grandchildren, and it is very important that we recognize that and keep it alive.

The decisions we make today are the decisions that are going to carry tomorrow. I am certainly glad to be a part of that now. I am certainly hoping and wishing and praying that communities in rural Newfoundland that have fish plants are going to be better off, more viable, more people working and more happy people to be in the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time is expired.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure some of our colleagues here have a few words to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments I would like to make this evening regarding this bill, regarding FPI.

I wish I could be a part to this revival and feel blessed as well, that all would be well with the fishery in our Province. It is very difficult to speak about a bill, Mr. Speaker, when none of the details are evident. I have listened to the speakers opposite today, and the Member for Bonavista North tried to console me that it was okay to lose 2 million pounds of crab from my community -

MR. REID: Bonavista South.

MR. SWEENEY: Bonavista South, I am sorry.

- that it was okay to lose 2 million pounds from my community, but that does not stop the 130

people out there right now who are uncertain about what they are going to do this summer, and how they are going to provide income to their families next winter. Many of them are at an age where Alberta is not that attractive and many of them who were involved in the fishery for so long may not have the necessary education to go to work in the call centre. They may not be able to go to work in department stores. That is what I find difficult about this deal. This deal is not even signed yet. The FPI Act is not even abolished yet.

Back over Easter, when I got word of this happening, that 2 million pounds of crab were going to leave the plant in Carbonear and go elsewhere, I made an inquiry to the Minister of Fisheries. Basically, my inquiry said: What is going to happen. Do I have any assurances that my people are going to be protected? What would happen to the processing licence that company presently has in Carbonear? I received the following letter: As per your recent request this letter will serve to provide an update on plant activity at the processing facility in Carbonear. It is the department's understanding that the owner of this facility, Ocean Choice International, intends to redirect snow crab to an affiliated operation. This decision is due to the fact that the availability of raw material to the company can only support one plant.

That is true. It supported the plant in Carbonear for a number of years and a lot of my people managed to derive employment there at that plant.

The letter goes on further to say: The Carbonear facility will now concentrate on the full processing of seal pelts, which should extend the operating period to over forty weeks. While the number of employees involved in this process may be reduced this change is expected to create greater stability for these workers. Wow, I say, this is great! It is also anticipated that the displaced workers - in one sentence it says greater stability and the next line says it is anticipated that displaced workers may have an opportunity to work in other crab processing plants in the areas which are experiencing labour shortages.

Mr. Speaker, that troubled me because I did not get the second part of my question answered: What was going to become of the processing licence for that area. The other part was that it also meant there would be no new opportunities for any other people in that area to receive employment at that crab processing plant when other workers are being directed to other facilities in the area.

Now, the only other facilities in the area are in Port de Grave, Bay de Verde and Old Pelican. It is about an hour's drive, I might add. For many people who are struggling so hard, it is difficult to keep a car on the road or even have a car. It left me little comfort, Mr. Speaker, that this is the reaction that I have had. I have always felt, as a member of this hon. House, that while the FPI Act was in place, these people, the people of the Province who are dealing with the fishery, were going to be protected. I never, ever thought that I would see 130 people lose their positions. I have been told, yes, there is a seal processing facility going to be opened in Carbonear that will employ thirty to forty people, to quote some of the workers. But as late as last week, there were only a few people who were in cleanup operations because the equipment had not yet arrived to do the processing.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the stress that I find myself in tonight as I sit here and as I watch other members opposite speak. The Member for Windsor-Springdale said that this is a simple straightforward bill, and he talked about his vision of it. Well, it is far from a simple straightforward bill. I followed this very much because my area depends very much and depended very much on the fishery, the cod fishery, the crab fishery and other species.

Mr. Speaker, I find little comfort in a seal processing facility for Carbonear, because in my lifetime this is the third one. I know our Leader of the Opposition grew up in Carbonear and he can remember the tannery in Carbonear. I am sure he can remember Loomis, the German company who came into Carbonear with great hope of providing a lot of jobs. This is the third one, and I cannot help but think people have a reason to be skeptical, because not very far away we have another processing facility over in Dildo, and we have others in the Province. I am not sure, when all of this is done and everything shakes itself out - because I do not have a crystal ball and I have not been part of the great revival that assures me that everything is going to be fine, but I cannot help but wonder what the future is going to hold for those last thirty or forty people who are getting a livelihood out of the fruits of the sea, Mr. Speaker, because once that is gone there is nothing else. That is why I wanted the Minister of Fisheries, the Deputy Premier, to give me some assurances that that licence would not be taken from the Carbonear area, from my district, and put somewhere else. I know the rule, that if the licence is not utilized in two years it goes back to the government, and then it is up to the government to see fit what it does with it. I am troubled by all of that. I am personally troubled by it.

The Member for Bonavista South - and I realize where he is coming from - to get a million pounds of new product for his area, for his people, and the member representing St. Lawrence getting one million pounds for her area, but stand in my shoes while all of this is going on and just think how I feel about my people. It is their loss. I do not know what we have to do in this Province to protect our people, I really do not know, because there does not seem to be a great willingness right now.

I heard members opposite state today that government has no place in business. Well, it did not happen a few months ago when government had to get into the fibre optic business. It did not happen then. Nobody over there got up and said that. Nobody is getting up over there today saying that we must stay in the fishery. There is nobody saying that. There is nobody saying that we should not have an equity in oil. As a matter of fact, we are losing millions because of government's refusal to not negotiate with the oil companies. We are losing a great opportunity here right now by dealing with this bill. We are losing a great opportunity.

What we should be doing here tonight is what we did here last year this time. We should be here strengthening the FPI Act, protecting our people, protecting our resources, and making sure that we have work in our communities. I do not know, I am not foolish enough to believe, that things are going to be better in five years time, because what we have done or what we will be doing - because I have no doubt because of the numbers on the other side, the speakers opposite, that this bill will finally do away with any control that this government or any government in the future will have over the fishery and that troubles me. It is the fishery that brought us here. The FPI Act was created to help save the rural fabric of Newfoundland back when the fishery collapsed.

I remember quite well, the present Minister of Fisheries, at some point in his career, very eloquently got up and talked about how good the FPI Act is and how important it is that we protect Fishery Products International and how we must do everything to strengthen it. I remember that quite well. It provided valuable employment in rural Newfoundland; there is no question about that.

Tonight, all of a sudden, without any deal being made or consummated, we must pass this Act. Why? What is the urgency? We are doing this without any detail. What is the urgency? This House can be reconvened at any time.

I read an article in the paper last week and it said how Mr. Risley was notified by his banker and said that, your company that has no control over its actions or you have no control over your company because the government does. Something that we fought for years to do was to keep control away from Mr. Risley, I think tonight what we are doing is giving him control. You can say what you like, that is the bottom line here, giving free play. Because you know what is going to happen is, once this bill is passed tonight, government does not have any control and the company can do what they want then.

I want to make it perfectly clear, I have nothing against OCI, nothing at all. As a matter of fact, I would be happy as anything tonight if they bought the whole company, bought all of FPI, because I know Ches Penney to be an honourable man, and that he would do what he could to protect the people of this Province. But, what repercussions will be ahead for us? We do not have all of the answers on the processing facility in England. We do not know what is going to happen to the marketing arm. I did pick up today in the minister's comments that Gildae, I think it was, of the Netherlands was interested in the processing facility. Again, foreign concerns coming in to look after our fishery, to look after the things that impact the livelihoods of the people out there in rural Newfoundland who have less opportunity, by the way, than a lot of people who live here in the city, because of geography, because of our schooling system and everything else. Things are different here in the City. Things are totally different. But to go down this path right now, when I have to go back and look at 130 people in my district, and more - because those are the primary jobs, they are the jobs at the plant - the people who are not going to get a job in a store or a gas bar, because these 130 people are gone. We have lost a lot.

In my lifetime, since 1992, back in the early 1990's, I watched the plant in Harbour Grace close and be torn down. I watched the plant in Carbonear close. Two thousand people all together lost work in my area and it has been a battle. It has been a battle for people like myself, the politicians who have come forward in this House from that area, to try to find meaningful income for these people; call centres fighting for commercial enterprises to come out there, lobbying everybody else to be considerate and remember the plight of these people. Now tonight, to wipe out all of this, it seems terribly unfair for me.

There is another question that has not been answered, the core licenses. What is the status now of core licenses in the Province when we went through so much trouble? Core licenses were a big issue for a long period of time. Communities were issued those core licenses so that they would be guaranteed that their people would be looked after. What happens now? Does government have any role in the fishery anymore, other than probably inspections?

Mr. Speaker, Vic Young, back when the fishery collapsed, used FPI as a tool to look after the people of the Province, to reduce the hardship that a lot of people were facing, and he did it by having a social consequence while he managed very tightly this bill, I guess, that we want to talk about, because FPI was a bill, it was a company created by a bill of this House to help the fishery.

Another issue with all of this is, FPI a little while ago had charges laid against them, about sending fish to China. What will happen to the charges now, any fines or penalties that will be imposed on the now redundant FPI? What will happen to those?

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves here tonight, as I said earlier, debating a bill without the details. We do not have a sweet clue, the members of this House or the public out there, about what is going to happen. I have a feeling that we are being told just what we need to know. It is almost like: Trust me. It is almost like we are being asked to say: Trust me. Who knows where this is going to lead, Mr. Speaker. The bill is not even signed and I have 120 jobs gone.

It is okay for a minister of the Crown, the Deputy Premier, to come back and say: It is also anticipated that displaced workers may have an opportunity to work in other crab processing plants. That hurts me, Mr. Speaker, because that plant in Carbonear -

MR. JOYCE: Who said that?

MR. SWEENEY: The Deputy Premier said that.

The plant in Carbonear was always an opportunity for some of our young people to get some work, and that is gone, that is eroded away. To ask somebody who is fifty-five or sixty years old to drive an hour now to see if he can get a few hours at the crab plant next door, I find that very profound, Mr. Speaker.

I have a feeling that the truth and the facts of what will happen to all of this will be found out and I pray that it does not be found out in the form of empty buildings and corporate take-overs, because there is no doubt about it, there were a number of times that the fishery of this Province was subjected to attempted corporate take-overs. We dealt with it a number of times when this side of the House was in government and we flatly refused and said: No, go back and make the company work.

It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, last year when we were here in this House the shares were a little over $4 each, tonight, on the news, they were in excess of $14. Amazing! They are not making any money and they do not see the need, so we are going to divest ourselves of this now and get our money back. I say, they would do quite well to get their money back. There is no doubt about that, they are going to get their money back. I do not know what the details are, but just the mere details of what the stock exchange is showing, in twelve months from four something to, I think it was, $14.31 tonight. That is a $10 margin. How many people jumped in last year and are now walking away with $10 on each share?

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that OCI are good corporate citizens; there is no question. I have watched Mr. Penney, he was a neighbour of mine back in Carbonear, not very far away, and I have a lot of confidence in him and his ability to run companies. I am not so sure that without the FPI Act even he is going to be protected in the fishery. I am not so sure that there is a lot of protection there for him, but I will tell you one thing that the fishery here in this Province will change -

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the face of this fishery, or the fishery as we know it now, will be the same. I have lost 130 positions already, and little reassurance when there is no program in place to help these people. They have asked me. As a matter of fact, I just want to say that last week they asked me would I bring this up in the House as an issue and ask the minister or the Premier for some assistance to help them through the summer to qualify for some benefits. When I drafted a petition and sent it out, they said: No, we cannot sign that now, because we are going to be told this week how many of us are going to be hired. We do not know how many men are going to be hired and we do not know how many women, but we are expecting to get twenty-five jobs, so we cannot do anything yet. Coincidentally enough, this is probably the last opportunity I will get to speak in this House on this FPI bill and I still do not know what fate my people are going to have.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing the wrong thing. We are doing it for all the wrong reasons. We are doing it in blind trust with the government. I do not have any faith or any trust that this government is going to act in the best interests of me or my people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on Bill 1 as well, Mr. Speaker.

I have a FPI plant in my district as well and it has certainly been an important plant on the Northern Peninsula. It has played a very important role in the economy in the central part of the Northern Peninsula. Back in 1965, we started off with a floating groundfish plant. I remember running into Gus Etchegary and we were talking about how he had came down from Labrador, and could not get over the mountains. He stayed in Port au Choix. He had a friend there, as he thought, he came to look for him and stay with him but his friend had passed away three years before that.

The people on the Northern Peninsula were fortunate that he did have a friend there and that he did come there, because he realized the importance of the Peninsula and the fishing grounds. It was very rich, an ideal location with a nice little harbour, so he brought in a floating groundfish plant there. Mr. Speaker, that really changed the central part of the Northern Peninsula. It had become the cornerstone of the economy. It was at a time when resettlement was happening. It was at a time when the smaller communities were looked upon as not being viable, and were trying to pool together. Fishery Products at that time certainly played that role.

It became a community that expanded. It is may be 100 kilometres on either side that people travel today to get to Port au Choix and work at that plant. The plant today is not what it was back in 1965 because we had gone through a crisis. This time is certainly not the first time we have seen change in Port au Choix and with FPI. We have seen many changes. In 1993 when the cod moratorium came down we went from a groundfish and a shrimp plant to just a shrimp plant. It was a time of great debate in Port au Choix. Do we accept this or do we not accept it? What do we do? We were left with not many choices at the time and we did accept the fact that the shrimp were there. There was a rich shrimp ground right off Port au Choix and the people there went out and learned how to fish shrimp, and we created wealth from that shrimp. In this Province, we were the first people to do it. We learned the techniques and we did the processing. When we started off in Port au Choix, we were peeling shrimp by hand. Think off today and the technology and the change in the industry, where we are now and how to be competitive out there. We have come a long way from when people were out there picking shrimp by hand.

The thing was, I suppose, you would always sit down and think about whatever changes were there, and there were always other things to compare it to. I would think in Port au Choix, at the time you were debating, how do you narrow yourself in, because it goes against the grain to narrow yourself in, to refine yourself in a rural community; even the fishery, which is the only option you have, to narrow that in to one species is very difficult.

To put it in a perspective, you have to understand that places like St. Anthony and Trepassey were great empires as well with FPI, just to name a couple. There were many others, but those are the two that I have connections with, that went from great employers, great wealth and great economic generators. They were mighty, they were massive. To see those shut down completely and leave those towns in devastation - we were certainly fortunate in Port au Choix to have shrimp, to have a resource, and to be able to come out and fine-tune it.

For many years we went on with FPI. They were a good citizen in the fact that they treated Port au Choix and the industry good. The people who worked with them had good wages. They set the wages, they set the benchmark there. They were also pay setters in what they paid for shrimp and how they kept the price and the stability of shrimp for all of the other plants in the area and in this industry, and how they brought in that kind of stability. Those people and that mindset was what the industry depended on because it never had many options. If you are into only one product, you have to have that viability. If you can let it concentrate to the point where an industry can bring that downward pressure, you have trouble.

There were two factors in the shrimp industry in Port au Choix that kept it up. One was the FPI and the attitude that they were going to give a fair market value to the fisherman. The other one, of course, was the fact that, through regulations, if you land a product in Newfoundland it has to stay here, but if you do not land it here you can put it to another province. At the time, in Badger, Fisherman were able to steam there and it was economically feasible. I remember in those years where the price of shrimp was $1.10 and $1.15. Those are the things that brought stability. It was a mindset and there was a future. It has always been seen as a future.

Then we came to the point of having a change in board. I remember going back - I just read through some notes - to the community and saying: Okay, there is a board, and where would you like for me to be? Because, as your representative here, you are going to pay the price or gain the benefit from it. I am representing you here and I want to know where you stand. How doubtful people were, to give me the ability, to say, well, you are there and you have the knowledge, you have the first-hand part of debate and discussions and we will deal with it as it is. As then, it is a time when we have to go out there and acknowledge that there is change, that we have to take it front on. We cannot be there and be seen as not being able to take change and move. We just cannot say I want to stay in the past.

I remember back in that part of the debate, one of the things that I saw as being positive, as part of the shrimp industry, was the fact that we were buying a shrimp plant in Britain, which would give us access to our markets and we would be more into our markets than what we are without it. I have always seen it as being important to be there, to get to know your customer and be a part of it. We saw it when FPI went into the United States, went into Danvers. We had a marketing arm there. That gave us certain advantages, and I saw this as having certain advantages as well.

Even today, as we are talking about dismantling FPI, that investment was a good investment, and that investment would help the shrimp industry which would certainly help Port aux Choix. In the Northern Peninsula of my district they had three shrimp plants and they were marketing for all of them, so I saw it as being not only Port aux Choix but FPI was a leader in a group of companies that were out there that were important.

I saw it with Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point. Black Duck Cove was certainly a plant where I had spent a lot of time in trying to work with the people there as they were trying to get back into the industry in going from being shutdown to up and going and to being very prosperous.

The thing was, that having a company and having an attitude, that we will go out there and better ourselves every year - are we going to at least fight and have that attitude. Then, to have a change in the board and to see the changes where we have come out - and the attitude was, we can bring things down, we can take the wages down, we can get the price down if we want to see the viability and maybe we can catch this offshore if we have bigger boats, and that is where we need to take the industry. In Port aux Choix and area, our fleet went out, took an industry like shrimp, brought it ashore, created wealth and jobs and a future there on land. We saw that expand where that inshore fleet was out and going to the northern shrimp and bringing in more and creating those jobs on land, and creating a whole economy in many different parts of this Province because of what we started in Port aux Choix. Then, to see someone who was a leader in the industry go out and take an industry and create that wealth, to change a board to have an attitude that, we do not need to be bringing this ashore, that it is more economically efficient to have larger boats and be doing it offshore, and we should not be sharing this wealth, this wealth would be very fine if we were to take it and concentrate it into the hands of a few and be productive with it - that was the attitude that it became.

I believe, if your strategy is to do that, you have to make it uncomfortable enough for the people in the industry to not have the value that they had at one time, but to let that value come down so you do not hang onto it, you are not as aggressive in fighting and you start to wear those communities down, because each one of those communities is out there on its own and they are fighting.

The economy in many ways in this Province and in rural Newfoundland has been out there for many reasons, and if you let it put that extra pressure on there, then you give up in frustration. I think the people in Port au Choix who are working there, you have to remember that many of them have been working there for twenty odds years, and if you have trust and confidence with your employer, to feel that erode and come to the point where you are not sure that you want to get up and fight for this anymore, that maybe the oil sands in Alberta may be more appealing than staying here and fighting for their future, to me to see that attitude come on and on, I think it is once again a time in our history where maybe it is time to take a look and have a leap of faith.

You think about in 1965, to a man not being able to get over the mountains because there is a low ceiling, to have the possibility of a groundfish barge come in there, and from those meager beginnings to see a plant that is employing 600 people, to have a community that becomes a shopping centre and becomes a magnet for people coming in and other businesses that were happening.

I remember back in the mid-1970s when I finished school, I went there and worked on a Monday morning and if I got fed up with the job the next Monday morning I went out and got another one and I went on a month later and got another one. The opportunities were there to do that in a place like Port au Choix at that time. That was when the economy was going and it was built on the corner stone of that competition for employment in an industry that was being very productive. The thing about Port au Choix is that you have a shrimp plant right here, you have your main street, you have your shopping centres and you have all of the things that were coming around and the people coming around and things were robust. I did not spend as much time back then in Port au Choix, but you heard people talking about it, how, in a town like Port au Choix, you had a wait a while to get across the road because the traffic was going through. Today, we are down to 150 people working in the plant. People are in their mid to late forties working on the (inaudible) shift. When you think about that, it was not a good thing but if you compare it to the options that you have, that you could have been closed down completely.

I think of St. Anthony today, that was closed down and had gone through terrible times, but it had found its way back, but Trepassey has not. If you think about it, just because one has is no guarantee that it would be. You have to think about the people who made the decision that, yes, we are going to go with the shrimp only. It was a brave decision and it was a lonely one. I know some of the people who played a role in supporting that decision. A lot of people were against it. I can only imagine the debate. You are coming from prosperity, almost second to none, in Port aux Choix to narrowing yourself in. It does not make any sense when you sit down and think about that. You should fight to have those opportunities. It came back, but it was a time of change and I believe the right decisions were made.

Today, we are having that debate again. What do we do? Do we support a change? One of the things that I look at - and I have not had an opportunity really to spend the time to see exactly what it is going to mean. What we have been wanting in Port aux Choix, or in that particular area, whether it is in Port aux Choix or another plant or whatever - it depends on who you talk to in that debate - but the thing is that we have always felt, with those rich fishing grounds that we have surrounding that peninsula, that it is a time when we should be entitled to more than just shrimp, that maybe we can expand and go out there, that we can do a product that is freshness. Quality is what we talk about. Well, if quality is what we are talking about, if you are going to process it on your doorstep, that is important. That is a hook that will certainly put you in there. We certainly see it as being a very legitimate one, it is just that we have not been able to convince a company like FPI because they did not see a future. Maybe OCI does see a future. They talk about a future.

Maybe we are out here now, where the difference would be, looking at palagics. We mentioned it in looking at it with Port aux Choix, to maintain its employment levels there. We looked at FPI that put in a groundfish and a turbot line but only put it in there for the sake of saying that they did it, to appease the community leaders and the communities that wanted to expand. Very reluctantly they put something in there and they said, well, maybe we will do enough to maintain the license or those kind of things, but it was not with any enthusiasm, it was not with any kind of looking to the future. It was just there to appease those people. That was an unfortunate attitude and it is an attitude that frustrates the people there, and rightfully so, seeing the pressures that are coming on your communities continuously. You see your business community coming down and in many way shrinking and hanging on and not being as prosperous. If you had another 100 employed, or if you had fuller employment where you could go out and expand your season, and you are looking for those things and you have someone who is really not interested in partaking, it is very frustrating.

When I look at the change, I look at it as being a time of uncertainty. Any change is uncertain and we do not know what the future will bring. We do not know what the future will bring on any account whether we stay the same or we change, but I look forward to having a change in attitude.

We talk about the people who are the main players in OCI. I have met them, I have sat across the table from them and I have seen where they have great knowledge. I am not one to speak about their knowledge, but they have great knowledge and great compassion. When I was in Black Duck Cove and we were looking for an operator, they took us very seriously. They treated us with great respect and they shared what they had. Those are the things that you see in the character, the attitude and the tone of a person. That is what you are looking for, because that tells you what you can expect from them in the future. If someone treats you with respect, you really cannot ask for more than that, because you know if they are treating you with respect, they are looking for your solutions and their solutions to be the same. Having those particular people in Port au Choix would be a great asset and a great attitude, that we could go out there and build a future.

When I look at maybe having a shrimp plant that they are going to see and try to grow the productivity of that particular industry or that particular product, and maybe going in and expanding into something like pelagics, where we have more than 60 per cent of that resource being trucked off the Northern Peninsula and going elsewhere, where we have not been able to get a fair share of the resources to help us create our wealth, that we - pelagics is one of the fisheries, when raw material sharing was brought in, that was looked at, that a particular place is not getting an opportunity to create the wealth that it needs from the resources that it has.

It is very encouraging to think that you would have a company like that to be able to come in and take advantage of what we have to offer. If they are coming in and looking at something else and being able to work with the communities, I could not think of anything more.

With that, I would like to say that I look forward to a future. I look forward to being there. I hope the people will respect my views and what they are. I look forward to being there in the future and dealing with whoever comes in and whatever challenges they present, to be there with them and help them go through it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will end my contribution to the debate. It has certainly been important to the Northern Peninsula and I look forward to Port au Choix and the plant there being important to the economy of the Northern Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a few minutes to speak on this particular piece of legislation.

I agree with Russell Wangersky when he said in the paper on the weekend: Rest in peace. It is too late to do anything with FPI. Do you know what? He is right, because in a way of speaking all of us in this House have been had and we have been conned by FPI.

Just think about it. Go back to 2005 when they had the new board of directors. I said in the House before, and I think it is worth speaking for now, it does not really matter, repeal the FPI act and the future will be uncertain. As a person just said, uncertainty, and we will find out. Just go back to 2005 when the new board of directors came into existence and came on the scene. Rowe, one of the first things he said was: We are going to grow the company. When he was asked: Would you ever sell the company? No, he said, we would never sell the company, FPI is too valuable. There are two main assets to it. There is the fisheries part and there is a marketing part. They are not inseparable, one is dependent on the other and we need it in order to make the company grow.

Do you know what? We always learned - and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the same thing for you when you grew up in the Placentia area - that if somebody told you something, you believed it, you took it at face value, you took it to the bank because somebody said it to you and you took their word for it and their word was their bond and their word was the their truth. That is how I have operated. The thing about it is we are facing the same situation with the Prime Minister of Canada. He came down here, he gave the Premier his word, he put it in writing, and now what do we see?

Even tonight, I was listening to the news for a few minutes and they were talking about a survey that we did, I guess as members in the Green report, and they were talking about a number of us who agreed with what Judge Green had there, in principle, and then when we filled out the individual things, he says things were different. What he meant to say, and I guess he said it very subtly, was the fact you can trust these guys.

This morning I was listening to the comment by one guy, I forget his name now, not Russell Wangersky but Craig Westcott, and he talked about some of the people who were in this class. He looked at them and he said they were genuine people. One of the guys, a big guy, he said he knew that when he grew up he would do something that would be similar to what he said he would be. He said he agreed to be a policeman. He said before he was accepted he had to take a lie detector test. Then, he talked about politicians, he talked about some municipal politicians and then basically said: well, you might find a few of them up there on the hill that tell the truth but the majority of the politicians do not tell the truth. I find that offensive too. I think the majority of people who are in here are in here for the right cause; all of us for that matter. We tell things as we see it and we believe in. We represent our people in the best way that we know how. That is what I thought about Mr. Rowe, that he was going to grow the company, that he was going to put people to work in Harbour Breton, that he was going to put people to work in Fortune, that he was going to do things in Marystown. Do you know what? Subtly, mischievously, they dismembered the company. They knew all along.

The first time they tried to do that we were in government at the time and they were going to lay off people in Harbour Breton, they were going to lay them off in Fortune and they were going to lay them off in Marystown. What happened? Sam Synard, who was the Mayor of Marystown at the time, and I forget the guy who was Mayor of Fortune, but Churence Rogers in Harbour Breton, the three communities came together and they galvanized. The public opinion prevented them from doing it. I said to our people: They will be back again. You need not worry, they will be back and they will not fail next time. They didn't, did they? What did they do? They brought a communications guy in from Ottawa. How did they do it? They pitched one community against the other. When we were talking about the Income Trust, I had a lump in my stomach because I saw people from Harbour Breton on that side, I saw people from Marystown and Fortune on the other side, one community pitted against the other. That is not the normal way that we do it, but the company did it because they promised the people in Fortune they would get the redfish from the plant in Harbour Breton. These people were so desperate for work that they bought it.

I was listening to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, Minister Jackman, earlier today talking about where some of the people in Marystown have not worked for eighteen months. There are some people in Harbour Breton who have not worked for twice that long and probably will never get a chance to work there again.

Here is the situation: we passed a piece of legislation here, I think it was in 2005, and it is under the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Minister Rideout. For example, there was one thing there and he can probably, when he ends the debate, comment on it for me: FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited shall each have no fewer than thirteen directors. I do not know if they ever did that. The other day when they signed the proxy there weren't thirteen people who signed it, there were six. Do you know what it says to me? They told us to mind our own business, that they would do pretty much whatever they wanted to do, and that is what they have done.

I read an article, No sentient person could vote for this, by Craig Westcott back in 2005. You know, it is almost like, in a sense, there is a prophet from the Old Testament predicting what was going to happen in the New because what he predicted happened. They did it recently. I know it is rumors and it could never happen. I suppose it would not. Again I trust the good judgement of the Minister of Fisheries who has probably forgotten more about the fishery than I will ever know. The rumor has been around that if we do away with the FPI clause then they will not sell FPI. That is the rumor out there. That is what John Risley wanted to do right from the beginning, to get rid of the FPI Act, so that they could do whatever they wanted to do and they have done pretty much whatever they wanted to do, regardless of the Act or not. They have snubbed their noses at it and they have done it. That is a terrible thing to do to people.

By the way, I make it absolutely clear, I have nothing against OCI. I have nothing against Mr. Barry's group of companies. They are Newfoundlanders, they have done well for themselves. That is not my point. I would like to know, for example, what the Barrys proposed to government. I do not know that. Probably in time we will get it, all the details will come out on the OCI negotiations with government and so on. It will probably become common knowledge and then we will be able to assess it. Nothing against those companies at all; absolutely not. They are good people but the thing about it is we allowed a company that took over the shareholders in a hostile manner and really in a sense got what they wanted to do - I bet you a dollar - I am not a betting man, I do not do that - but I will bet you that within four to five years, who do you think will hold the marketing arm of FPI that is going to Demone? Tell me. John Risley will have it. He will find a way to do it and that is what he wanted right from the beginning, and he has used this particular company, FPI, to get his own way and to do it.

When I stand and talk about it I become passionate but I am no more passionate than anybody else. I do not mean to have all the answers to everything and that is not where I am coming from. God forbid! But do you know what? When I see people who are in a community like Harbour Breton, 90 per cent of the people who were working in the plant are either in New Brunswick or they are in Alberta. I think about it in my own situation. Those people are gone because they have no choice. They have a mortgage, they have car payments, they have obligations to their families and they have to do that. I am hoping that one of these days we will find a situation in Harbour Breton, when everybody works together to make it happen, to employ 100 or plus people there. I am hoping that will happen probably by the fall and happen all through next year. I hope that will happen. But we allowed a company like FPI to move in, to do things, to really, in a sense, shaft the people who we represent, the people of Harbour Breton. They are good people, they are hardworking people.

Even as I stand here, because I have a memory, my mind goes back to when I got elected first and you would see the hundreds of people that were coming out of the plant and working and the community was thriving and there were things happening. The business community today is somewhat concerned, and they have a right to be concerned. That is the whole idea about this here, Mr. Speaker, as I see it. It really frustrates the life out of me to realize that we have been had by a company like FPI. Get rid of it, the piece of legislation that is here. They cannot do any more. They have accomplished everything that they wanted to do with the piece of legislation that we have here in the House of Assembly. They have done what they wanted to do. They have gone out and they have done it. Does the legislation say anything? They did it in spite of us. That is what they have done.

I have great fear for the future, it says, in 2005, what will happen to FPI, as I said earlier, and it did happen. Just let me read you something in an article here that was in the Atlantic Canada talking about the time when this particular thing was happening. This is what it says: Their primary recommendation was that FPI immediately pursue a gross strategy through merging with other seafood companies to access more raw material, develop synergies in operation and marketing, and become a larger, more competitive player in the global industry. They had no intention of doing it. They just wanted to pick it apart to get the most valuable part that they wanted. We have seen it happen.

It also says, in the same article: The next round of change he plans to enact involving corporate acquisition. Rowe says the first acquisition should come before the end of the year. We have to make the company bigger, he says. It now has 150 million marketing capitalization that has to go up between 300 million and 500 million. It is all part of his plan to make FPI the most significant fish processing company in the Western Hemisphere within two years. If they do not grow the company I do not do my job. I guess he did not do his job, did he?

We are in a situation in the House of Assembly here tonight in June where we are going to see the end to FPI through the interaction of government and the FPI Act that is here in the House. It has been here for years and years. So, it is gone. Probably, as I said earlier, the fact that it is here has not done much to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have really profited from it. When I think about the situation, the role, that Risley in particular has perpetrated on the people of this Province and on this House here - he says, we are going to do just what we have always done, we are going to grow the company, and we are going to do it in a steady solid manner. Human nature being what it is, however, the immediate return offer by Risley or Rowe sounded more attractive to shareholders. That is what it was all about and they allowed it to happen.

If all of us watched the FPI shares, over the last number of months they have gone from $5 up to $15. One of the guys who is involved in Clarke Transport made millions, went in at that particular and came out. That is not the first time he did that. You probably cannot blame him, he wants to make money.

When we talk about the situation about FPI, when I talk about Vic Young, Vic was not perfect no more than any of us were. He had to close plants in Trepassey, he had to close them in places like Ramea, and even today those communities are still reeling from that. Mr. Speaker, when you look at it, as I said earlier, the fact that when you see what those guys did and how they came in under disguise to really take control of a company and then to dismantle it, it is just galling to us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This afternoon also I want to respond to a comment made by the Member for Bonavista South. He was talking about personal philosophy and he said government should not be involved in businesses. I totally disagree with that. When we talk about our aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir, I think about when SCB Fisheries was there, and they were in dire straits and they owed millions to government and we wrote it off. As a result of that, today the aquaculture industry on the South Coast is starting to grow more than it ever has, it is starting to employ a lot of people and I believe that its potential has just been scratched on the surface. I believe that government should be involved. By them being involved in that particular industry it obviously means more employment and more job opportunities for people along the coast.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to carry on for a long time, I do not need to, I have made my point.

I believe that, as I said earlier, just in review, that we have all been had. FPI used us as legislators, whether we were cognizant of it or not, they got their way in it and as a result of that FPI is finished as an entity. The piece of legislation that was here in the House, they took advantage of it, they shred it to pieces, they did whatever they wanted and they did not abide by.

I guess what we are doing here is allowing the company to rest in peace.

I only hope and pray that the new beginning - and I do have concerns for what will happen in the communities, other than Marystown, because I do not think that the guarantees are there anymore than they were for FPI, but we will wait and see. I want to give it an opportunity to materialize and see that it happens and nobody would want it to happen anymore than I would. As I have said here many, many times in the House, this House is not about parties or positions that any one of us would take, but it is here to represent the views of the people who send us here in whatever way we can do it, to expound what we believe through their actions and the things that they gave us. When we bring it here then obviously we have done our part and let's hope that this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, does indeed bring some stability to the rural parts of the Province. I sure hope so, but I guess the jury is still out on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contribution to the debate.

As we know, second reading is not the end of the debate but it is end of the debate on the principle of the bill. I believe it has been a very informative and interesting debate and I believe members on all sides of the House certainly spoke passionately about how they feel about FPI and the future of the fishery and the future of communities where FPI currently operates and where, hopefully, the successor companies to FPI will operate well into the future.

I am not going to take a long time in closing debate, but there are a few matters that were raised that I certainly want to briefly refer to, Mr. Speaker.

The member who just took his seat made a comment about, perhaps Mr. Risley at some point in time, in the not to distant future - I believe he mentioned four or five years - ending up owning the marketing arm of FPI. Well, the agreements as they are currently struck, Mr. Speaker, prevent that from happening, certainly within the first five years. There is a standstill agreement in place as a result of this process, if it is finalized, which will prevent anybody, Mr. Risley included, any of the present shareholders of FPI, from making any move to acquire what High Liner is acquiring in terms of the secondary processing and the marketing arm of FPI.

The other thing that must be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is that under the offer from High Liner to FPI, to FPI shareholders, the shareholders have an option of taking cash from High Liner or cash and shares from High Liner. In other words, they can take cash or they can take cash plus shares in the High Liner company. But the way the deal is structured, Mr. Speaker, if all of FPI's current shareholders, and I say all of them, if every single FPI shareholder currently were to exercise the option of taking High Liner shares - and nobody in their right mind believes that will happen. I mean, some people are going to take cash, some are going to take, perhaps, a combination of cash and shares, but if everybody were to exercise the option of taking shares in High Liner then no more than 26 per cent of the High Liner shares would be controlled by present owners of FPI. There is a long way to go, if ever it can happen, that the present shareholders of FPI can take over High Liner, and taking over High Liner can get to take over what is the marketing arm of FPI, which High Liner is purchasing as a result of this agreement.

Perfection? Again, as I said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, no, it is not perfection, but I think it offers a significant amount of protection.

The member who just took his seat also indicated, Mr. Speaker, that there are some rumours that if we pass this legislation there might be no sale of FPI. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is very simple. If there is no sale of FPI then this legislation does not come into effect. That is as simple as that. This legislation has a proclamation clause in it, it has a commencement clause in it and it will die the death of legislation that is never proclaimed if it is not proclaimed. The old FPI Act, with all of its amendments, as we know it now and as it has been in existence since the 1980's, with amendments, will continue to the law of the land. If there is no deal, if FPI assets are not sold to High Liner or OCI, if those deals are never consummated, if those deals never see the light of day, if they are not brought to fruition, then this piece of legislation does not go anywhere. It will be passed and it will sit on the shelf until all of the rest of the deals ancillary to this deal are finalized.

Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, people can hear rumors or they can hear rumors of rumors, because if there is not a rumor started somewhere in this Province by 10:00 o'clock in the morning someone feels obligated to start one by 10:01, particularly as it relates to the fishery in a lot of cases. I say to people out there, if they are hearing rumours do not pay any heed to them, particularly as it relates to the sale of FPI. If there is no deal and if there is no sale, then the Act to repeal the FPI Act will die the legislative death that happens to legislation when it is not proclaimed. Because legislation, Mr. Speaker, people should understand, goes through a process before it becomes law. It is introduced into the House as an act and it is debated and it will pass, but it is not law when it passes. It only becomes law when it receives Royal Assent and then it only becomes law when it is finally proclaimed and gazetted in the Newfoundland Gazette as the law of the land. If one of those procedures does not take place, then the act just remains an act, it is not a law. It is a bill that never sees the light of day at the end of the day if you do not get beyond that.

The Member for Carbonear had some legitimate concerns in terms of the operation, that OCI is going to wind down in Carbonear in terms of a shrimp operation, but let's keep in mind that whether the FPI Act lives, dies, or goes the death of the rag doll, it has nothing to do with the operation in Carbonear. The Carbonear operation is not governed by the FPI Act as it currently exists and it will not be governed by anything that is in the repeal of the FPI Act. The Carbonear operation is presently owned by a very, very good corporate citizen of this Province who wants to change corporate direction in the operation of that facility, and have indicated, the owners of the company who are well known to the hon. member and well known to the people in Carbonear, have staked their reputations on the fact that they can provide year around employment for close to the same number of people who are being employed in that plant today. I say, there is new hope and new optimism for the people in Carbonear who are depended on the fish plant operation there, Mr. Speaker.

Will it take care of everybody? What I am told already is, there are people who were working in that operation who are today working in other similar operations in that immediate area; some of them in Bay de Verde and Old Perlican area, some of them in Port de Grave. There is always room for this kind of change in the industry, and in that context Carbonear is no different. It is a concern and I appreciate that the member should be concerned. The word from the company is that their plan for that facility is well along and that they see it as being permanent, they see it as being full-time, and they see the operation being a full-time, year-round operation at the end of the process of conversion.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in case there are naysayers and doubters out there, if you do not believe that there can be full-time, basically twelve-month a year jobs, in the processing of seal skins in this Province, go to Catalina. Go to Catalina and you will see over 100 people working full-time, twelve months of the year just about, processing seal skins to the finished state. Go to Dildo and you will see a similar situation, not quite 100 per cent tanning yet, but they are getting there. In another year or so Dildo will be another full processing facility in the seal business in this Province. Go to Corner Brook, out around the Cox's Cove area where Barry has another operation doing 100 per cent of the processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, this government and this minister brought in a regulation that says that by April 1, 2008, in other words next year, by April 1 next year, every seal skin that is landed in Newfoundland and Labrador has to be processed to a tanned stage or it will not be allowed to be shipped out of this Province. That is good public policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I suppose, on that context, there has to be change, but I keep harping back to the woman in Marystown who, when we talked about repealing the FPI Act and how would you feel if the government had to repeal the FPI Act, looked at us and said: My son, the FPI Act has never put a slice of bread on my table. That is the bottom line. This is about putting a slice of bread on people's tables, giving them a new opportunity, giving them new hope, giving them new focus, and hopefully, as a result of it all, making a better life for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to have my final word regarding some remarks made by the leader of the third party, our friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I must say I was taken aback to hear the hon. member talk about the need to nationalize the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say this with all due respect, because I have known the hon. member for a long time and I consider her to be a friend, but I cannot think of anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador today who would counsel the nationalization of the fishery. The union does not want it. I do not propose to speak for the union, but I have a lot of friends in the union and the FFAW in particular and I have never had one of them knock on my door and say: Look, we should nationalize FPI and we should nationalize the fishery. Nobody thinks it is a sensible thing to do. I do not know why the hon. member thinks that nationalization with the government out there on the doorstep running the fishery can make a difference in this environment. I just do not see it.

Mr. Speaker, let's assume that the hon. member had a case to make. What would we gain by the nationalization of FPI? Would we gain quotas? No, we would not gain quotas. There is no question about that. Who is involved in the bargaining process if there is a dispute between the employees of FPI and the owner, if the government and the taxpayer are the owner? Is that where we want to go with the fishery? Is that the kind of competition that we want on the wharf, Mr. Speaker, in the fishery, where the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the owner of a company, is up against the Penneys of this world and up against the Sullivans of this world, and up against all of the other private enterprise operators of Newfoundland and Labrador? I think not, Mr. Speaker.

We would nationalize FPI if we had to nationalize FPI. I made it clear. You should have seen the alarm bells go off when I gave notice of Bill 1 back when this House opened several weeks ago now. From Bay Street in Toronto, you name it, the phones were going off the hook: What is that crowd at down in Newfoundland and Labrador now? When they heard that we had hired certain accounting firms to give us an evaluation of what FPI was worth, well, Mr. Speaker, they went bananas, this crowd down there.

MR. REID: Since when are you worried about what they say about us on the Mainland?

MR. RIDEOUT: Not a bit, Mr. Speaker, not a bit, but I am just telling the House what the reaction was.

We would nationalize FPI if there were a reason to do it. If we were to nationalize it, Mr. Speaker, the only way that this guy, I tell you, who was through a situation before when the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador owned a part of a nationalized FPI, was if we had somebody to sell it to the very minute that we nationalized it. Because there is no place for a government, as far as I am concerned, to be involved in running a fish company in Newfoundland and Labrador anymore than there is in a logging company, anymore than there is in a mining company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. member can shake her head. I am not a ‘nationalizer', Mr. Speaker, no, I am not a socialist and I will not stand for that kind of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I know of no great movement out there in the union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador that supports her on that issue. I know of nobody that supports her on that issue. I certainly do not support her on that issue and I think the government has struck the right balance here, Mr. Speaker.

This piece of legislation will come in force when we have final and binding agreements in place. If we do not have them, this legislation will never come into force, so the people who have protection now will have no less protection if the final binding agreements are never in place than what they have in place.

On the basis, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited." (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, on tomorrow. (Bill 1)

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

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition can remind me what he likes, when he likes and I will answer it at that point in time.

Right now, I would like to call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it can be said really that this bill is a companion to the bill that we just introduced, and it is. I mean, if we proceed with the sale of FPI which will trigger the repeal of the FPI Act then this bill will have the effect of holding the Crown, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of the taxpayers, harmless from any legal consequence of that sale.

Really, in legal terms, it is a privative clause, which prohibits the suing of the Crown as a result of the sale of those assets by legislation. It is not unheard of, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the hon. members opposite, when they brought in amendments to the FPI Act in the last year or so that they were the government, introduced the privative clause at that point in time to protect the Crown and to protect the government. I believe the Opposition of the day, which was us at the time, supported the legislation. So privative clauses in legislation are not something new.

Under this legislation, the privative clause has been strengthened. The clauses themself are in the bill. I am not going to read them word-for-word, but the clauses have been strengthened over the clause that presently exist in the FPI Act. Now, we could have amended in Bill 1, the bill that we just dealt with in second reading, we could have amended that bill to leave the current privative clause in there and that was it, and that could be what was left of the old FPI Act, but the advice was that, no, we should repeal it and introduce new privative legislation, which we are doing here in Bill 31. The legal advice, Mr. Speaker, is that this new language provides better protection to the government and consequently better protection to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe we are being responsible to the taxpayers of the Province and that is why we are introducing this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, the privative clause has been upgraded, I guess, for the want of a better word, to provide the necessary protection for the public Treasury and this has been done to ensure that there will be protection for today and into the future. Now there is, of course, a limitation period after which time the shareholders of FPI who might feel that are aggrieved could not sue anyway. The legislation therefore will take care of that in the normal course of things.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not anticipate being sued by the shareholders, or by any of the stakeholders really, involved in this deal. Everything we are doing in this deal is fair and above board and it is fair to all stakeholders. We believe, as I said already in the debate on Bill 1, that it is a good deal and that we have spent a long time working on it with all of those who are involved.

However, in introducing a strengthening privative clause, we are sending the message that the government sees this deal as final and binding, and it will be. When the final and binding agreements are initialed because the majority shareholders have already passed, unanimously signed on to a resolution saying that they will ratify those particular deals, as long as they control 66.66 per cent of the shares then that is the legal trigger that triggers approval.

We are making it crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, to everyone involved that we are not taking any liability for the dissolution of the FPI Act or any of the elements of the sale. We are being upfront with the varies parties involved, that we will not put the taxpayers at risk for any liability that might be associated with this particular deal. Once the legislation is passed the sale of FPI will be completed and behind us for the benefit of the Province as a whole. It is a deal that will provide the benefits that I talked about in the debate earlier today to a number of rural communities in the Province that are depending on the stability of the Province's seafood industry.

Mr. Speaker, government, as I indicated earlier in the debate, has secured important undertakings from both OCI and FPI. We have every reason to believe that those commitments and those undertakings will be lived up to. The agreements, as we said earlier, will mean new life for rural communities such as Fortune, for example, for Burin, for Marystown and the communities in Port aux Choix, Triton, Catalina and Bonavista.

Cooke Aquaculture, of course, as I indicated earlier in debate today, will ensure that there are 120 person years of employment created at the facility in Fortune. That is not to be sneezed at, Mr. Speaker. That is a very important piece of the achievements as a result of this.

We have achieved, enhanced and stabilized an operating plant for Burin. Under FPI Burin would have been significantly reduced this year, as I said earlier, beyond the limits that they were talking about.

Mr. Speaker, all of the other matters I related to earlier in debate today, and I am not going to repeat them unless there is a necessity to do so. Suffice it to say that this piece of legislation is a companion, as I said, to the piece of legislation that we just dealt with in second reading. When we get to third reading tomorrow, or whenever we get there, I am going to propose that the name of the bill itself be broadened so that the understanding of the purpose of the Act , while it is clear, I think, as it is in front of us now, it can be made even clearer in more appropriate language. I am also going to propose that Bill 31, Mr. Speaker, will come into effect whenever the bill to repeal the Fishery Products International Act comes into effect so that the two of them truly become two pieces of companion legislation. One goes hand in hand with the other. They come into effect at the same time and they have the effect of law at the same time.

To go back to debate: Indicated from the other side during the coarse of the debate on Bill 1, if Bill 1 never comes into effect then Bill 31 never comes into effect because the two of them will be proclaimed, if they are ever proclaimed, to come into effect at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, on that basis, I move second reading of Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER(Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How amusing, I say to the Minister. I think what has happened on the other side of the floor is that they have fallen down and hit their heads and in some cases some of them over there have hit their heads twice, especially in 2002 and 2005.

Mr. Speaker, they have a lapse in memory. The Minister of Fisheries stood in the House of Assembly today and said that he was blessed to be able to scrap the FPI Act and allow the company to be divided up and sold off piecemeal, the same minister, I might add, who amended the act in 1987, was part of amending the act in 2002 and part of amending the act in 2005, to strengthen it. Today, he stands in the House of Assembly and says that he is blessed for having the opportunity to be able to scrap the Act after taking part four times, because he was in the government that brought in the original FPI Act in 1984, he amended it himself as Fisheries Minister in 1987 to put share restrictions on how much each individual or how much each group of individuals could own in the company - he was not a capitalist in 1985, he was a socialist, he was not a capitalist in 1987, he was not a capitalist in 2002, he was not a capitalist in 2005, he was a socialist. Today, he is not a socialist, he is a capitalist and he wants to cut up FPI, sell it off piecemeal, to protect the business interests of those involved who want to purchase FPI. I say, shame on you, Minister.

In 2002, when FPI and came out and made it known to the union that they were going to lay off 700 workers on the South Coast and the Burin Peninsula, the group opposite, thirteen or fourteen of them, however many of them were there in 2002, who were sitting over here, went ballistic: That cannot be allowed to happen! I was Minister of Fisheries at the time. I agreed that could not happen, Mr. Speaker, and you agreed, the Member for Bonavista, we could not allow that to happen, because if we allowed them to take 700 workers out of their plants on the South Coast, it was only going to be a very short period of time before they started taking workers out of Catalina, Bonavista, Port au Choix and Triton. I set up, as Minister of Fisheries, an all-party committee, which you sat on. The Member for The Straits and White Bay North, a previous of Minister of Fisheries, upon until a couple of years ago sat on that committee. The two of you sat on it. I don't know but you had another member from the Tory Party at the time on that committee. You were adamant, quite adamant, that we were going to tighten control of FPI, not loosen it.

You were not capitalists then, were you, I say to those opposite. It is convenient one day to be a capitalist and one day to be a socialist. Well I have no problem to tell you, I lean more towards socialism than I lean towards capitalism where you are giving control of the last remaining thing that we control in the fishery to business people to do with it as they see fit, and we will see what they see fit to do with it in a few short months or years from now.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 we brought in legislation, we tightened that Act. We brought that privative clause in because we had concerns that if we tightened the screws on FPI's Board of Directors that we may be sued for some reason, and we did not want the taxpayers of this Province to be on the hook because we were going to force more control on FPI. You voted for that, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. The previous Minister of Fisheries voted for it, and, Mr. Speaker, you voted for it. All three of you voted for it and we did place further restrictions on FPI and we were applauded for doing it. We were applauded by every member who worked for FPI in this Province, we were applauded for it.

Mr. Speaker, that happened in 2002 and I was the Minister of Fisheries. The minister talked tonight - we will get into this tonight - about what the Mainlanders said about us. Just remind me when I get to that part of my speech what the Mainlanders said about us and what I said to the Globe and Mail and what I said to the Mainlanders, because you were probably saying the same thing at the time. I will remind you what they were saying about us.

In 2005 FPI wanted to convert the company from a publically traded company to an income trust. We had concerns about that at the time as the Opposition. We had grave concerns because we though that if it converted to an income trust, somehow they might be able to weasel out of the commitments that they made, they might be able to find a way around the Act.

You were the government. We put forward amendments from this side, you put forward amendments on that side. To do what? To weaken the act? To allow that group to chop the company up and sell it piecemeal? No, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not do that. The minister at the time did not do that. We amended that Act to strengthen it. We put seven amendments into that Act, not to weaken it so that the capitalists you were talking about earlier that you are so proud to be tonight, not because the capitalist could divvy it up, break it up, sell it off for profits and put profits ahead of the workers who work for FPI in this Province. The ironic thing about it, I say, Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments he made -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and this shows you how hypocritical they are across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the crackie is at it again tonight. He cannot shut up when I am standing to speak. I never said a word when any of them were up here tonight or today; not a word, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: We put seven amendments in to tighten that Act not to weaken it. Guess what happened? The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was not in the House at that time, but after debating it for two or three days, with the galleries filled with workers from FPI, they all stood opposite and said how they were going to vote. When all of that was finished, because we said or I did on this side of the floor, that I could not support the bill to make FPI an Income Trust even with the amendments we had, guess what happened? After they all stood and said how they were going to vote in favour of it, guess who spoke last on their side? The Premier. The Premier of this Government, of this Party, stood in 2005, in June month, after they stood behind him over there and voted in favour of doing the Income Trust, and said: I cannot support it. I cannot support it, he said.

Do you know why he could not support it? There were too many loopholes in it. There were too many loopholes that you could drive a truck through. That is what he said. There were too many loopholes in his own piece of legislation, because you brought it in. The Minister of Fisheries, the man who is sitting there yapping at me tonight, brought in the piece of legislation. That is what he did. He brought it in to allow FPI to convert to an Income Trust and his own Premier voted against him by saying there were too many loopholes in what FPI was proposing to do for him to vote for it, even though the Member for The Straits & White Bay, the minister at the time, was the person bringing in the piece of legislation.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I know the reason you are yapping over there tonight, because you are embarrassed. That is why. You are embarrassed, because now you are going to stand again and say how great a deal this is, I say to those opposite. You were not a socialist in 2002 when you were telling me we were not going far enough with the restrictions we placed on FPI. You were not a socialist. You were not a capitalist, I should say, in 2005, when you tightened the Act even further to the point that you said - we put the amendment there, you accepted it, saying that FPI could not sell any of its assets without the consent of government; any of it. The ironic thing about that is you allowed FPI, this winter, to go and sell two of its draggers, two new boats. The member who represents Marystown comes on an Open Line show and says he did not even know they were sold. Just imagine! And he standing today talking about, oh this is great, divvy up FPI and sell it off, a man who knows so little about the fishery in his own district that he did not even know that his own government, his own Cabinet, of which he is a part, gave FPI permission to sell their vessels. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe he made the comment. I cannot believe that he actually came on the radio, after voting to amend the Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is only one that you need co-operation from in this House tonight, because there is not one soul over the opposite saying anything except for the Member for The Straits & White Bay, the Minister of Industry. He is the only one who is causing this racket. I am allowed to speak. I have the right to speak for an hour and I have a right to be heard. If the member wants to get up when I sit down, you have every right, but you get to speak for twenty minutes. When I sit down, you can speak away, that is what I say to the member. Talking to me, all of a sudden now you are capitalist, that the Premier is on the scene and he wants this one pushed through. He was not a capitalist himself two years ago when he could not vote for the income trust because there were too many loopholes. He wanted more protections for the people involved in FPI plants, and tonight you are asking us to scrap the FPI Act altogether, and are blessed to do it. Now how hypocritical!

Mr. Speaker, are you going to ask him to be quite? He cannot sit there. Stand after I sit down, my son, have the decency to let someone talk in the House of Assembly.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I will sit down and give you your twenty minutes if you like. I will sit now and give you your twenty minutes if you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appeal again. I ask the member if he would be kind enough to allow the Leader of the Opposition to deliver his speech here. If somebody wants to speak after, then the Chair will certainly recognize the member and they can have their due time to deliver their comments here in the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand here and wax eloquently about your principles and your stand and your feelings for capitalism and your feelings for socialism and your feelings for the people who are involved and work in the plants in FPI, and on the same hand say, I really feel bad or good for the people who own the company, the shareholders of FPI and the companies that want to buy it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand and say that you are blessed to be able to gut the FPI Act and throw it to the whims and the wishes of a capitalist society on one hand and then say you are standing to protect the workers. That does not work. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot agree with an employer and agree with the union workers if there is a strike on. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be running off on one side and saying to the employers, keep the employees on strike, and running back to the employees and saying that he is a nasty employer with what he is doing to you. You cannot have it both ways and that is what you crowd opposite are trying to do. You are trying to bluff the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but more importantly you are trying to bluff the workers who work for FPI. You cannot be strengthening a bill for three consecutive times, bring in the bill in 1984, strengthen it in 1987, be part of strengthening it in 2002, be part of strengthening it again in 2005, then gut it in 2007 and say you are doing it for the people, you are doing it for FPI workers. Do you realize how silly you sound?

Then to top it all off tonight, because I said I would get to it, the Minister of Fisheries is now concerned about the sense and the feeling and the views that people living on the mainland, especially on Bay Street in Toronto, the business centre of Canada, what they feel about you. Just imagine! You are more concerned about what the Bay Street lawyers and the Bay Street bankers think about what you are going to do moreso than you think about the people you are affecting, who work in the plants in the Province and on the draggers owned by FPI. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I got it in 2002 when I was Minister of Fisheries, when we said we were going to strengthen the FPI Act to prohibit the Board of Directors from laying off 700 people on the South Coast of this Province. Every single day I got calls from the Mainland media, The Globe and Mail, CBC, CTV. I did the interviews. I believed in what I was doing and I had no problem defending it.

When I sat in front of a camera over here on University Avenue and did a live interview on CBC Newsworld, when the moderator was asking me, what are you all a bunch of socialists down there, putting reins on FPI, putting controls on FPI, I said: No, I am not a socialist. I believe in what I am doing for one reason.

There is something that the minister forgot to tell you all tonight. Every single investor in FPI, every single shareholders, whether he owns one share or 15 million, all knew when they invested in FPI that is was controlled by an Act in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one of them bought a share in FPI, that they did not know it was controlled and what was in the control, and if they did not, too bad. Why are we concerned about them? When George Armoyan bought 15 per cent of FPI a year ago, he knew that there was an FPI Act. He knew what was included in that FPI Act, what restrictions were put on anybody who was going to participate in ownership of FPI. He knew all of that and if he did not, too bad. That is the way I see it, because it is here, it has been talked about since 1984 in our Province. So, too bad about him.

He did not do too badly though for a company that was controlled by the Legislation because it is my understanding that he walked out with 15 per cent of his shares. He sold 5 per cent of them and made a profit of $5.6 million and he still owns 10 per cent. If that is the case, he is going to make somewhere around $11.2 million when this deal goes through. And we are supposed to applaud capitalism, we are supposed to applaud that, where an individual who had 15 per cent of the shares of FPI for less than a year is going to walk out with $16 million or $17 million in profit. That is what you are applauding. That is what the Minister of Fisheries said tonight that he is blessed to be able to do.

George Armoyan is going to walk off with $17 million in profit off the backs and the sweat of the brows of the workers of FPI, and they do not know if they have a job tomorrow or next year. You applaud it and say you are blessed to be able to do that! John Risley owns 15 per cent of FPI. When this bill passes here tonight or tomorrow and that deal is finalized, John Risley will walk off with $16 million or $17 million in his ass pocket. The Icelanders will walk off with a similar amount because they own 15 per cent and Sanford in New Zealand will walk off with $16 million or $17 million in profit. I would not be one bit surprised but that the individuals who invested in Iceland and are going to make $17 million in profit are the ones who are gong to come back through the back door and invest in FPI or in OCI or some other company that is ready to purchase it.

That is what you are proud and blessed to do tonight. Do you realize how hypercritical you sound? You all voted to strengthen the Act. The Member for Windsor-Springdale voted to amend the act in 2002, to strengthen it, so that they could not put the shaft to the workers in FPI. You, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South, voted to strengthen it. You went around the Province. I remember the night that we were in Triton when the Member for Windsor-Springdale got up and said, we have to strengthen this Act to protect the people in this room, and the same member stood in the House today and voted to abolish it. What protections are in there now, I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, to protect the workers in Triton? There is one protection there and that is, if the company wants to pay $2 million, they can close that plant and walk away from it. Do you realize that? Do you realize that after five years this deal is over, it is finished, it is kaput. Then there are no controls over what they do with Triton. Have you told the people in your district that? Have you sat down with the workers in the plant in your district and explained to them this infamous deal that you have? Where is it, the great Blue Book, the deal that they have put together?

I tell you one thing, there are more loopholes - and I will be very surprised if your Premier comes in and votes for that deal, because he said he could not vote for a deal to strengthen the Act or to allow for an income trust in FPI; not selling the company off, not removing it from the restrictions placed on it by this legislation, he could not even vote for it then when it strengthened the FPI Act. Are you telling me now he is going to walk in here and vote to abolish it when two short years ago it was not strong enough for him?

Have you gone down, Mr. Speaker, and told the people in Bonavista about all the safeguards that are in that to protect them? You went down there two years ago and said you were voting for a deal that was going to give them a new plant in the fall of 2007. Is there a new plant in this deal for the people of Bonavista, in October of this year, because it is in the agreement that you voted for in 2005?

The Member for St. Barbe rose tonight. He is voting for this. This is the same fellow who had concerns about the income trust. Where do you stand on anything, I ask the members opposite? You are like the squid. You change direction depending on which way someone tells you to move. I think it is pathetic. I do not mean to get riled up, but when you get a previous Fisheries Minister, like the Member for The Straits & White Bay, who strengthened the Act in 2005, when you get a previous Fisheries Minister like the Member for The Straits & White Bay who condemned me for not being strong enough and forceful enough with the Board of Directors of FPI in 2002, who is now giving John Risley what he wanted from the day he entered this Province, to gut the FPI Act - that is what he wanted. You know, you were around, you understood what the NEOS deal was, didn't you? You did, Mr. Speaker. You were there in Bonavista the night Mr. Barry threw his wallet on the table down there and said, we want to buy the company but the only way we can do it is if you scrap the FPI Act. I know what you said: Not on my life. That is what you said in 2000 when he came in with the NEOS deal: Not on your life are we are scrapping the FPI Act.

Brian Tobin was the Premier, he was considering it. I was a backbencher, I was not even in his Cabinet, and I told him: Not on my life. I am not voting for it. Beaton Tulk who was in his Cabinet said not on his life. He was voting to tear up the FPI Act, throw it out the door and allow John Risley and Bill Barry to purchase FPI at the time and privatize it. You were not prepared to do it. I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries today was not prepared to do it at that time, but now tonight he is blessed. He is blessed tonight to do it. And you wonder why I get angry!

Then to be concerned - one of the reasons you have to do it is because, oh, we are worried about the perception that the Mainland media has about us and the bankers on Bay Street. Well, were you concerned about the article in the Globe and Mail this weekend that compared the Premier of this Province to Danny Chavez? If that is the case, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, why are you out restricting the oil companies and asking for equity positions in the oil companies and not going to do any deals until you get one? You want ownership in the oil industry where there is no deal, and here tonight any ownership we have of FPI you are going to tear it up and throw it away, you are going to privatize it. Do you see the irony in what you are doing? Do you see the contradiction? Do you see the paradox? Obviously you do not.

I do not think you understand the issue. I truly do not believe that 90 per cent of you over there understand this issue because it is all about finance. It is all about capitalism. Who is the prince of capitalism? Who is the prince of finance over there? The Premier. It think this is another case where you have been told to speak this time because most of the time you are told to remain mute. You should be ashamed to be over there taking orders on things that affect the lives of your constituents.

I applauded the Member for Windsor-Springdale in 2002 when we were in government and I was the minister, I applauded the Member for Bonavista South and I applauded even the Member for The Straits & White Bay North for the role that they played in the all-party committee that I struck to tighten the screws on FPI, to make them behave the way we said they should behave. Tonight, you are throwing it out the door and you are talking about, well, we are really concerned about the Bay Street lawyers, the Bay Street bankers, The Globe and Mail and the newspapers.

I do not care what the crowd on the Mainland think if we can protect the rights and the privileges of the people who work in those plants and on those draggers. Who cares! We do not care what they are saying about us in our fight with Ottawa, because there are a lot of people on the Mainland who think you are all nuts for doing that. Who cares! You do not care what they say when you take on the oil companies. Why, all of a sudden, are you concerned about what the bankers are going to say on Wall Street about a company that was formed in the Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

You, above all, Mr. Minister, should be the one most ashamed to stand here tonight and say that you are blessed to be able to scrap this deal, you who were part of a government in 1985 that gave birth to FPI, voted for it, stood proudly. It was a good decision. You were the one who amended it to semi-privatize it in 1997, but you did put controls and restrictions on it. Now, that is gone. Tonight you are standing and saying you are proud to do it and telling me: Oh, we have to do it because you should hear what they are saying about us in Toronto and on the Mainland for messing with a private company. Boy, I am telling you, I am not apologizing to anyone on the Mainland for protecting the rights and the privileges and the livelihoods of 2,000 FPI employees and their families. If that is what you have to do, buddy, to get on the good side of the crowd on Bay Street you are sinking pretty low, when you are ready to sell out the birthrights of the people of this Province, and then stand up and lecture me; I am not a socialist. You have got that right. When you put the wishes and the well being of the few above those of the many you are right, buddy, you are a capitalist and that is exactly what you are doing right here.

You stand and you talk about the great company and the great entrepreneurs. You even went so far tonight as to praise High Liner in Nova Scotia. I do not care if they are a good company or a bad company, they have no right to own the marketing division of FPI. We created that company, and you are saying tonight what a great company High Liner is. You should be ashamed of yourself. I find it repulsive that you are standing here tonight praising High Liner, the same crowd that dumped Burgeo in my colleague's district, sold it and then fired the quotas across the Gulf that were attached to it, off to Nova Scotia. That is great capitalism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I do not stand for that, no. I will tell you one thing, if the Tories are on the right and the socialists on the left, I am to the left of the center of that and I have no problem saying that I stand for the people who work in the fish plants. I stand for the people who work on the draggers and I stand for the people who nobody here cares about. One of you mentioned it today, and I think it was you, Mr. Speaker, that the people on O'Leary Avenue who have worked for FPI for five years, ten years, fifteen years and twenty years, you said, they do not make any money for FPI. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, born and raised here, made a living, raised families, pay income tax and pay city tax. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they should not be dismissed simply because they did not work in the plant or on the boat. They still worked for that company, they still belong to this Province and now many of them are going to be forced to leave.

I do not think you realized what you were saying when you made that comment today, I say, Mr. Speaker, because whether they work in St. John's, Marystown, Triton, Port au Choix, Catalina, Bonavista, Fortune or Harbour Breton, they are still Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they still have a right and they should have a right to be able to work in this Province. Simply to say, we are selling this company and OCI does not need you, High Liner does not need you over in Nova Scotia, so here take a few dollars in severance and get out of this Province - where are they going to go, Mr. Speaker? I heard Henry Demone the other day on the radio saying he did not want them, but the economy in St. John's was booming at such a rate that they would certainly find employment there.

Maybe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi can stand later tonight and tell me where all of these jobs are in St. John's that are going to pick up all of these displaced office workers on O'Leary Avenue because I do not know where they are. Maybe the minister, when he stands tonight to tell me, again, how proud and how blessed he is to be a capitalists, to gut the FPI Act, maybe he can tell me what those 140 people are going to work at.

You sat idly by, and you talk about the lack of trust with the current Board of Directors. Yes, I never did trust John Risley but I kept a thumb to him when I was the minister. I kept a thumb to him when I was the minister and we were in the government, but you fellows over there got so lax with FPI because of your capitalist ways - we cannot interfere in business - that you let them close Harbour Breton. That is where is started. You let them close Harbour Breton. They came into you and said, there is no money in groundfish, we cannot compete with China and the Canadian dollar is rising so we cannot sell our fish in the United States. Rather then tell them, that is too bad, boy, you are going to subsidize Harbour Breton with the profits you are making off the American division, the secondary processing and the marketing division, you are going to subsidize the workers and the plant in Harbour Breton. Had you said that to them, it is not acceptable, you are breaking your commitments that you gave us in writing, because they did - when the board took over in 2001, they gave the government of this Province the commitments in writing. They were told on that day: Listen, do not give me this idea that you are going to grow the company and hire more people. You just live up to the commitments you wrote down. I don't care how you do it, you do it. We held them to it.

When the capitalists took over, the people who are jumping up tonight, beating their chests and saying they are blessed to be capitalists, when you have that attitude then it is easy for Mr. Risley to walk into the office and say, I have to close your plant. Yes, boy, you are not making enough profit for your shareholders are you? That is all right, you can fire the people, 350 of them down in Harbour Breton. They will move away or they will go on a make-work program. That is all right, boy, because we believe in capitalism. We believe you should suck every dollar that you can make on a business and keep it for your shareholders. Yes, we agree with you. That is what you said to them, rather than put the screws to them right from day one when they came in here.

Rather than do that, who was the biggest spokesman for FPI when they made the announcement that they had to close Harbour Breton because of the high Canadian dollar, competition in China and no money in groundfish? Who was their biggest spokesman in the Province? It wasn't John Risley. It was no good for him to go out, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and tell the people of this Province that. Why? Because, no one would believe him. Who went out and did it? Who went out and did the snow job on the people of the Province? Who went out and did the sell job on the people of the Province? No other than the Minister of Fisheries of the day, the Member for The Straits & White Bay, the current Minister of Industry.

I heard him on the broadcast and on the newscast and in The Telegram and every paper in this Province explaining why FPI had to close Harbour Breton far more than I heard John Risley or any other board member on FPI. If you can find me - you have twenty-five or thirty PR directors over there and you can find that with a flick - if you can find me all the press statements that were made concerning the closure of the FPI plant in Harbour Breton and you can show me that John Risley or anyone with FPI spoke more about it than the current Minister of Industry, I will get up and apologize to you because they did not. He sold it to the people of this Province. Why did he have to go out and be the spokesman, the poster child for FPI, in closing Harbour Breton? Why did he have to do it? It is obvious now. It is obvious why he had to do it. John Risley could not because no one would believe him. You wanted it done so who better to get to do it, when you think about the great capitalist you are. Someone had to do it for you and who better than your own minister? Who better than a man who claims he came out of the fishing boat and knows everything there is to do and know about it. He is the one who went out and sold out the people of Harbour Breton. That is who did it, the Minister of Industry, the man who told me he wrung more salt water out of the mitts than I would ever sail on. Well, I am telling you, he did not learn much. He did not learn much when he was in the boat that he would sell out his own kind in the fishing industry.

Once the current board of directors of FPI got that door open a crack and got that plant closed in Harbour Breton, then, buddy, there was no stopping her from swinging back. Shortly after that, what did they do? Down to Fortune: Closed, get out, 350 workers. When you think of 350 workers it is not just those people who are affected. It is their husbands, their wives and their families.

I spoke to a woman in Fortune when we went down there last year, I think she said she had forty-eight years with FPI. She was with FPI before FPI existed. It was one of the companies that FPI picked up when we did the FPI Act in 1984. Because the board of directors were more concerned about the profit takers, John Risley, the Icelanders, the New Zealanders, the George Armoyans of the world, they told that woman to go home out of it and she has not worked a day in over two years now, expect for maybe a make-work program.

Go down there and sit in a meeting and stand in the front of a room and see adults cry. You have not done that, have you? Go down and do it, because they have not seen any work and they do not know where they are going to go. An individual who is sixty years old or fifty-eight years old, who has worked in a plant for thirty-eight or forty-eight years, where are they going to go? How do you think they feel when they are left with a choice to go on welfare or to seek employment somewhere else? Put that individual in a high-rise in Toronto where she is going to go to work in some plant in Ontario where probably most of the people do not speak English, and because she speaks with a Newfoundland dialect she is going to be laughed at, separated from her family, separated from her friends that she grew up with and lived with in that community for sixty years. Think about it. You are saying tonight: There is no other choice, we have to do this. That is not acceptable, folks, because it could have been stopped and if John Risley and his gang did not want to be the Board of Directors of FPI anymore, they could have taken a hike, they could have sold their shares, someone else would have bought them.

The reason why the groundfish sector of FPI is going down the tubes is because when this board, in 2003 and 2004, after your crowd took government and they realized that the Premier was a capitalist and blessed to be one and the Premier was a business man who believed in profits for shareholders, when they got him into the Premier's seat, they knew then they were not dealing with someone who had any socialists leanings whatsoever, like myself, the ones who would put the good of the most or the greater number ahead of the good of the fewer. When they had this Premier they knew they had an ear.

Vic Young ran FPI as one unit, just like this one piece of paper. If this corner of the paper made money and this corner of the paper made money and that part in the centre did not, it did not matter because the profits coming in from those two directions helped those in the centre. When John Risley and the boys came along, when you crowd took over, here is what they did. They broke off the America division on that side, they broke off the groundfish sector on that side and they broke up the shell fish sector on that side; three individual parts just like that, totally unrelated even though they are all FPI. Do you know what he said? If any one of these divisions cannot survive on your own, if you cannot swim, you sink. Guess what has happened to the ground fish sector in FPI? It sunk, and you allowed them to do it. Even though they are out there saying there is no money in groundfish FPI is still showing a profit. FPI is still showing a profit! Have you thought about that?

I watched the Member for Topsail tonight applauding everyone when they were saying, let's gut the FPI Act. She was the Auditor General. Just imagine! She knows a bit about business, or she should. Her husband is a business person. She should know that if you divide the company up into three parts and one cannot support the other there is a possibility that one of them might fall. Even though it is called FPI it is not three different companies. You sat by and allowed that to happen when you had all of the rights and privileges in the FPI Act to do with FPI what you saw fit, anything you wanted to do with them. All you had to do was come into the House of Assembly and if it wasn't something in the Act amend it.

I will tell you one thing, when they closed Harbour Breton and when they closed Fortune, if you had come into this House and said, listen, we are amending the Act to force them to keep Harbour Breton open, I would have voted for it. I would have voted for it and I am sure most of the people on this side would have. I am pretty certain that my colleague with the NDP, who happens to be socialist leaning - there is no doubt about that - I am sure that she would have voted for it. How could you not vote for it? Just imagine Jerry Reid or the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi or any of these members over here standing and voting against something that would force FPI to employ the workers in Harbour Breton. How could you do that in all conscience? How could you do it? You are doing it now, you are doing that now. You are allowing the FPI Act to be scraped, and you are so uncertain about the details of the deal with OCI, High Liner and the current Board of Directors of FPI, you are so uncertain about what that deal entails, that we now being asked to pass a law tonight that would prohibit the government from being sued if we go ahead with this bill.

What are they concerned about, I ask? That is what this bill is about tonight. It is called a privative clause, and guess who put the privative clause in the FPI contract? I did. I put the clause there in 2002. Guess what? The Tories on this side of the floor voted for it, every single one of them. We were putting it there for a totally different reason than you are putting it there now. We put it there because we were forcing FPI to do things that they did not want to do in 2002. They wanted to lay people off. We said, no, you are not laying them off. We are going to tighten the rules and the regulations. It is no good to sue us because we are meddling in your company because we brought in the privative clause to prevent you from suing. Now, you are bringing in a privative clause to prevent people from suing because you are going to scrap the FPI Act. If that is not irony or hypocrisy, what is?

Then you stand and say you were blessed. I do not know. You should use a different word, because when someone says they are blessed it means divine intervention to me. There is no divine intervention over there. I do not think there is any divine intervention asking that you scrap the FPI Act.

That is what I think, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you another thing, if anyone thinks there are no loopholes in this contract they should look at it, and if anyone thinks that I am standing and voting tonight and saying that this is going to be proclamated or it will not be proclaimed until sometime next year, I am not doing that, Mr. Speaker, because there are loopholes in it.

Have the people in Bonavista been totally explained to, how long their jobs are guaranteed, Mr. Speaker, and at what employment levels? Have they been told that depending on fish quotas and how much fish that OCI can buy determines whether or not that plant remains open? They have committed to keeping it open for five years, but whether or not it is left open will be determined by how much fish they get. FPI does not have a crab quota so they have to compete on the head of the wharf with every other crab processor in the Province. What happens next year if they are unable to procure crab for Bonavista? What are you going to do with them then? Are you going to fine OCI $2.5 to $5 million? No, because it says right in the contract that you are about to sign, if they cannot get the fish they can close.

That goes the same for Marystown, that goes the same for Port aux Choix, Catalina and Triton. It even goes a little further. Besides, it is all contingent on whether or not they can buy fish and compete on the head of the wharf with the other processors in the Province. It also goes with market price. It says that in what we were presented with, whether or not these plants stay open, any of them. How many are there? Port aux Choix, Catalina, Triton, Bonavista, Marystown. Five plants. There are five plants and the only thing is, there is a commitment to keep them open if they can buy enough fish, if some other processor does not cut in on them.

There is another thing though. They will keep the five plants open if the market conditions are right. Now, what does that mean? What does that mean, Minister? Maybe you can enlighten me when you get up tonight, the great capitalist that you are, depending on market conditions, because that is written in the briefing that we had. Now that could mean anything. That could mean if the Canadian dollar goes from ninety-four cents to ninety-eight cents, they might have a right to close it. That could mean that if crab this year is $1.64 a pound and it drops to $1.54 next year. Does that mean that they can close it?

Those are the details that we were asked about. Those are the details that are missing from what you showed us, but yet we are supposed to trust you that this is a good deal. We are supposed to vote in favour of it. That is what you are all being asked to do. That is what every one of you on that side of the floor - and some of you would not know a fish plant if you fell over one or fell into one or fell under one, because you have never been near one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I say to the minister, I have been. I am not going to stand like you though and talk about all of the salt water that you wrung out of your gloves in the ten years you were fishing.

I will tell you one thing. You are asking us to vote for a bill to scrap the FPI Act based on a presentation that we were given for an hour in the board room down the hallway and we never did get the answers to all the questions we asked but we are supposed to trust you. Pardon me if I do not, folks.

That same commitment was given to the people in Stephenville in 2003. I am an astute business person, the Premier said in 2003, the then Leader of the Opposition, I can tell you, I will promise you, that this mill will not close under my watch if you elect me Premier. Just imagine! Now you are saying to me today: We do not know the details. They are saying to us: We are not giving you the details of the deal, vote for it and if we get all of the details worked out one of these days, we will proclaim it, we will make it law. You will never see the details. You will not see the details, I guarantee you and you mark it down. Ask the Premier, will you see the details of the contract between OCI, High Liner, FPI and the government. Will you see the minute details of that, I ask the Member for St. Barbe? I doubt it very much. You will probably be told my the Premier: It is too detailed, boy. It will probably be: It is confidential, it is proprietary information because there is a private company involved. We cannot show that to you. We cannot show you the financial statements and there are reasons. You will not see that yourself and you are being asked to vote for it. You have already said you are voting for it because the Premier said, trust me. That is what you are asking us to do.

Ask the people of Stephenville if they trusted the Premier? Yes they did in 2003 and it is only recently that he came out and admitted that he broke his promise, that he broke his commitment. But he did not really say, did he? He did not really say that he broke his promise or broke his commitment. What were his words? I was politically naive when I made the commitment. Well what about if he is fishery naive right now? Have you thought about that? What about if he is naive when it comes to he fishery, which I happen to think he is, by the way; no disrespect for the individual for being so. He has never dealt with the fishing industry, never went near it.

I do not know anything about the cable industry. The Premier does, but I do not think the Premier would sit over here, if I were signing a deal on a cable business and saying to him, trust me now, trust me, Leader of the Opposition, I am the Premier. I know I am all over this file. I want you to vote in favour of it and we will work out the details after but I will never be able to show them to you. I do not think that the Premier, if he were over here, would be signing onto that, if I were doing a cable deal and saying trust me. Well, neither do I trust him to say I am doing what is right, I am doing what is best. Parson me, if I do not give you the details, it is proprietary information, but trust me. I am not doing it. I am standing here in this position, the same place that he stood in 2002 or 2001 when the Voisey's Bay deal was done and he practically made the same speech about, how can we vote - that is what he said - on a deal which we have not seen? How can we be asked to accept it, vote for it, when we have not seen the details? How soon we forget.

Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that I think they fell down and hit their heads, and some of them hit them twice. In some cases, like the Minister of Fisheries, he hit it four time. He is after falling down and hitting his head four times because he is here tonight saying that he is blessed. It is almost like he was hit with a bolt of lightening, that all of a sudden he is a capitalist and he has to scrap the FPI Act. That is what he is like. It is almost like, bang, down through the ceiling came the lightening bolt and hit him in the head, or he fell down and jumped up and said: Hold on now, I am a capitalist. We have to scrap the FPI Act. We have to let businesses operate the way they want to operate, because let's face it he had to.

The reason I say he fell down four times is, he was part of a government in 1984 that created the FPI Act, and I applaud him for doing it. In 1987, he amended the Act and put all kinds of restrictions on FPI, like you could only own 15 per cent of the company. It had to have its head office in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they do up on O'Leary Avenue. The majority of the board of directors have to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That was another clause. FPI has to be the flagship of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was put in the FPI Act. Then there is reference throughout the Act about how FPI, the company, has to be socially responsible. In other words, it has to look after its people who work for it. He did that in 1987 when he semi-privatized FPI.

He voted for it in 1984, he voted for it in 1987, and in 2003, when I amended the Act as minister myself, to strengthen it, he reluctantly voted for it, not because he was a capitalist, but he was half on a mind that I did not strengthen it enough, I did not put enough restrictions on it. So 1984, 1987 and 2003 he strengthened the FPI Act, and lo and behold, in 2005 when he is back in government again, like he was in 1985 and 1987, and then in 2005 when FPI wanted to do the income trust, lo and behold, they put seven amendments to the FPI Act to strengthen it even further. Voted to strengthen it four times, patted himself on the back, beat himself on the chest and said, I am the saviour of the plant workers and the dragger men of FPI, and then, today, to walk in and start his speech on scrapping that same Act that he was part of strengthening for four times in a row over the past twenty-two years. He started his speech today - and I could not believe it: I am blessed to be able to come in here today as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Deputy Premier of this Province and tear up the FPI Act. You wonder why we say the things we say, you wonder why we behave in the manner in which we behave.

Bipolar! Bipolar means two. I wonder what happens when it is four, no five? What do you call that? ‘Quintpolar'? I do not know, maybe the minister - he is good at coining new words. Maybe he will coin one for that, for five flips on the FPI bill and telling me now, boy, that is perfect. Never mind what I said on the four previous occasions, we have it right now. We are going to do exactly the opposite of everything I told you before. I stood in this House for twenty-two years - because he brags about being the longest sitting member of the House of Assembly. That is the reason he is running again. He is here for twenty-odd years while the FPI Act came into existence, was born and was raised, and now he wants to kill it. You wonder why we stand over here, shake our heads and question what you are doing.

For me to sit idly by and just jump up and take the minister at face value tonight I would have to be just as big a hypocrite as he is. For the past twenty-two years, he has been espousing the virtues of the FPI Act, because he was part it.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Lewisporte or Baie Verte just said: Is the word hypocritical parliamentary?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I said is the word hypocrite parliamentary, not hypocritical?

MR. REID: Well, it is not, I withdraw it and I apologize for saying it. I tell you, I will rephrase it. The actions of the government are hypocritical. How is that? I would not want to offend your sensibilities over there tonight.

Mr. Speaker, again I cannot, in all honesty, stand here tonight and vote for an agreement that we have not seen. We saw a presentation stuck up on a wall that says, here is what we are doing. Too bad I do not have it here because I would read it to you. We asked questions about what it meant. The bureaucrats themselves did not completely know. We have not seen any information since.

The minister told me in the House a few weeks ago that the penalties were in addition to that which FPI is entitled to pay under the labour relations law. I am not sure that is true. I am asked to stand tonight and say, yes, it is okay, I will vote for this and in five years there is a possibility that none of FPI plants in the Province will be open. There are no guarantees beyond five years, none whatsoever. Even between right now and the fifth year, to use the Premier's own words, there are more loopholes. You can drive Mack trucks through the loopholes that are in what his officials showed us and what I have heard him explain in the House of Assembly. To use the Premier's own words, there are more off ramps in this contract, there are far many more off ramps in this contract than the one he voted against, and his caucus - the Premier voted against the one in 2005. He voted against it in 2005 when FPI wanted to do the Income Trust because there were too many loopholes and off ramps, more off ramps, he said, than there were on the 401 in Ontario.

Off ramps! They have not built a highway in this one to have an off ramp off. They have built loopholes. It is the black hole. It is a black hole, because there is no parameters on it whatsoever. Show this to a lawyer. Show it to a fish harvester or a plant worker in the Province, let them digest it for a few days and they will come back and say, I have some questions about this. What kind of a commitment, what kind of a promise will you make me where it says we will keep your plant open for five years subject to fish quotas and market prices. What does that mean? Some of you must have some business knowledge over there, but even if you do not you have to question what that means. What are the market conditions that would allow High Liner to close Burin?

That raises another issue. This government, led by the Premier, talks all the time about giving away our resources; no more resource giveaways. In fact, you are buying ownership in every resource we own, every resource we have in this Province. You want ownership of the offshore oil and gas industry. In fact, you will not let it be developed unless you have an ownership stake in it. You want to own the Lower Churchill hydroelectric development. You want an ownership stake or it is not going to be done. You want an ownership stake in a telecommunications industry. That is the reason you gave your buddies the $15 million for fibre optics. You want ownership of every other industry in our Province except for the fishing industry.

I do not know about the rest of you - maybe the Member for Labrador West could say that the fishery is not the most important industry, and I would understand his rationale because in his district the mining industry is the most important. Now I could buy his argument. I would say he is a little selfish because the mining industry does not employ or does not encompass so many communities as the fishing industry. Well I happen to think that the fishing industry was and will remain the backbone of our Province, and you are just selling off -

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MR. REID: Can I have a minute just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: One minute, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by leave.

MR. REID: Thank you. I thank the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is, you want to buy into every other industry and yet the only control that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has over the fishing industry, except deciding where plants are allowed to open, rests in the FPI Act on the Table, and you are ready to tear that up. You do not want any ownership, because that is the closest we have ever come to an ownership in our fishery. We do not own or control any fish plant in this Province. We do control FPI, which is the largest fish processor in the Province, employs the most people in the fishing industry, and you are ready to tear that up. I ask you opposite: Why the difference? Why is it that the fishing industry is not treated with the same respect, admiration and the will to buy into as the other industries I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting for the FPI Act for the obvious reasons. I think I have made myself clear tonight.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to get the chance to speak again this evening, this time on Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited.

While I fully understand the import of this bill and what the privative clause is all about, I want to say that no matter what this clause may mean in terms of legal liability and protection of the government with regard to legal liability, I have concerns that down the road we might have to hold the government harmful. We might have to look at the government and say, once again, a mistake was made, and that is my fear. I hope, above all hope, that in five years time we will not have to say that. I hope that as time goes on we will not have to say: We are very sorry government but you were not harmless. We are very sorry but you were not innocent. We are very sorry but what has happened could be seen. I hope that is not going to happen for the sake of the people in this Province, for the sake of the people in the five or six communities where the plants are located, that are being affected by the sale of FPI. I hope that we are not going to have to look at government down the road and say, you caused this to happen, if something goes wrong.

I want to take a moment, since I do have this time to speak, to come back to the point that was made by the House Leader in responding to what I said earlier this evening. I want to do this for the sake of people who might still be watching, although 10:00 p.m. on a June evening I am not sure how many are watching us. I think that I have to come back and speak to the issue that the minister raised, because I raised what I said very seriously and I need to explain further why I believe and what I believe.

What the minister picked up on was the fact that I said, there were times at the various points in the life of FPI, since the FPI Act was first brought in, when I think we missed the boat by not nationalizing FPI. I did not say by not nationalizing the whole fishery, I said by not nationalizing FPI, and that we got as close as we could to nationalization by having this private company that was expected to be concerned about the public interests, and that the whole role of the legislation and the whole amendment to the legislation over the years, every amendment, was tightening the legislation so that government would have more control over the company so that the company would meet public interests. That was coming pretty close to creating a Crown corporation without creating it.

My question was: Why couldn't we have created a Crown Corporation and where might we have been right now if we had had a Crown Corporation.

The minister, the House Leader, took my comments, turned them around and talked about how would it be if the government were down on the wharf. Is that what government is supposed to be doing, to be down on the wharves? The minister took what I said, twisted it around and talked about what it would be like. What are we expecting, government down on the wharves doing the fishing? The minister, the House Leader, knows as well as I do that is not what it means for a Crown corporation. It does not mean that government is out doing the work.

I have to bring us back to something that happened earlier in this Session. We passed a bill called An Act To Establish An Energy Corporation For The Province. This Act, Bill 28, has in it the objects of the new corporation that this House has voted to setup. The energy corporation for the Province has yet to be named. I want to read, for the sake of those who are watching, the objects of the corporation. "The objects of the corporation are to invest in, engage in, and carry out activities in all areas of the energy sector in the province and elsewhere, including, (a) the development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, delivery, supply, sale, export, purchase and use of power from wind, water, steam, gas, coal, oil, hydrogen or other products used or useful in the production of power; (b) the exploration for, development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons; (c) the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of energy related products and services; and (d) research and development."

The government was quite content to set up a new corporation, a Crown corporation, which is going to have the full support of government, that is going to get involved in the most detailed parts of natural resource development, basically in the oil and gas sector. That is what this is all about. This is a Crown corporation. So, does this mean that government is out on the rigs? Does this mean that the Minister for Natural Resources is out digging oil? Does this mean that the Minister for Natural Resources is in a lab doing research? No, of course we know that is not what it means, just like it does not mean that if FPI were a Crown corporation, we would all be down on the wharves together. We all know that is not what it means.

I have to ask the government: Why is it that it is alright for this government to make a Crown corporation, to create an energy corporation as a Crown corporation? That is nationalization, and in the definition of the House Leader that is socialism. Why is it okay to do it in this case when it comes to this natural resource sector and it is not alright to say that it could have happened with FPI?

I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the House shouting out, when the minister was speaking, that I should be ashamed of myself. Why should I be ashamed of myself? Because I believe that we can have a Crown corporation in the fishing industry? I should be ashamed of myself for that? I should be ashamed of myself because I am saying that we should not have let FPI get out from under our control? Because that is what we are doing, that is what we are doing as we vote for these two bills tonight, Bill 1 and Bill 31? I should ashamed of myself because I care about the people in the fishing industry?

I have to say to my colleague, the one who shouted that out to me, he should be ashamed of himself for shouting it out. I cannot believe how my colleagues on the other side of the House can look at this bill, the bill that we passed, Bill 28, and say that this is fine, but even considering even talking about making a Crown corporation out of FPI isn't, and that I am some kind of a strange person because I made this.

I do not know who talks to the Minister of Fisheries. I do not know who talks to him about FPI and about all of the issues around the fishery, but I do know that I have had conversations with people about nationalization. I have had conversations with people out there about making a Crown corporation out of FPI.

My predecessor stood in this House and made those same comments. I have to go back to Hansard and see if he was told this was absolute idiocy, if he was told that he should be ashamed of himself because he dared say this over the years. I mean, I have never heard the like before. Are they mad over in Norway because they have a Crown corporation in the oil industry called Norsk Hydro and that gives such a strong position to the government in that country with regard to the oil industry? Is that mad? Is that nuts? Should Norway be ashamed of itself because it has a Crown corporation in the oil industry?

What I have to ask my friends on the other side of the House is: What is it about the energy industry, what is it about energy, that makes it fine for the government to want to have a Crown corporation in that area but it not okay for the fishery? What is wrong with fish? What is wrong with the fishery? Why don't you want to get your hands into the fishery? Why is that not acceptable? What it says to me - and government is going to have to prove otherwise to me - is that you do not value in the same way involvement in the fishery that you do in the oil and gas industry and in energy in general. There is something wrong. There is definitely something wrong.

I feel that tonight the minister, the House Leader, protested a little too much because of my suggesting this, because I really do think that his reaction was really a little bit much. It is not outlandish. You yourselves have passed this bill.

I do not think I have anything more to say about it. It is all so clear to me and anybody who is watching can see that on the one hand you are ready to say, nationalize in this area, but absolutely, completely unacceptable idiocy, to look at it in another area. I does not make any sense.

I still do not know why the government is pushing to have these pieces of legislation, Bill 1 and Bill 31 - I am putting them together - passed before we have the details on the bills, before we have the details -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - on what is going on with the agreements between FPI, OCI and High Liner. We do not have details.

I don't want to say something that is wrong. Last week or two weeks ago when we heard about the sale for Wabush Mines, ones of the ministers from the other side of the House, in the media, would not get excited about it and said: You know, a deal is not a deal until it is signed. A deal is not a deal until it is finished. I think it was the House Leader I heard say it.

Well, you know, I am saying the same thing about these too deals. We do not know that they are finished, just like you do not know that the Wabush Mines deal is really in place. We do not know that and yet you are asking us, with blind faith, to pass Bill 31 and to pass Bill 1, without knowing any details. Even if we knew the details and the deals still were not signed I do not see how we could pass these bills, because until they are signed, until they are finalized, you do not have an agreement. Until that happens FPI still exits. FPI is still in existence and you are asking us, while it is still existing as FPI, to agree to these two bills. It is just unacceptable and I cannot believe that my colleagues on the other side of the House would agree to it if it were being put to them this way. I really cannot imagine that you would. It is not reasonable. You are all reasonable people, you have to know that it is not reasonable. It does not make sense.

We are here, as I have said many times and as we all know, because people elect us to be here. People are asking about this. People are asking what is the deal, what are the deals -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - when are they going to be finalized? We do not know.

No, I cannot vote for Bill 31 just like I will not be able to vote in favour of Bill 1, because I refuse to vote for something without knowing exactly what it is I am voting for. I absolutely refuse to do it.

I think that is all I have to say. You have not given us enough detail. You are asking us to vote on something without detail. You are asking us to trust. Who is it you are asking us to trust? You are not even in control of what is happening because the deals that are happening are between the companies. You are asking us to trust a third party. I am telling you, I am not good at doing that, not at this stage in my life. I am just not good at doing that at this stage in my life.

I would love it if what we were voting on was giving us more control so that we would know that we are going to be able to effect good for the people in the fishery in this Province, not only for one year, not only for three years, not for five years, but as far down into the future as we could. You know, if we owned the company, if we owned FPI, we could maybe have a better sense of assuring that, but without that in place we cannot assure that.

I am sorry. I would like to cooperate. It would be great if I could. I hope the minister and the House Leader understand why I cannot, because you are asking too much at this moment. I am just saying you could have waited. It does not have to happening now. Wait until the deals are in place then ask us to do this. I am not saying the sale should not have happened. At this point in time, maybe it is the only way it could go, I do not know, but why you could not have waited on these two bills, I just do not understand. None of us are going anywhere, we are all going to be around and we all know that we can be called back at any time into this House. There have been times when, because of FPI, this House has been called back, or sitting in the House has been extended because of FPI. I am sure nobody would have minded doing that again.

If the government had waited, if the government had respected us having more knowledge, having more information, and had respected that so that we would have a more informed position when it comes to voting, I would have been very happy and I would have been maybe voting for the two bills. As it is at this moment, I cannot, I will not, and that is the way it is.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for my time again tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Government House Leader, if he speaks now will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their participation in this debate and for their comments.

I find it puzzling to understand, from the Leader of the third party, her position that she just articulated in advance of taking her seat, that we do not know what we are voting for, we have no idea what we are voting for on those two companion FPI bills. It just floors me, flabbergasts me, I do not understand it.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we had a briefing for the media, we had a briefing for our own caucus, and we had a briefing for the Opposition. In those briefings, we provided them with the detail of the non-binding agreements that have been entered into between the various parties, between FPI and OCI, between FPI and High Liner, between OCI and the government, and between the government and High Liner. The details of those agreements were presented to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, they were presented to the Opposition, and they were presented to our caucus. These are the agreements that if this bill becomes law we are voting on.

Mr. Speaker, I have made a commitment to this House that if there is any change, if there is a tittle changed in those agreements when they become binding agreements, we will be back here. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

For the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the Third-Party, to say she does not know what she is voting for, that is just amazing. That is just not the case. She knows what she is voting for. If she does not agree with it then she can vote against it on that basis. That is fine. Nobody has a problem with that. That is her right as a member of this House. But to say that she does not know what she is voting for, that is an amazing statement, Mr. Speaker, when everybody out there knows, including our caucus, the Opposition, and the media. We all had the same briefing on the non-binding agreements that when they become binding this legislation will apply to. Everybody knows what that is.

The detail has been raised in Question Period. The detail has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition and other people who have spoken in this debate. The detail has been referred to by a number of people, Mr. Speaker, so everybody knows what the detail is. For somebody to stand in the House and say they do not know what they are voting for is certainly being a bit disingenuous, I think, to say the least, Mr. Speaker.

On that score -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that I am not being disingenuous when I say - because I am going to say the same thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we know of this deal, I say to the minister, was a briefing that was given to us by your officials for about an hour. We asked a number of questions. If, for example, all that is in this deal is what was in the briefing note that we got from you, then that even makes it worse, I say to minister; that even makes it worse. If those are the details of a deal then you do not have a deal, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he could complete his comment quickly.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interference there.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, if that is the deal I cannot believe that any lawyer or any justice official, let alone the Attorney General, would say that what we have been expected to vote upon is what he showed us in a briefing note from the Department of Fisheries - the reason I cannot vote for it, Mr. Speaker, is I have not seen the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has listened to the hon. member and the Chair is anxiously waiting for the hon. member to make his point. I ask him to do it very, very quickly.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the point is, we are being accused of being disingenuous over here for saying that we do not know the details of the deal. We do not know the details of the deal and how can we vote on it?

Now only that, Mr. Speaker, how will we even know if these are all of the details that they will sign with the companies, because we are not going to see it again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that there is no point of order. Points of order cannot be used to engage in debate.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I sat here for a full hour and I listened to the Leader of the Opposition speak on a privative clause bill. I was going to say not once did he mention the privative clause and what that is about. He did. He did, in fact, mention it. I would say that out of - not only did he take his hour, Mr. Speaker, which he is entitled to, but he asked for leave and we gave him that. Not once, Mr. Speaker, out of his hour and some-odd - well, yes he did, he did mention the privative clause, but he spent I would say 99.9 per cent of his time talking about FPI, talking about the bill that we had discussed in the previous debate, Mr. Speaker. Not once did I interrupt him in all of that. Not once did I rise, not once did I heckle, not one did I do anything, and I get here now, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to address some issues raised by the Opposition and the very first thing you get is an interruption on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, really I rest my case, because do you know what I was wishing for tonight? As I sat back here tonight listening to the Leader of the Opposition ramble on about this piece of legislation, I was hoping to God that he would ask for unlimited time because I would stay here until this time tomorrow listening to the Leader of the Opposition debate this bill, because every single time he was opening his mouth, Mr. Speaker, he was making the case for the government as to why we should do this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Leader of the Opposition was making the case for the government, of why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want the people on this side of the House to remain the government and not them over there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I could not help but wonder about this new sign with the writing on it called new Liberalism. I could not help but wonder -

MR. REID: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader, the Deputy Premier, said that if I wanted unlimited time I could have it. I wonder if the offer still exists because obviously he never heard a word I said in the last hour, and I would be willing to go another hour to explain it to him again if he did not get what I meant in the previous hour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

MR. REID: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A second point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: I do want to apologize to the minister for interrupting him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is obviously no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody out there in Fortune watching the debate tonight, if there is anybody out there in Marystown watching this debate tonight, if there is anybody in Triton and Catalina and Port au Choix watching this debate tonight, if there is anybody in Burin watching this debate tonight, let them know that the Opposition is against them going back to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have not had one person from those communities tell me that they do not want the FPI Act repealed. I have not had one person from those communities who tell me they want the status quo. I have not had one person from those communities who tell me that they want to turn the hands of the clock back. They want to go forward, they want hope, that is why we are bringing in this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: So the Opposition can shake their heads, they can wave in wonder, but the people out there want us to amend the FPI Act.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Bank can shout. I never interrupted her once, not once. Let the people in Fortune, in her district, know that when she spoke not once did I yell or shout or scream at her. Let them know, if they are watching, that she is over there now. They can hear her in the background.

The people who are working and depending in those communities for a living, Mr. Speaker, there is not one of them that I am aware of, through their local union executives, not one of them that I am aware of through the leadership of their provincial union, who want us to turn the clock back. They want to go forward, they want the FPI Act repealed, they want it repealed now. They want an opportunity for High Liner in Burin and for Cooke Aquaculture in Fortune and for OCI in Marystown and for OCI in Catalina and Bonavista and Triton and Port au Choix.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what they want, Mr. Speaker, and this government, true to our commitment, is going to provide leadership, solid leadership, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are going to pass this Act. We are going to make sure that it is ready to become law when we get the final binding agreement in place. The Opposition can vote against it if they wish, they can answer to their constituents if they wish, they can answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if they wish, but we are going to answer by taking positive action and doing what the people want us to do. That is why I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Committee on Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Chair, I have six amendments that I wish to propose and it is my understanding that we will then debate the entire bill including the six amendments. So I will put forward the six amendments now.

There is an amendment to Clause 7 of the bill which is amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 7(3) the following: The director shall give notice of an application under subsection (1) to a resident of a property as defined by subsection 11 and the resident has the right to appear and be heard by the court with respect to the application.

Clause 8 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 8(3) the following: In deciding whether to make a community safety order the court shall consider whether alternative accommodation is available to persons referred to in subsection 34(1).

Subclause 27(1) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: Where a community safety order is issued by the court under section 8 requires the director to close the property, the director, after fulfilling the requirements of subsection 34(1), shall inform the occupants of the property of the court's order and all occupants of the property and other persons at the property shall leave it immediately, even where they have not been previously served with the order that requires the director to close the property.

Subclause 34(1) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: The director shall provide occupants of residential property who are required to leave the property whatever assistance in finding alternative accommodations the director considers reasonable, including contacting community resources and housing agencies on their behalf.

Clause 35 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: The director shall consult with and work in cooperation with social service systems and other agencies and neighbourhood organizations or groups to promote and encourage the development of safe and peaceful communities and neighbourhoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Clause 41 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: Where requested to do so, a peace officer shall provide assistance required by the director or a person acting on behalf of the director in the performance of the director's or other person's duties under this Act. The director shall develop practice standards and training for persons acting on behalf of the director.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have a few words on the bill as it has been amended by the minister, or the amendments that have been proposed.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that was introduced in the House of Assembly about a week ago. Of course, at that time it was introduced as a An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods In Our Province. While I see the intent that the minister has in terms of bringing forward this legislation, and the goal that he is trying to achieve here is quite evident, but, Mr. Chairman, the issue, I guess, that has developed around this piece of legislation is the fact that there has been inadequate consultation with a number of groups out there in our Province. Those groups primarily are women's groups or equality seeking organizations that work with women that are often impacted by violence issues, by poverty issues, and understand very clearly what needs to be happening in terms of having further protections and mechanisms in our society to allow for safer communities.

Mr. Chairman, since this bill was introduced a week ago the minister has already had to bring forward six amendments to this legislation. That somewhat concerns me, because oftentimes we have pieces of legislation that are presented in the House of Assembly that, through debate, often need to be tweaked in one way or another in order to give further meaning or enhanced meaning to pieces of legislation. But, when you have a bill like this that requires substantial amendments, and a number of amendments like six, it causes one to be somewhat concerned about how, first of all, this piece of legislation got developed, and why those particular key pieces were missing. I think the reason that these pieces were missing is because of the lack of consultation and input that was sought from many of these quality seeking organizations and women's groups in the Province. I think, because of their impact it has caused the minister, no doubt, to reflect upon the legislation in terms of looking at where it can be tightened and where it cannot. As a result of that, we see so many amendments taking place right now.

Mr. Chairman, over the weekend I was able to ask women's groups around the Province to review those amendments in the context of Bill 9, and to give me some feedback in terms of whether they thought the intents they had would be achieved through those particular amendments. The feedback that I have received has basically indicated to me that they are not happy with the legislation as it is.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think almost all of those groups indicated quite clearly to me that they see the need, and support the need, for safer community legislation to be implemented in the Province. Just like we need to have safer schools and safer workplaces we need to have safer communities. They also feel, Mr. Chairman, that there is a legislative way to achieve that in terms of having good judicial policy and rules that would apply. It is not the intent of the bill that they are against and it is not, certainly, the initiative of the minister. I think that they recognize that this is an initiative that he has taken very seriously and taken a personal interest in trying to develop. Their issue is around the fact, Mr. Chairman, that they feel there is a better way, there are other means by which they can achieve safer communities, that there are other justice means that they can do this, and they certainly feel that they have the experience and the knowledge to contribute to that in a different way. They would certainly like to have that opportunity.

That is the feedback that I have been getting from a number of these groups. Their primary concern, Mr. Chairman - and I know that the minister did bring forward amendments under section 8 of the bill that would try and alleviate some of their fears in terms of protecting the rights of women in a home where there might be trouble or their might be eviction notices served to partners or other people sharing that particular dwelling with them. These particular women's groups certainly do not feel that that tremendous assurance is there. They really feel that if this legislation is enforced in the way that it is intended to be right now, you could see more women actually in poverty, you could see more women left homeless as a result of it, and it is not a risk that they are prepared to take right now.

That is the way I understand it from them. They would like to have the opportunity, Minister, to examine with you and your department, on a more thorough basis, what other judiciary measures can be brought forward in terms of safer community legislation.

I think it is a very fair request. I certainly do not sense that there are any animosities or politics being played in terms of Bill 9. I honestly feel that the concerns expressed are very genuine and very sincere. When I look at the sources of this information, it is coming from some very high caliber individuals who work with women's groups around our Province and work with violence prevention programs. They are no doubt probably the people who have the most knowledge in terms of what the impact would be on women and families simply because they work with them on a very personal basis and on an individual level and they are able to not only make suggestions but certainly express quite eloquently what the impacts of this legislation could potentially be on a number of these women and families.

I have to say that, because of the source of the information, because of the fact that these particular groups feel that they were not consulted appropriately and therefore the legislation did not evolve in a way that it should have to achieve the goals that the minister has set out, they certainly would like to see this particular piece of legislation withdrawn from the House of Assembly at this particular time and put back for more public consultation.

I think the minister himself, over the weekend, also had an opportunity to talk to some of these women's groups, or some of the people who are involved with these women's groups. I think that during those conversations they had an opportunity, Minister, to express to you what their concerns are firsthand. I think that they probably also told you that they agree with the intent of the legislation and they felt that it was positive, but they also felt that it did not focus on community in the terms of the community safety orders that they would like to see implemented. They certainly want an opportunity to be able to have input into that particular piece of it.

I think it is important to realize that these particular groups are not out there looking to have this piece of legislation withdrawn for a long period of time, only for the time that it takes in terms of being able to get it right and proper so that it can be implemented in a way that achieves the goals, not only that the Department of Justice and the government are setting out for themselves, but also achieves the goals of what many of these equality seeking organizations have been looking for for some time as well.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after my consultations this weekend with these women's groups and with the individuals who were involved, I certainly did not get any sense of security that they were prepared to support this legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, they felt that the amendments that were being proposed, while they may be well intended, were certainly not going to meet the kind of safety mechanisms that they had wanted. It certainly was not going to be far reaching enough in terms of ensuring that women were not being pushed into a further situation of homelessness and poverty, Mr. Chairman, or violence for that matter, because I have to say that was another concern that was expressed to me as well. They want to make sure that these individuals, in a situation like this, in terms of the safer communities and neighbourhoods legislation, that you were not going to have women and children forced into violent relationships, homelessness or poverty. They wanted to ensure that they feel that the bill does not allow for that.

Mr. Chairman, they have certainly made their views known. They would certainly like to see the legislation removed. They do not feel that they can support this at this particular time. They strongly recommend to the minister that further consultation is required with the women's organizations and equality seeking organizations in the Province at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman, I would have to support them. Based on the fact of the clauses that I have read in the bill and my interpretation of them, I would have to say that I can certainly understand where they are coming from. I certainly see where there is opportunity in this bill to leave many women and children homeless. Of course, a lot of it is going to be open to interpretation, to a certain degree, of the individuals who are hired and how they deal with those situations. There isn't any great deal of comfort in knowing that a director that is appointed will undertake, to the best of their ability, to find suitable accommodations for other members once people are being evicted from an apartment, because one person in that apartment may have been doing something that is illegal. The fact that they will do it to the best of their ability does not give me a great deal of comfort. I think there has to be a mechanism here that guarantees for the protection -

MR. T. OSBORNE: The judge (inaudible) will consider that as well.

MS JONES: Okay, and the judge considers it as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, that is one of the issues. I would certainly agree with them, that there has to be guarantees that once people are going to be evicted - because you have to face it, there are always going to be relationships in which one or more people in that relationship, or in that household when they are renting, because as you know a lot of the rentals are extended family members as well, that may be engaged in activities of one sort or another that may not be legal. I can understand that there is a necessity to clean up that kind of activity going on in our communities and in our neighbourhoods, but I do not agree that any other people, innocent people like women and children in particular, need to be caught in the middle of this without any guarantees or any securities. That is my only concern here. If there were some kind of a guarantee, I think, written into this particular bill that might be more susceptible to some of the women's groups and equality seeking organizations in our Province. There are also other things as well and they feel that there are other ways to achieve the goals of safer communities without having it administered, I guess, in the way that has been outlined in Bill 9.

The concern also, Mr. Chairman, is when you look at rural communities in the Province and how this is going to be implemented in a lot of those rural areas that do not have the government services or the government support staff in order to be able to do that. I think my colleague for Burgeo & LaPoile, when he spoke on this bill on Thursday, indicated that in a lot of these regions you only have circuit courts. I know that is the case in my district in particular where you just have circuit court that comes around once a month, or once every couple of months, and listens to a whole number of cases at one particular time. Mr. Chairman, in situations like we are going to be dealing with under Bill 9, how would those court orders be implemented and how would it be done? Would people be waiting for extended periods of time? If they are, how does that contribute to the animosity and the violence levels and the tension levels within the household or within the home and so on? I really think that it is going to be difficult, especially in rural areas, that even when this legislation is passed that it could be implemented in an appropriate fashion.

The implementation process that is outlined, with regard to Bill 9, and the need to use the courts every step of the way through this particular process, I can see that working in urban centres and it is very much designed that way. It would certainly not have the same impact in rural areas of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I guess, with regard to the amendments that the minister has put forward, after consultation with the women's groups in the Province it is obvious that they are not willing to accept those amendments as part of the bill, as being legitimate. I should not say legitimate but applaudable legislation on their behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear to the minister that I support the intent of the bill, and I certainly support the initiatives that he is making in terms of being able to bring forward this particular legislation, but I have to agree with the women's groups in the Province in terms of the concerns they have raised. I think that they should be consulted and that they should have been a larger part of this particular legislation. Their input should have been sought in developing it and how it was going to be implemented.

Mr. Chairman, based on that, I have to say that I will not be supporting the bill as being proposed in the Legislature at this particular time. If the minister chooses to leave the bill on the floor of the House, and it does pass, I can only encourage him to consult with these women's groups and look at what appropriate amendments will need to be made in order for us to be able to carry forward this legislation in the Province as a collective group.

I think it is important to have all of these groups and organizations on side and prepared to support and implement legislation like this. I think we all want safer communities, but how we achieve it is probably always going to be a difference of opinion; but if we could have a happy medium here.

I would ask the minister that if the bill does pass this evening to not leave it there. At least go back to these groups and organizations, seek their input, look at possible amendments that could be made that would still allow your department and your government to achieve its goals, but also allow these other groups to achieve the goals that they figure are doable in terms of the relationship that they have with the community and being able to achieve the things that they want.

I would suggest that and I think they would be open to that, but, Mr. Chairman, I think the real solution would be just to withdraw the bill right now, continue with the process of consultation and bring back a revised Bill 9 that would certainly be more suitable to all the groups and organizations out there and accomplish what the Department of Justice has set out to do.

Mr. Speaker, based on that, I will be voting against the bill as been presented here with the amendments, but I can certainly say I support the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the member, by leave.

MS JONES: I would say to the minister, that your efforts have been appreciated. I certainly hope that you will take it upon yourself to follow through with this process to ensure that all the views and opinions are incorporated and that the legislation can be strengthened through their input.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for the amendments.

I too have studied the amendments, and I too have consulted with the women's organizations, and there have been other organizations that have come to me as well.

First of all, I do want to say to the minister I do appreciate the fact that you did recognize last week, or almost two weeks ago now, that full consultation with the women's community had not taken place and you did put a process in place to have that consultation, especially with the eight women's centres and status of women's councils. I recognize that and certainly the women from the women's centres recognize that as well.

Their concern is that, while you did that it still was a very, very rushed situation. I think you probably recognize that yourself. Their concern is that the amendments do not deal with the overall - they are sort of like band-aids. Yes, they do get at some of the issues around if there is available housing and that would have to be considered, but their concerns are bigger than those little pieces. Those pieces are important, but there is an overall tone that they want to get at with regard to the legislation. I agree with my colleague, that what they are asking for is for it to be put on hold so that you can have a much fuller consultation.

I have also heard, in the last couple of days, from some people who are working in community work here in the heart of St. John's, with homeless people, with people who have just gotten out of prison, et cetera. They too, the ones who have been in communication with me, are concerned about the legislation. They too are questioning, as I have heard the women's community question, where is it coming from and why is it on the table. They are concerned that the poor and the marginalized and what they have described as the fringed members of society are in danger of being targeted by this legislation. They have quite a number of concerns. The ones who have spoken to me have said that they were not part of consultation either and that they really believed they should be because of their experience of working with people who could become targeted because of legislation like this. This is their major concern.

I do not want to take a whole lot to time. I could take my whole ten minutes. I am not going to repeat the things that my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said, because I too consulted with the women and would repeat the same. I am asking you and I do believe that the legislation should be put on hold. I cannot see what damage that could possibly do. I think it could only do good. I do not believe, and the people I have spoken to do not believe, that the amendments get at the concerns.

I would like to speak to something else too, Minister, which is my own concern, my own observation. I have spoken about the bill and I think you are aware of some of the things I am concerned about. I asked, when I first spoke to the bill in second reading, why this bill, and you gave your explanation. In that explanation - it is in Hansard and I think I have all my figures correct - you talked about Manitoba where a similar bill is in place, the bill on which this one is modeled, and you talked about how since they started this, I think I have the figures correct, they have had 1,386 complaints, and then 200 of those resulted in 200 residences being investigated and there were only six evictions.

What struck me, when you said that to us in responding at the end of second reading, was that was an awful lot of work to come up with six evictions, and six evictions that might eventually have happened through the normal criminal justice system anyway. I do not know. In the explanation that you gave I wondered, well, with 1,386 complaints, all of those had to be initially investigated, they all had to have an initial investigation to even determine what residences had to be investigated and then 200 residences were investigated. We do not know what the other 194 situations were, but only six of the 200 then resulted in evictions. It does not seem to be a very good return on the buck. I have to put it bluntly. Out of 1,386 complaints, only six evictions, so I then wondered - and I do not know if you have this information or not - I then thought: How many of those complaints were crank complaints. How many of them were legitimate? With only six evictions and only 200 residences being even investigated, it just looks to me like there were a lot of crank calls in there.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: What then are the other 1,186 about? I do not know if you have that information or not, but it still seems like an awful lot of complaints in comparison to the final result.

As one of the groups who came to me today actually put it, it seems like a complaints driven process. That was one of their complaints. How real are the issues and who are the complaints coming from? I think that is a concern of the women's communities as well, not just of the community groups here in the heart of St. John's.

I really do think we should put it on hold and have broader consultation so that we can come up with the best possible legislation. I think we are all concerned about having a secure community and a safe community.

I do not know what is going on over there, but anyhow; I think we are all concerned about having safe and secure communities but I also think we have to listen to those who are involved in working at that. I really do ask you to strongly consider putting the legislation on hold.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, just to respond quickly, because I know the points that were raised by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi were sincere comments after consultation themselves and discussions with some of the women's groups. I just wanted to respond briefly to some of the issues that were raised.

Just recently, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked about the Manitoba model. There are a couple of points I wanted to make about the Manitoba model very quickly. There were 1,384 complaints in Manitoba regarding 1,100 residences. When the investigators looked at these particular residences in Manitoba they had determined - as is the intention with this particular piece of legislation - that it is only really where the activity has been a prolonged activity, that the activity is a consistent activity, that it is a consistent threat to the safety of a community, do they consider it a serious threat to the community. Therefore there are only 200 of those residences that they had taken action against.

That action is graduated action. It is starting out initially with face-to-face discussions with the residences of a household. But, they have solved the situation in 200 of the residences, so I would not narrow it down to saying that there were only six accomplished evictions. I would say that of the 1,100 and some-odd residences that they had investigated there were only activities happening habitually in 200 of those residences. As a result of the activities in those 200 residences they have successfully solved the situations for the benefit of the community and the householders. There were only six householders or residents who refused to cooperate, which is the intention of this legislation. We prefer to focus on an informal process, a graduated approach to this, and only as a very last resort would we seek a closure order or an eviction order. Successfully, they solved 97 per cent of the situations in the 200 households so there are only six evictions essentially. That is essentially the intent of this legislation.

What I am prepared to commit to here, and the department is prepared to commit to - because a number of the individuals we have spoken with are very sincere, but I think the fears that were raised are probably just fears when you look at the Manitoba model and the success of the Manitoba model. What we are prepared to commit to, Mr. Chair, is that we will do a very broad consultation. We are going to proceed with passing the bill, I hope, in this session, but we will commit to a very broad consultation on this bill prior to proceeding with the regulations and the protocols on the bill. We will take into account, in that broad consultation, groups such as Stella Burry, groups such as the Wiseman Centre, groups such as the John Howard Society, groups such as all of the women's centres, the violence prevention groups throughout the Province, and municipalities as was raised by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. We will commit to a very broad consultation on the development of the protocols and the regulations and we will take whatever time is necessary to do that and to speak with all groups.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 6 carried.

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that clause 7 be amended.

Clause 7 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 7(3) the following: (4) The director shall give notice of an application under subsection (1) to a resident of the property as defined by section 11 and the resident has a right to appear and be heard by the court with respect to the application.

The Committee rules that the amendment is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 7?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 7 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 7 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Clause 8.

It is moved by the Minister of Justice that clause 8 of the bill be amended by adding immediately after the proposed subsection 8(3) the following: (3.1) In deciding whether to make a community safety order the court shall consider whether alternative accommodation is available to persons referred to in subsection 34(1).

The Committee rules that the amendment is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 8?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 8 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 8 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clauses 9 to 26 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 9 to 26 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 9 to 26 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Clause 27.

CHAIR: Is moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that clause 27(1) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: 27.(1) Where a community safety order issued by the court under section 8 requires the director to close a property, the director, after fulfilling the requirements of subsection 34(1), shall inform the occupants of the property of the court's order and all occupants of the property and other persons at the property shall leave it immediately, even where they have not been previously served with the order that required the director to close the property.

The Committee deems the amendment to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 27?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 27 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion clause 27 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 28 to 33 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 28 to 33 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Clause 34.

CHAIR: Shall clause 34 carry?

CLERK: There is an amendment to that.

CHAIR: I am sorry. There is an amendment to clause 34 as put forward by the hon. Minister of Justice.

The amendment is: Subclause 34(1) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted. 34. (1) The director shall provide occupants of residential property who are required to leave the property whatever assistance in finding alternative accommodations the director considers reasonable, including contacting community resources and housing agencies on their behalf.

The Committee deems this amendment to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 34?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 34 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 34 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clause 35.

CHAIR: Clause 35 is amended by the hon. Minister of Justice and the amendment is: Clause 35 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: 35. The director shall consult with and work in cooperation with social service systems and other agencies and neighbourhood organizations or groups to promote and encourage the development of safe and peaceful communities and neighbourhoods.

The Committee deems this amendment to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 35?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 35 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 35, with amendment, is carried.

On motion, clause 35 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clauses 36 to 40 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 36 to 40 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 36 to 40 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Clause 41.

CHAIR: Clause 41.

It is moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that clause 41 be amended. The amendment is: Clause 41 of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: 41.(1)Where requested to do so, a peace officer shall provide assistance required by the director or a person acting on behalf of the director in the performance of the director's or other person's duties under this Act.

Section (2) of the bill would read: (2) The director shall develop practice standards and training for persons acting on behalf of the director.

The Committee deems the amendment to be in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 41?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 41 as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment to clause 41 is carried.

On motion, clause 41 as amended carried.

CLERK: Clauses 42 to 47 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 42 to 47 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 42 to 47 is carried.

On motion, clauses 42 to 47 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods, carried with some amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 9 is carried with amendments.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 9 passed with various amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods, passed with some amendments.

When shall this report be received?

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said amendments be now read first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Clerk.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 9 be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9, An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, " An Act Respecting Safer Communities And Neighbourhoods," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their cooperation during the parliamentary day and I now move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.