June 10, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 31


The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the Routine Proceedings this morning, the Speaker wishes to note that, due to the unavailability of satellite time, the proceedings today will not be broadcast in realtime beyond 11:30 a.m. We regret any inconvenience this may cause to our television listeners. We also wish to advise that any proceedings not broadcast today will be broadcast on Monday, June 13, beginning at 2:00 p.m.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the FPI Act currently ensures that all, or substantially all, of FPI cannot be sold. This section of the act protects the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and ensures that the company has a strong and continued presence in our Province. If this section of the act is amended later today and FPI is permitted to sell 40 per cent of their Value Added Marketing Division in the United States, there appears to be no requirement for the company to come back and ask for any further permission to sell the remaining 60 per cent of that division.

I ask the Premier: Doesn't this amount to selling off all, or substantially all, of the assets of FPI, as your legal opinion by Stikeman Elliott suggested, and doesn't this conflict with the FPI Act that is currently in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question. First of all, I think if you read the Stikeman Elliott opinion, it indicates just the opposite. It indicates that there is a concern here and the reason we got a couple of opinions involved in this was that, technically, FPI could possibly have gone ahead and done this all by themselves without coming to government. I would be of the opinion, looking at it initially, that they could not possibly do this transaction with section 7 in place. When we got our legal opinion from Stikeman Elliott, it indicated no, that it is quite possible they could do it. FPI also had an opinion that said they could do it. Then we went and got a third opinion to make sure that we are correct in this, because it was a huge issue, and that opinion - I do not have the wording right in front of me - says that there was a strong argument that they could be prevented from doing it. So, part of the issue here is they could have gone out and done this on their own. Again, I am not here to defend the company. That is not what this is all about. This is about striking a balance and finally getting a solution for these communities and for the people of the Province. So, they possibly could have done it on their own.

In answer to the second part of your question, quite frankly, is that once we open the door here, the door is open and we make no bones about it. The minister and several others, when they have gotten up and spoken here, have indicated and I have indicated to you yesterday during Question Period, we cannot close all the loopholes in this. You cannot keep all the doors closed and allow FPI to proceed with the Income Trust and have a successful execution of that Income Trust. So, the members of this House and the people of the Province need to understand that all the gaps are not closed here. Even when we get control of the Board of Directors, as the dilution of the company happens that control can dilute. Even those directors who are there, who are acting on behalf of FPI, they have a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of the Income Trust that they represent. So even then that control can go.

When I speak later on today I will be indicating that, and I can say it right now, is that everything is not covered off here. So, yes, there could be a dilution. In fact, the legal opinions on this, which even causes some difficulty, are equivocal on it and that is why it is before this House, because there is no simple black or white answer when it comes to that. We have to weigh the pros and the cons here and decide what is in the best interest of the people of the Province and the communities who, a lot of them, are represented here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That does not give me any more confidence in the ownership of FPI and the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 2000 John Risley and others wanted to purchase the majority of shares in FPI. However, the only way that this could be done was by amending the legislation, the FPI Act in this Legislature. Our government, the government of the day and the Opposition who are now on that side of the floor, refused to make any amendments because of the uncertainty this would bring to FPI in terms of its long-term presence in the Province.

I ask the Premier, by amending the act today or tonight, could this permit Mr. Risley and company to achieve through the backdoor what they could not achieve through the front door just a few short years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Risley - contrary to what people might say, I am not a close friend of Mr. Risley. I do not have an acquaintance with Mr. Risley. The only time I have ever met with Mr. Risley is in the boardroom here in this particular building. If he was in a room somewhere where I was at some time, it was without my knowledge. So, there is no connection here between myself and Mr. Risley. Mr. Risley is a businessperson. He is going to try and achieve through the backdoor what he cannot get through the front door because he is in the business of making profit and increasing his company. So, that is the harsh reality we have to face here everybody. I mean, I think we all know that. We know what we are dealing with here. No different than - I was in business. Mr. Ches Penney is in business. People are there to make profit but they do it in a proper way, and if he can achieve that through a certain mechanism then he is going to try and do that.

The problem that we are faced with, in this government, is that we have a company that tells us - and from what we can see in the public sector is that this company is strangling. Right now it cannot raise any more money, the debt is too high. They cannot go out through normal recourse and raise money. They are saying that the only way they can raise it is through an Income Trust.

Now, if we stop the Income Trust, then where are we Monday morning? We are back again to a company that no longer has any ability to raise money. Then what is the company going to do? Is it going to say to Bonavista: Sorry, we cannot do anything in Bonavista. Is it going to say to Fortune: Sorry, we cannot do anything in Fortune. Is it going to say to Harbour Breton: We are not going to give you anything. We had some stuff on the table and we are starting to stack it up and hopefully we will have more improvements to announce today for the people of the Province, but we are not there yet.

The bottom line at the end of all of that is that we could be back to a company that is strangled, that is closing down operations all over the place.

I am being a little long, but, honestly, I really think it is important. I am trying to lay out for you here - that is what this process is all about, to get all of the facts out for everybody, and that is what I am trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Although the Chair is allowing some greater flexibility in these exchanges, the Chair operates on the assumption that there are more questions than there is going to be time to ask in Question Period, so I ask the people posing questions, and the people who are answering questions, to keep their questions and their answers relatively short.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, I am more concerned about what ownership and what control this Province is going to have with FPI at the end of the day. From what I have seen, we are going to have very little.

Mr. Speaker, if the ownership restriction is removed from this legislation, which these amendments could ultimately achieve, wouldn't this, in essence, be destroying the strength of the FPI Act as we know it, leaving the Province with little or no control over the company's future activities and business decisions - decisions that may not be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We can either leave the Act as it is and control a company that is going to die, or we can change the Act and dilute control, because we will not have the same control, and provide this company an opportunity to grow and allow it to invest in the communities in this Province. That is quite simply the choice we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, I think you will not dilute control. We will not have any control left if we do this.

Mr. Speaker, the only punitive action and power that the government has under this proposal, should FPI break their promise, is to take control of the company's groundfish quotas.

I ask the Premier: Isn't it true that the provincial government cannot take these quotas without the consent of the federal Minister of Fisheries? If so, has he discussed this issue with Minister Regan and secured the commitment from the federal government that they will indeed hand over FPI's groundfish quotas if the company defaults on their promises?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had discussions with Minister Regan on this matter as far back, I guess, as about a month or so ago, when negotiations really reached a heightened level - I will put it that way - and it appeared that we may end up getting to a point where we might be here today.

I spoke with Minister Regan, gave him the context of where the discussions were at that point, what we hoped to achieve at the end of the day, and informed him that should we get to that point we will back to him looking for a commitment and a binding arrangement from him, something that will bind his successors and honour the agreement between the Province and FPI.

Yesterday, or the day before, I cannot remember when it was now, I sent a letter to Minister Regan informing him of where we were at this point, and again reminding him of the discussion that we had back a month or a month-and-a-half ago, and asking him to reply in the manner that I have just laid out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked a question yesterday of the Premier, which was answered by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, concerning the security provisions that are in this agreement. Quite frankly, we got a wishy-washy non-answer to it. This is an opportunity in Question Period for us to hopefully get some answers for the people of this Province.

I ask again: Did this government, whoever was over there and was a part of this negotiating team, ever ask FPI to put on the table, as part of the security package, their shellfish quotas and their dragger fleet as security, to prove that they will, in case they default, give that to government as security, in addition to the groundfish allocations that they have already committed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we asked FPI for whatever security was available and could be raised. The hon. gentleman opposite understands better than anyone that a company that is hugely in debt has to mortgage its assets. If there are vessels that are being built, then there is security on these vessels.

The quotas have been put up as security. The company is highly leveraged; so, quite frankly, we did not expect to get any quotas coming out of the gate on this. For a company that is a public company, that has shareholders, to be able to agree to a default on quotas at the end of the day is a significant gain for this Province. Let's make no bones about it. To get them to give up hundreds of millions of dollars of quota - the hon. member shakes his head, and I understand. I understand that. This is not an antagonistic exercise. You are shaking your head and saying, why couldn't we get more?

We got whatever we could get out of that company. Quite simply, if it is not enough for me, and it is not enough for the members on this side of the House, and it is not enough for the members on that side of the House, we vote this down.

That is what this process is all about. I am not defending it. I am here to say I am one of you, we are all here together. We all have a free vote and we are going to decide on balance what is good, what is bad, and what is ugly. There are parts of this that I do not like. When this first came into our office, the first thing that we did was say: No way, Jose, this is not going to happen.

That is exactly what we said, and that is what we did. We shut it down. We sent a letter out within two months, to June -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to what we are here debating this special session, we are going to have further commitments negotiated. We do not know what is happening with Harbour Breton. We do not know what is happening, if anything, with regard to the federal Minister of Fisheries agreeing to the quotas being put up as security.

What I am saying, and asking the Premier again is: How can we pass this here? Will there be an opportunity for this House and the members and the public, once the final binding agreements are negotiated - because right now you can drive a Mack Truck through any piece of this - will there be an opportunity for us to come back, as members, once we see the final wording, to discuss whether it is or is not sufficient to the people of this Province? Because we do not know right now. We do not have any commitments from the federal minister, or anything for Harbour Breton. There is a whole pile of things here that are not on this table. Will we get an opportunity to see it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this first came to us back in April, fourteen months ago, my first reaction was, no. What I see here is an Income Trust; it is an opportunity for the shareholders of this company to bleed out the profits, take them and run. That was my very first reaction.

The first question I asked the company was: What does the union think, and what do the communities want? Assuming, quite frankly, that they were going to come back and say: The union says, we don't want this. The communities are going to come back and say, we don't want this. That would have been the end of it. What happened was, the union came back and the communities came back and said: We do want this.

So, as Premier of this Province and as the government of this Province, we said, we have to look at this. Therefore, we have to go from where we are, which is zero, to where we are today, which is fourteen months later. That is why we have put it before this House, and that is why we have put it forth in a free vote, and that is why we have not made up our minds. Some of us made up our minds based on gains for the communities that have taken place as to where it is going to go, but, when all the information comes out, all the available information that we have today, then we are going to make a decision; but there is a time line here because there is a certain point beyond which an Income Trust is just simply not going to happen. If this went beyond the summer and we waited until November, then FPI basically says there is going to be no Income Trust. Now, that does not mean we are on their time line and their agenda, but if we are going to do what we can do to help save this company, if that is the way we want to go, then we will do it. If not, we don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, with all due respect, it is useless to have commitments given to help rural Newfoundland, and communities in rural communities, if we, as a government and as a Province, do not have the necessary securities in hammer to ensure that FPI delivers on those commitments, and that is where I think this agreement falls short.

I say to the Premier here: We are aware that this is not only allowing them to sell 40 per cent of their marketing arm and the Value Added arm in Danvers. This could lead to - we have no further control under the FPI Act as to what they do anymore once we start on this road today if we agree that they can go down this Income Trust road.

I say to the Premier: Where, in any of this agreement, is there anything about monitoring? I have not seen anything about monitoring the commitments that have been given by FPI. In addition to the security provisions that we do not have, where does it say anywhere in this agreement what this government will do or can do to ensure that FPI does due diligence to these commitments at any given date? Are we subject to seeing annual reports of FPI saying we did this or we did that? Where are we going to be able to monitor what they are telling us they are going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is a public company. They act in the public domain. They are a public record. We will not be in everyday monitoring their books. You know, if we want to get into that and we want to monitor Abitibi's books and we want to monitor their books, we want to monitor IOC books, and we want to get in on Exxon Mobile, we may as well shut the place down and say we are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Just allow me to finish.

We may as well shut the place down and say we are not open for business. I mean, you know, we have to act in reasonable, good faith. We cannot be blind. We cannot put blind trust in. But, you know, on that board we have people like Frank Coleman on the West Coast. We have people like Boyd Cohen. We had people before like Senator George Furey. We have people like Father Des McGrath who are on that Board of Directors.

Now, whatever we may think of John Risley - and I am not going to stand up here and berate John Risley. I do not have any interest in doing that, and we may have our own opinions about Derrick Rowe because he is CEO of the company and he has taken some stands people do not like, and I am not going to comment about that. But, you know, we do have reputable people on that board.

I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi knows Father Des McGrath, and I am sure he respects him, and I am sure people here on both sides of the House have the greatest respect for that person. He was in a meeting that we had in the boardroom. So, we cannot micro manage the companies. Your point is valid. Sure, we cannot cover everything off. I agree. I am being very honest and open with you, we do not have control.

And yes, in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, this can dilute and they can eventually get control of the marketing arm. The Icelandic portion here is not covered off because we cannot get an answer from the Icelanders, and FPI cannot provide it because of internal discord that is going on. So, that is a loose point. Even though Risley and Stanford may not be able to get control - the Icelanders, they might be able to get control. So, they are the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to remind members that lengthy discourses in Question Period should be left for debate rather than have lengthy discourses at this stage.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, this is not about the integrity of the board members of FPI. This is about the necessary protections that the people of this Province deserve to have and that is what we are asking here, is that this agreement right now is loosey-goosey. You do not have, in here, any security provisions to protect the people of this Province, and that is what we are asking. We do not operate in good faith. They are not a normally publicly traded company like anybody else. They are governed by the FPI Act, by this Legislature, and all we asking is that there be reasonable provisions put into that Act and kept in that Act to ensure that the best interest and the public interests of this Province is protected. It is not there right now.

For example, I ask the Premier again or the Minister of Justice, we have, as part of this package here, an amendment which is going to take out the section, the privative clause it is called, whereby FPI - normally now, if we did something as a government and as a Province to restrict FPI's activities they cannot sue the people of Newfoundland. We are going to take that out right now. I am saying, why? Why would we allow FPI, as a part of this package of going off to set up an Income Trust, why would we take out our own protection as a people here and allow FPI to sue us in the future? Why would we do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. gentleman is a lawyer, you should answer your own question. You know why.

How can a company function with a privative clause? So they are subject to the whims and fancies of whatever government is on this side, so that government can act with reckless abandon and do whatever they want and have no consequences for it. What has happened is the privative clause has covered the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador up to this point and on an ongoing basis because they cannot get any money. Commercial transactions with the privative clause in it causes them great difficulty.

I am really interested though in your approach on this, where you are asking questions now and you are drilling down and you want all the answers and everything else. Well, I am telling you, we have done what we can to the best of our ability. When I was on that side of the House and the Lower Churchill was on the go and you were Attorney General on this side of the House, I asked you about that particular contract. Do you know what your answer was? You had not even read it. Well, it is about time you started reading some things. It is nice to see you interested for a change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that what was supposed to be a non-political debate here is turned into such by the Premier, but I am not going to go down that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I am not going to go down that road, Mr. Speaker. I have questions to ask because I think they are valid questions, and I am concerned about what is happening and why we are here today.

I say to the Premier again, FPI is not a normal publicly traded company who cannot operate with a privative clause. They are subject to the whims and wishes of this Legislature by virtue of the FPI Act. They are not a normally traded company. So, we do not have to give them the protections of any normally, publicly traded company. I say to the Premier, again, and this is what this is all about, trying to flesh out what is not here. I commended the government yesterday for having done a good job on what we got so far; no problem with what is here. My questions are directed to what is not here and what we should go the extra few steps to get here. That is where my direction is coming from.

I say to the Premier again, if we have concerns, for example, based upon the legal opinions to date as to whether FPI could or could not go where they want to go here with the Income Trust anyway, why don't we have a second hammer here? Why are we only talking here today about whether they can or cannot go with the Income Trust provision?

If we have concerns about whether the act is strong enough to prevent them anyway from proceeding, why don't we have here today - in the event that this is voted down, where do we stand, Premier, tomorrow? If we vote this down as a House today, and say they cannot go down the road of Income Trust, what are we going to do to prevent FPI from proceeding anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what we do if we vote this down today? We call the House back again right away - probably as early as Monday - and we change the FPI Act to close every possible loophole, and we make sure they cannot get away with it, if we decide as a group - absolutely, no question.

What hon. members here have to decide, if they are discontent with these problems, with these loopholes, and if they do not want to hold their nose and vote for this, despite the loopholes, then they are saying to Fortune, and to Harbour Breton, and to Bonavista, and to Port Union, and to Triton, and to Port au Choix, and all the other communities around this Province that are governed by FPI, that you do not want to see them move forward.

You make that decision, sir, because I am going to have to make it at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

In the last number of days we have seen FPI make additional commitments to the Town of Bonavista and to the Town of Fortune. The deal sheet or the term sheet that is part of this package does not obviously contain those commitments, but anticipates the possibility that they might be there.

Is it government's intention, if this legislation is passed, to ensure that these commitments are, in fact, written into the terms of the deal and are as binding upon FPI as the other commitments that have been made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody here in this House knows that this negotiation is going on right up until the time we vote. That is where the pressure is building, and that is what negotiation is all about. That is why the Fortune opportunity was disclosed. That is why Bonavista stepped up and, as a result of the action of the people in the communities, and the member, and the Member for Grand Bank, Fortune, they progressed.

Up until after midnight last night, I was on the phone talking to federal government officials at the very highest levels. This is an ongoing negotiation. When we get it to what we finally can squeeze out of this turnip, the last bit of blood that we can squeeze out of it, that will be the deal that will be presented to this House and it will go in the term sheet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier made it clear yesterday and again today that his support for this agreement, or this legislation, rises or falls on the commitments that are going to be made to the people of Harbour Breton.

I want to know, if that is the Premier's position, is that, in fact, his own personal position or is he prepared to make that his government's commitment and expect his government Cabinet and caucus to support that position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am surprised the hon. member asked that. A free vote is a free vote, is a free vote, is a free vote. People are free to vote as they see. What we are trying to do here is make sure that everybody in this Chamber has all of the information that is available.

It is quite obvious, I think, from where we are standing, as to what the sympathies of members on this side of the House are for the people of Harbour Breton - there is absolutely no doubt about it - but I am certainly not going to try and impose my will on how they vote at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not the kind of decision that people have moral views on, that differ greatly, that sometimes you expect to see a free vote on. Why is this government not insisting that it, as a government, expects this company to perform in a certain way, as the Premier has indicated he wishes them to do, and expect his members and his government to support that position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I could be wrong here, but, as far as I understand, I have provided an opportunity here in this House that no Premier has provided here in twenty years. This is a true free vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing I say quite honestly here today is a personal thank you to all members, members opposite and members on this side of the House. The day yesterday that we had in the House was the best day that I have had in the House in four years. It was worthwhile, it was productive. Everybody was actually listening to everybody. There was no banter going on, no negative banter. There might have been some chatter, but very little.

We are accomplishing a lot. We are flushing out all of the issues. Hopefully, by the end of the day, we will have it all up on the table so everybody can make a decision; but, at the end of the day, people are going to have a free vote and they are going to be able to make up their own minds on a very tough decision.

Question Period today started to heat up a little bit because we are all under some pressure here. We have a tough decision to make on behalf of the people of this Province, and we are going to do what is in the best interests of the people of the Province and the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to tell you, the one bit of criticism that hurts me the most is when people say that I am not a proponent, I am not a champion of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because there is nothing further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. It has probably already been asked through the New Democratic Leader, but still I have to ask it for the people of Harbour Breton and for their own comfort.

Mr. Speaker, the survival of Harbour Breton has been an issue now for some months, since FPI announced they were pulling out of the town. Yesterday, the Premier said that unless the government received a substantial commitment from FPI he would not support the amendment. I ask the Premier, does he still stand by that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I think the member knows the answer to that. You are asking, obviously, for the record and for the people for Harbour Breton.

It is very clear where I stand on this. What we are trying to do here as a government is, we are trying to get some short-term money in order to allow the people of Harbour Breton to get over the terrible crisis and the hump that they are in right now. As well, we are trying to secure their plant and their equipment; even though, as I said yesterday, it is a bit of a pig in a poke. It needs a bit of work and there are environment issues. So that is part of the issue.

We have tried to as well, and succeeded, in increasing the amount of money that was made available. They asked for one point four. We actually, in fact, got them three. What we would like to be able to do in the long term is secure a quota, whether some of that being an existing quota, whether that is from FPI or whether that is from somebody else. I know the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday the red fish quota is not worth anything, but we are going to try and accumulate whatever we can accumulate here.

As well, as I said last night, I was on the phone until after 12:00 o'clock. I had several conversations with federal ministers and federal senior officials in order to try and get a commitment from Minister Regan, Minister Stronach, Minister McGuire, who are people that are able to provide a fish answer. They are able to provide a monetary economic development answer, through McGuire and through ACOA, and they are also able to provide an Income Support answer through Minister Stronach.

What we are trying to do is come up with a comprehensive development plan for Harbour Breton. What we are pursing is a private option as well, which involves a pelagic quota which can, hopefully, increase the processing in Harbour Breton and also help Burgeo and the South Coast of this Province. We are doing whatever we can to come up with a (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of loopholes in this particular proposal being brought before the House right now, and one of them is the availability of government funding.

I would like to ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: What allocations of taxpayers' dollars have been made to FPI to implement the promises and commitments that they are making in this proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitments have been laid out in the term paper as put before us here today. All of these things are under discussion right now. This government has made a commitment to the people of Harbour Breton as part of this package of $250,000 for a business plan and we have made $1 million available for Income Support.

We have also indicated, through our committee and through the Premier, that we are prepared to consider further investment in Harbour Breton, depending on what we are able to leverage out of FPI and, as well, the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, FPI currently has permission from the Minister of Fisheries to export unprocessed fish out of the Province. I would like to ask the minister if the contents of this proposal passing today will stop that practice of shipping unprocessed fish out of the Province by FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the only authorization that FPI has to ship fish out of the Province - there are four authorizations granted for shipping fish unprocessed out of the Province. One is for turbot. The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company is one of the companies that accesses that. She was one of the ministers who provided that authorization, just as the Leader of the Opposition did, just as I do. Other companies access that. There is grey sole able to be shipped out of the Province unprocessed for an ethnic market in Central Canada. I believe she even probably signed that authorization, just as I did, just as the Leader of the Opposition did, just as every minister since the late 1980s has.

There are two exceptions, Mr. Speaker. Undersized yellow tail, less than 400 grams, has been allowed to be shipped out since last summer, and redfish from 3O has been allowed to be shipped out since last summer in small specified amounts. The alternative is to put the less than 400 gram yellow tail into cat food, fishmeal or to flush it out through the floodgates like was done in the 1980s. That is the alternatives, Mr. Speaker.

Now, there is a committee in place, representatives of industry, the union, DFO and DFA. The provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture are reviewing the minimum processing requirements that are allowed under our regulations and there will be decisions made on that going forward. It has absolutely no impact on Harbour Breton, those authorizations, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, you have not called Orders of the Day have you?

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

Orders of the Day.

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

I guess we are going to continue the debate on the FPI Act. I believe the next speaker comes from the Official Opposition side of the House and then we will get back to our (inaudible) one and one.

With that, I do now move Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, with the bill for debate before this House.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called, and it is Bill 41.

The Chair recognizes continuing the debate by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I was in a little hurry to get up and did not realize that the Orders of the Day had not been called. I have not been here long enough to know that. It is just one of these things.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that I have been here in this House for sixteen years. There have been a number of people who have been here probably a little longer than that. I cannot think of a situation where the people's representatives from all of the forty-eight districts across the Province are anymore important decisions to be made than we are making here. For me, personally, it has been a really trying experience. I know that it has been for everybody, but for the people of Harbour Breton - and I have been there with Eric Day, Don Stewart, Gloria Skinner, Mike Whittle when he was there, Geraldine Skinner, the union people and other people from the community, John George, Cliff Jackman and others. It has been a situation for me that is very difficult, in a sense, to explain.

Up to the point when the plant closed in Harbour Breton last April, in my mind's eye, as I look here now I see a community that is vibrant. I see people who are moving back and forth in the community. I see the steam stacks in the Harbour Breton fish plant steaming out, people coming to lunch and going back to work. My mind can go back a little earlier than that, before the moratorium when the people in Harbour Breton, like they did in Gaultois and Ramea, were lucky if they got Christmas Day off, or if they got summer holidays because they were working fifty-two weeks of the year because we are ice-free on that part of the coast. But, November, 2004, Mr. Speaker, it was like a veil, a dark veil, a dark blanket that came in over the community and settled on the Town of Harbour Breton; not only on Harbour Breton, but also on the Connaigre Peninsula. The people were taken by surprise, very surprised, by the very callous act - and I am going to say callous act - repugnant on behalf of FPI. Because every one of these people who are here from Harbour Breton in the gallery and the people who are back home in the Town of Harbour Breton had no idea that they were not going back to work in November. People were hoping against hope. Many of them, their EI had ran out and about to run out just before Christmas. People did not have anything.

Here we are, some months after, in a situation in Harbour Breton where the future is probably more uncertain now than it has ever been, or just as uncertain for them, even though, as the Premier said, there is some progress being made, and nobody in this House, and not even anybody, probably, from the town as well, is any more hopeful that something will happen for the town and for the Connaigre Peninsula, and many of the people who have spoken across the floor have recognized that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here, as I said, is a callous act. I can remember many meetings. I have been at many meetings with the Harbour Breton crew when we went to FPI. I am telling you, it was the same response as if you were talking to mannequins: no feeling toward us. That is the situation that we had to endure over the last number of months, and we are where we are today because of that situation.

I remember FPI because, as I said, I had been in the Legislature for a number of years when FPI's CEO was Vic Young. I am not saying that Vic Young had no flaws, did not do anything that was probably not right for the communities of Fortune, or Marystown, or Burin, or Harbour Breton, but I will tell you one thing about him that I found: If he told you something, you could take it to the bank. He was a man of his word, and that is what I like. Your word is your bond. If you give somebody your word and then you go back on it, what do you have? You do not have anything. So, here is the situation.

Am I surprised that we are in the Legislature today with FPI? Absolutely not. I am not surprised. Do I want to be here? It is not that I do not want to be. That is probably not in the right context; it is the situation that we are in. We all saw what happened to FPI in 2001.

The Premier says - and I agree with him - you have a lot of good businessmen from Newfoundland: the Rex Anthonys and the Frank Colemans of the world, on the board. I am not questioning that, but just think about it. Here is a CEO of a company - and you talk about making decisions. We have talked about it here in the House of Assembly. We talk about making sound, practical business decisions. What I am going to say has nothing against Bonavista, it has nothing against Fortune or any other town, but we are here looking at making a decision whether we are going give FPI the Income Trust or not.

Well, let's go back and look at the decision that they made only a little while ago in Bonavista. Just think about it, practical decisions from government or a company using the person's money wisely.

They have a modern plant in Port Union that could accommodate every person from Bonavista to work in the plant. How far is it away? Nine miles, and they are going to build a new plant. I am not saying that they should, but we are talking about sound principle decisions. That is the decision that they have made. What about us? Where are we? We are down on the Connaigre Peninsula, three hours from Grand Falls, with no hope. Couldn't they have taken that $8 million and built a new plant in Harbour Breton and done some subsidizing with it? I guess it is a rhetorical question that all of us can answer in a different way.

Think about the situation in Fortune - nothing against Fortune, nothing against Burin. I am just laying it out as I see it, and the people from Harbour Breton, because we are in a situation where this company have gotten themselves into the red and I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we pass the Income Trust that it will do anything in the long term for the company anyhow. If you are going to make decisions like that, you cannot last.

Think of the situation, where they have the Burin situation. Any company, if you are going to consolidate and you are going to cut down expenses, and you are going to do it, you are going to do it more efficiently from one particular building than you are from two, aren't you?

I see that situation - the company they have done - is Wal-Mart building a store side by side, with the same thing. You do not have to make a business practice like that, but that is what they have done. You talk about. Let me go a bit farther. He is saying, for example, we cannot compete in Harbour Breton in the groundfish industry because of the Chinese thing. The Chinese can process primary production cheaper than we can. I am not disputing that, but as we speak I have been told there are only two secondary processing plants in China but they are on the verge of building and putting on stream eight more.

Now, if we cannot compete in primary and they are going to build eight more, and that will give them ten secondary processing plants in China, if we cannot compete under the same conditions with primary, can we or will we compete in the secondary processing? That is a question for all of us to answer here and to think about. Whether they can or not, I do not know.

I am telling you that any community in Newfoundland and Labrador needs hope, and I know where Fortune is and I know that, with them, they have some hope. Nobody would be any happier than me if Fortune is there 200 years from now and processing 2,000 people rather than 200. The same thing with Bonavista, the same thing with Port Union, but I have a real problem with the particular way that it is being run. I really do. I really do.

You know, the thing about it is, I will ask the question. I do not know, because I have never been a CEO of a company. I am not a business person, but hopefully I have some common sense. How much does Frank Coleman play? What part does he play? How much does Rex Anthony play into it? Has it all been given to Derrick Rowe? Derrick Rowe, when he became the CEO of FPI, said: I do not know anything about fish. I am only here pro tem. But, what happened? He has been there full time now.

To talk about how the company is run, there is something about it that is not right, and that is what the people of Harbour Breton think, the same as I do: There is something just not right here. They were going to have a shareholders meeting the other day, not too long ago. They were going to have it in Newfoundland. They were going to have it in St. John's, and they thought a few people like Eric Day and Gloria and Geraldine and a few other people from Harbour Breton were going to go down to their meeting and they were going to cause havoc and cause disruption. What did they do? They went to Toronto. Where did they have it? In a small room. How long did it take? Six minutes. He said that himself; we only had to do it for the sake of doing it.

I mean, there is something basically wrong and we do not have to be Einstein to think about it. Just think about it. There is something wrong with that. What were you running from? Who were they running from? They were running from people who had given them the sweat of their brow.

Don't tell me that, over the years, there was no money made in Harbour Breton, because there was. You talk to any of the boys from Harbour Breton. In one of the stipulations in the paper that is there for us to see, they talked about all the new equipment they put in Harbour Breton. Ask the people from Harbour Breton how much new equipment was there. Do you know where the equipment came from? The equipment came from Marystown. It wasn't new equipment off the block. It came from the Marystown plant and they gave it to Harbour Breton.

You talk about productivity. Every one of those people in Harbour Breton feels that they were sabotaged. Go and ask them individually. Do you know how they figure they were sabotaged? Before they put in the new lines that they brought from Marystown, they were on a twenty-four hour production that would do about 135,000 pounds of fish, and when they brought in the new machines do you know what they did? They did 35,000, or 55,000. If you cannot make it, or you are just making it, on 125,000 and you are going to produce 35,000 or 40,000 or 45,000 pounds on the two shifts, you are going to be making a profit?

I wasn't in the plant. The people from Harbour Breton will tell you that the people who are managers there were frustrated to tears, knew that it could not work. People want it to work. These are people who have worked a long, long time for FPI and Harbour Breton. They are not Come By Johnnys. Some of them are forty-seven or forty eight years of age and have worked in the plant since they were seventeen. They chose - and I understand that - to go to the plant without furthering their education because they thought they saw a future.

Here we are today with FPI - and I have said so in the House here. It is not anything new. It is probably redundant for the people who are on the other side, but I have to say it again: The situation that we find ourselves in, in Harbour Breton, the people think there is no need of it. I have heard John George and saw e-mails, probably you already got it as well. They figure that FPI should still be a part of Harbour Breton, and that is their best chance. You know, all of the things that add up together don't make sense, even in the paper.

I do not know what chance the people of Harbour Breton would have if they went to the Labour Standards Board to get their proper severance of twelve weeks. I do not know. Nobody knows. They are going to give us $1.5 million for short-term work upfront, and the other $1.5 million is contingent on the fact that we take it off the board and we do not contest it at the Labour Standards Board. The reason why they are saying they cannot do it is because Harbour Breton plant - when they left Occupational, Health and Safety turned it down. It was not ‘occupyable', for all the obvious reasons. Who allowed it to happen? It wasn't the people from Harbour Breton who allowed it to happen, it was FPI.

In 2001, the same board of directors, the same group of people who said to Harbour Breton: Don't worry about us. The Government House Leader knows. When they told us, the FPI group: You don't have to worry about it. That was their words. We will take care of Harbour Breton. We will take care of Fortune. We will take care of Marystown. We will expand. We will put new equipment in Harbour Breton. We will build a new plant. Where are we now? We are not there. Circumstances have changed. I am not a fool to realize that business practices have not changed, consolidation has not occurred, that new technology and the way to do things have not progressed. We would be simpletons if we did not realize that.

What I am saying is that the FPI company have really done an injustice to Harbour Breton. I have told Derrick Rowe, and you have heard me say - and I did not finish the thought - you morally should give Harbour Breton people the twelve weeks work. Just imagine! If they are going to use that excuse that you can allow a business to run into the ground and as a result of that, nobody then - whoever works in any type of business afterwards can ever go to the Labour Standards Board and seek an injustice because there has been a precedent set now. What is wrong with any other company doing the same thing? I do not have to keep up my business. I can allow it to become dilapidated. I can let it run into the ground and I can get out of my obligation. That sends me a wrong message. There is something wrong with that. That is what they said and that is why the people of Harbour Breton are so skeptic about it all; they are.

We have been dealing with them and with the IAS Committee. Eric and Don - I say first names because they are friends. We have gone to FPI - and Dave Vardy. After we left the Premier's office the other day the Minister of Rural Development and the Minister of Fisheries, we went over to FPI. I am telling you, the reception that we got was unbelievable. I have never seen anything like it in my life. It was actually rude. Ask Dave Vardy about it, who is a former Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Chair of the IAS Committee. He said, I will never go back to meet with Derrick Rowe anymore. We were insulted. That is who we deal with, and that is how the people of Harbour Breton - I tell you what it is like, it is David and Goliath.

You have a small community of Harbour Breton, 2,000 people fighting FPI and fighting the federal government. I am going to tell you, the federal government have not been very helpful either. I am telling you, the problem I see with it and I cannot - people will point fingers at me and say: You were there, you were part of government. So I was. I did not do everything that was perfect and in hindsight, would probably give you some ideas how you should do things differently. But, because Harbour Breton is somehow what we would find anywhere across Canada where a business would shutdown and say: We can't do anything for you. There are no programs here. There are no programs from ACOA. There are no programs for work projects; nothing for you. We cannot do it because if you do it - the Member for St. Barbe says he wrote a letter the other day to the Government of Canada and said: if you do it for Harbour Breton you have to do it for everywhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Humber-St. Barbe.

MR. LANGDON: I am sorry. The Member for Humber-St. Barbe. Okay, I did not mean Mr. Young.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No, no. You know where I am coming from.

The same person, the same Member of Parliament for that area last year received money for Englee. What we are asking for from the federal government for Harbour Breton - he got it last year for Englee and now he is writing the federal government saying you cannot do it? There is something wrong with that.

The other situation that we have is a situation we have with the union people. We have, for example, Eric Day and the local committee, frustration. I don't know, probably Eric might have said some things sometimes but we would have all said it if we were in the same situation. The same thing with Don, frustration level. That is what it is about, frustration. I am going to tell you, you ask the people from Harbour Breton and you can see it in what has happened. The union leadership, from the top, is divide and conquer. They have not stood together, and that is some of the problems that we have. So, there are all kinds of problems.

So, let me get back to FPI then. Let me get back to FPI. Should they do something for Harbour Breton? Absolutely. Can they do something for Harbour Breton? Absolutely. I think that they can. They are going to get $100 million here. They can, if they wanted to, out of the $100 million, put some money into Harbour Breton and if there is no quota they can put the money in so that quota can be bought. They have to do that because the short term thing that we have, it is really, in a sense, not going to do it. We cannot have people working on make-work projects forever. Even at $10 an hour, you cannot do it forever. You can do it for a short term but you will have to see, at the end of the day, there is light at the end of the tunnel. You cannot do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave to clue up (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I honestly think, and the people of Harbour Breton who are here realize, that at the end of the day there must be something more substantial in what we have here in order for their community to survive. As a Legislature, I think at the end of the day, all of us - obviously, the first reason why we are here is the fact that we represent our district, but in the common good of all of us - we are all brothers and sisters, all of these communities, but I really believe that there has to be something substantial for Harbour Breton. If there is nothing substantial for Harbour Breton - if there is no quota, for example - where do they go? What do they do?

I want to separate two things here, and I will sum up with this. I recognize that there are going to have to be some things done for Harbour Breton outside of FPI, when FPI is gone by government. I realize that, but my emphasis is, we cannot let FPI off the hook. They owe Harbour Breton something, something substantial, after being there ever since the 1950s. They owe it to them. They owe it to them. These people have left these people high and dry and left them with no future.

So, at the end of the day, I really hope, I really do - I sometimes hope against hope for these people. This is not about Oliver Langdon. This is not whether you are part of the government or part of the Opposition. This is about people. This is about community. This is about a region, and all of us, at the end of the day, have to weigh what it is that we expect a company like FPI to be able to do for the people of Harbour Breton, to give them something in addition to what the government would do later on for that community. It has to. If not, as far as I am concerned, they would have perpetrated an injustice on the people of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula by walking away from them and not doing justice for their tenure in that community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have just been advised that the satellite time that we had been advised earlier would not be available after 11:30 a.m., we have now been advised that satellite time will be available until 7:00 o'clock this evening.

I wish to thank publicly the user who had that time, for giving up his time on satellite so that the House of Assembly could be shown in real time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity today to stand and speak to Bill 41.

I would like to indicate at the outset that I represent the District of Topsail, and many of the residents there are not involved with the fishing community. I believe I have a few fishermen in my community, and a few fish plant workers, but many of the residents in my district are from rural communities. I know that there are residents there from Burin, from Harbour Breton, from Bonavista. In fact, I have very good friends who are from the community of Harbour Breton.

Before I get into, I guess, the meat of my comments, I would like to acknowledge the people in the gallery. I do see some people there from my district, but I understand that there are also people there from the Burin Peninsula, from Harbour Breton, and from the Bonavista Peninsula. I am sure I have probably missed some people who are from other areas in the Province, but I would like to welcome them here today to view this very important debate.

Mr. Speaker, FPI was created in the 1980s, and at that time I was working with the Department of Finance. I can remember when FPI was created and privatized. I can remember that there was a great deal of optimism that the problems that were being experienced in the fisheries would now be resolved, or at least some of them would be resolved, with the privatization of FPI. I think that as we look back on the last twenty years we see that FPI has had its share of challenges.

I have not heard very many people get up in this House and speak favourably of FPI, but I would like to mention one thing and it is in relation to section 7 of the Act. Fishery Products International was privatized twenty years ago. It is governed by an Act of the Legislature, so, in effect, it is something like a hybrid. It is a private company. It is publicly traded. It is not a Crown corporation, but government has still been able to maintain some control over the corporation.

There has been some debate about section 7 of the Act, and whether Fishery Products actually had to come into government for approval in order to arrange financing through the Income Trust. There are legal opinions that say no, they did not have to do it, so we do have to give some credit to the corporation, that they did come in to government and ask for government's approval to proceed with this method of financing.

As I indicated, FPI has operated through the 1980s, the 1990s, and now into the twenty-first century, and it has had its share of difficulties. It is a very difficult industry that they are trying to make money in, and it has been plagued by many, many problems.

There has been some discussion in this House with regard to the financial problems being experienced by the company. I will not get into that, but you can look at their Web site and you can see that the company has a history of: some years they have profits, some years they have losses. They have had their share of challenges. Just this year, they have decided that they have to suspend their dividends for the first quarter of 2005.

One thing is clear: Fishery Products International does have problems accessing financing, and they will not survive unless they have access to money. They have come in, they have informed government they cannot assume any more debt, and are now looking at the Income Trust as a method of obtaining that financing.

Many people have gotten up in this House and have talked about the Income Trust. Income Trust is not something new. Many, many, many companies are accessing funds through Income Trust, and that company has decided that is a source of financing for them. It needs money to finance working capital. It has a high debt load. If you look at their financial statements on the Web site, you will see that their debt has increased significantly over the past year. It needs funds to retire debt, it needs money to invest in other related businesses, and it needs this money to meet the strategic objectives of the corporation. If that company cannot access funding, it will surely die. They have recognized that Income Trust is an option for them, and it is a common means of financing.

I would like to go back and talk a little bit more about FPI being privatized in the 1980s. I do not think very many people have stood in this House - I know the Premier mentioned it this morning - but that is a publicly-traded company. It is not a Crown corporation. I notice that one member on the opposite side of the House did say earlier this morning, we are going to lose control of FPI.

FPI is not a Crown corporation. It is a publicly-traded company, and I have problems when the government continues to try to interfere in the operations of a publicly-traded company for any private company. My philosophy is, how a publicly-traded company finances its operations should be a decision of the management and the board of directors.

There was some discussion here this morning like, how relevant is the board? How much power does Derrick Rowe have? I think that is a matter that has to be discussed between management and the board. I do not think that we, as Members of the House of Assembly, should be looking at Fishery Products and saying the management should do this or the board should do that. I think that the management and the board themselves should decide how the financing should be arranged.

I know there have also been some discussions with regard to how much the government should put into Fishery Products. For example, should there be loan guarantees? How much financial assistance will it give? There is a limit to what the Province can do for Fishery Products International in terms of money. The Province has its own financial problems to solve. There is a limit to what the Province can do for Fishery Products International in terms of money. The Province has its own financial problems to solve. There is a limit to what the Province can do to help Fishery Products International. The bottom line is that the Newfoundland fishery is plagued by problems, including a shortage of fish and a surplus of processing capacity.

Many members of this House have expressed concerns over whether FPI will live up to their commitments. I share those concerns, but I can tell you one thing: Voting against this amendment will not solve the problems of the fishing industry and of FPI. If I thought that voting against this amendment would solve those problems, or some of the problems, I would be the first one to stand up in this House and vote against it. Sadly, voting for Bill 41 will not solve those problems either, but it will give the company an opportunity, it gives them a window, because they have to grow and they have to operate in a competitive industry.

This government has done the best it can to obtain commitments from Fishery Products International, and they have also put in place remedies should the company default. There are restrictions on how the proceeds will be used. Yes, we were all suspicious. They are going to get $100 million from the Income Trust, or that is what they estimate. They may not get that. We were all suspicious: How will they use it? So, we plugged that loophole. We put restrictions on the distribution of funds into the future. We got a commitment for community benefits. We got a commitment for industrial benefits. We got commitments for groundfish undertakings, and we got remedies.

Like my colleagues in this House, I, too, would like to see something more done for Harbour Breton, and I do think that Fishery Products International does have a social responsibility to step up to the plate and do something for the community that has done so much for them over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: But, in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that when the time comes to vote on Bill 41, I will be voting in support of that Bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 41.

I have to be honest. From what I saw, listened to, heard, and read about, I had every intention of possibly not being able to stand here today with regard to Bill 41, because I was expecting an announcement at any time at all that everything would be fine for Harbour Breton and really what we are doing here today would be an exercise that we would not even have to consider. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, that has not happened and I will proceed with the comments that I have prepared in regard to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here in the hon. House yesterday for the full duration and I listened to members on both sides of the House express their views very seriously, because this is a very serious situation. I listened to the Premier and all the members on his side, and the Leader of our Opposition, and all members over here as well as members of the NDP Party. We heard members speak about the history of FPI, very detailed. We heard people express their concerns, what happened to them and their communities when they were younger people and what had happened. We heard what it means to Harbour Breton to be facing the situation that they face today. We heard what it means to Fortune and Bonavista, in the District of Bonavista South, what it means to them with the information that they received this week.

Mr. Speaker, we heard people stand and express their fears and doubts and concerns with this bill, whether it should pass or be defeated. We have heard concerns expressed about the involvement of the federal government. We expressed concerns, and we know the involvement of the people in the various towns, the commitments that they have made in trying to do what is best for the survival of their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, having come originally from the Burin Peninsula, I know a little bit about the situation up there and what the fishery meant to that Peninsula, whether it be Fortune, Grand Bank, Burin, Marystown, St. Lawrence or Lawn. I came from a little community, I guess, where the fishery was a lot smaller than what those people were used to, but I also knew from a very early age that if there was no fish there was no bread.

Mr. Speaker, I can relate to the total opposite, after moving from the Burin Peninsula to the wonderful area in the District of Port de Grave, and to see the total comparison of what I left to where I went; because, when you look at the community of Port de Grave, and the wonderful fishery not only in that town in particular but throughout that area, and what it means to the economy of that region, it is totally different.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back for a moment to the crab dispute that happened recently this year, just to say, by that fishery being delayed for two weeks, what an impact it has made on that area to the business community not only in my district but in the neighbouring towns as well. Mr. Speaker, they will not survive over this summer, even though the fishery is ongoing, even though the plant workers are back to work, because people are concerned about the future and they are not spending like they had in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine what it is like to Harbour Breton, what it was like with the concerns that Fortune and Bonavista had prior to the announcements this week, based on what I have seen and recognized in my own district.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the FPI Term Sheet, we see here where this company is asking government, asking this hon. House, to give them permission to sell off the marketing arm of that company.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that, when we look at some of the proposals that are there, and we also see that they are asking government for some concessions with regard to the plant that is anticipated and hopefully will go ahead - (inaudible) the FPI, but the $8 million for Fortune - we know that they are asking the government for 50 per cent of the capital in the form of an interest-free loan. We know that they are asking for concessions, as well, with regard to, I think it is $1 million for some other project they had in mind but they need matching funds from this government.

Mr. Speaker, I guess that concerns me to a certain degree when here we are today, if we vote yes to Bill 41, we are saying to them that they can sell off 40 per cent of the most lucrative part of FPI, and I hear the figure being thrown around of $100 million. We know that $30 million of it will go to reducing the debt, and we know there are other funds. It is somewhere in the vicinity, I think, of $50 million or $54 million that is still there, and I am sure it will be used to the best advantage of the company, but I have concerns why they cannot invest more of that in this Province, whether it be Harbour Breton or some other infrastructure here in this Province in relation to the fishery, because we know FPI was created right here in this hon. House. I believe that they owe a great deal to the people of this Province, and I think that has to be looked at, even though we will voting later today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to know that the operations will continue in Marystown, Port au Choix, Port Union, Triton and Burin. I am also very pleased to know that Fortune and Bonavista are to get new facilities. That is all wonderful, but, Mr. Speaker, the concern that I have - and it is a serious concern that I have - is that the commitments that are made - it is all fine for all those communities, but I would think that someone who is selling off their most valuable arm of their company should have a longer plan in mind than committing five years to each and every one of those communities in this Province. I have concerns with that, Mr. Speaker, because it is all subject to raw material supply and economic viability.

Mr. Speaker, I know the negotiations have been ongoing for fourteen months between government, FPI and all the shareholders. They must have spent many long hours debating and seeking for more than what we had originally heard of. However, for whatever reasons, I guess FPI must have seen the trend of the way things were going - and I do not mean to take anything away from the work of the government team that met with FPI for the fourteen months, but we saw more happening in the last two days. We got this proposal, I think it is dated June 6, and by June 8 we had funding for a new plant in Fortune, a new plant in Bonavista. I say hurray for those two communities and to the residents there.

If this company - they are asking us to put our trust in them in good faith, and that is what we had done when we got this proposal. I thought we were coming here to the House to debate what was in that proposal but it changed within two days, and I have to say, it changed for the better. Then, Mr. Speaker, it makes you doubt what they are telling you upfront is actually what they have in mind.

Bill 41, Mr. Speaker, is about allowing FPI to sell their most valued asset and creating new income for the company. Having said that, that is all wonderful, Mr. Speaker, but I have to say to you, and I think someone said last evening, we are in the eleventh hour. We are to the point now where it is less than the eleventh hour. The buck stops right here with us. The forty-seven people in this hon. House will either stand one way or the other at the end of the day. When we stand and vote on this proposal there will be no more negotiations when it comes to that part of it. There will be no more arguments. There will be no more promises because today, June 10, will be the day of decision when it comes to Bill 41.

I have to say, it was the taxpayers of this Province, and probably throughout the country, who provided hundreds of millions of dollars to create FPI. I believe FPI has an obligation to the fishing communities that it represents in this Province. When we vote today, I ask: Will we give away that obligation? Will we give away that commitment? When we vote today, will we have an FPI? I have to say, yes, we will have an FPI but I do not think it will be an FPI as we know it today. They say they had to sell this to survive and expand.

I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, when I see where they are spending the money in this Province to pay the debt or to build those two plants and with $54 million left over, I have to ask: Where are they going to expand their business? What is involved? I think other members opposite referenced the freezer trawlers and that yesterday, and I am wondering: Is that where this money will be spent? As I said earlier, they are selling 40 per cent of the most lucrative arm of that company. The other question we have to ask is: Will they continue to sell it until that full 100 per cent of the 65 per cent of that company is gone?

FPI are promising to continue to market seafood for other Newfoundland companies. If they should continue to sell off their marketing arm, what happens there? Will there be any protection to assist those other processors here in this Province? Like I said earlier, they are seeking guarantees from this government, and I believe that more of the $100 million should be spent to guarantee what they have committed to, rather than looking for concessions from our government.

We talk about commitments and guarantees. I have to say, with all sincerity, what commitments? What guarantees? If Bill 41 is passed I believe FPI will have a freewheeling hand on what they wish to do. The most they can put on the table, according to the information I have received, is five years, pending viability and raw material supply. I would say, and all due respect, five years to those communities is crucial. I know that. Five years to Harbour Breton today would be wonderful news - for Bonavista and Fortune and all the others - knowing that they are going to be around for another five years, but for me, when I look at this large company and the assets that they have and they want to sell off this arm so that they can expand and grow, I would like to see that growth here in this Province. A five year plan to me, it is not enough and it is not good enough. I have to say that being the good corporate sponsors this company has been, I think they owe more than that to this Province.

As I said earlier, this company was created here in Newfoundland and Labrador and I believe they have a commitment to every community, and more so to Harbour Breton, because as we speak right now I do not see anything on the books that is satisfactory to the people of that wonderful community who have been good to this company. We all agree that FPI has to do what is viable. However, I say to them: Don't forget who created you. Don't forget who made you viable. Don't forget the communities who accepted you.

I am pleased with the commitments made to those other communities, as I have stated earlier. The only thing, I wish they were for longer than a five year time frame. I fail to be able to say that this is long-range planning. I have heard members say here, and I am proud when I heard the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Grand Bank say: We agree with this. We see a light at the end of the tunnel. My hope is that the gleam of light will grow to be a very bright light, but when we look at the tunnel to Harbour Breton we see nothing, only the tunnel completely blocked. No light will ever shine through at its present stage.

It has been said that if this company is not permitted to advance it could strangle in the market place. That is not very good news, Mr. Speaker, but I have to say, neither is it good news for the people of Harbour Breton to be strangling in their own Province. Harbour Breton and its residents have been good to FPI and we ask nothing less in return from this company.

Will the plant go ahead in Bonavista? I sure hope so. Will the plant go ahead in Fortune? I sure hope so. Will Burin, Marystown, Port au Choix, Port Union and Triton remain viable? I sure hope so. With all of this said, and if Harbour Breton were to get news today that they are being given what they have requested, I would have to say that I still have concerns about Bill 41. For a company who has the desire to expand and grow, a five-year plan, to me, is no acceptable to the good people of this Province. To me, it is basically a slap in the face.

Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that I firmly believe that in less than ten years the only happy people about all of this will be one Mr. Risley and the shareholders of FPI. This bill is all about FPI selling its most valuable resource. Yes, on the forefront we see a concern for the people of this Province, but I do not call it a solid concern when I look at a five-year time frame. I do not believe we should ever be here in this House debating this bill unless there was something there concrete for Harbour Breton just as it has been provided for Bonavista and Fortune. I have seen the hon. Member for Lake Melville say, why didn't I give John a call? Here we go again with the political rhetoric that was never supposed to be debated here in this House on this wonderful debate.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the proposal that has been put forward, they have pitted community against community, really, members in the hon. House debating which way to go when we look at members on both sides of the House. I say no quota for Harbour Breton is devastating. I mean, if Harbour Breton should go by the wayside after today's vote, I can assure you, of all of the communities on that list, who will be next?

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with a statement that was made by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works. I am sure he will not mind me using one of his quotes.

MR. RIDEOUT: As long as it is accurate.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, it is accurate, sir. It is right from our wonderful Hansard, and it goes back to March 12, 2002, about the same company but a different scenario, but I think his words are fitting today. I quote, when he said, "Never let us forget, Mr. Speaker, that Fishery Products International is the company of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was created to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Then he goes on to say - and the topic of conversation was about the 15 per cent cap. It was in 1999, and he said in 1999 that: We did not agree to remove the 15 per cent cap. Thank God we did not fall prey to the invitation of FPI executives themselves to remove it. Thank God we did not do that because, if we had done that, Mr. Speaker, we, as I said, would not have the right, I do not believe, to be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with those notes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 to this bill as well, Bill 41.

I have an FPI plant in my district, in the Town of Port au Choix, Mr. Speaker, very significant to the economy of the Northern Peninsula. When Fishery Products came to Port au Choix back in 1965, and brought in a floating groundfish plant, it was the beginning of a time of resettlement in this Province. Because of the stability that plant brought to that town, that was the town that was chosen to be the community where everybody was to resettle. It was the growth centre, and a lot of things were built around that plant.

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning, from a floating plant to one that was built onshore, to expanding into the shrimp, it was nothing but growth and the possibilities seemed endless, but today in Port au Choix we just have a shrimp plant. After the cod moratorium we saw great turmoil coming in through all of our communities, and Port au Choix was no exception. We had to make difficult decisions, whether to go out there and accept what the future looked like and try to make up how to best navigate those waters, and I think the town at the time had chosen that yes, we will accept the proposal that was put forward by FPI and that it would become a shrimp plant and a shrimp plant only. That was an extremely difficult decision to make at the time. Today we have a plant there that is very prosperous, and we look to a great future with it.

I look today at the opportunities there with the proposals that we have because of the shrimp, and what possibilities are there, but when I went back to the district this past week, after being briefed by the government officials and by Derrick Rowe, with his pitch into what the future would look like, I saw those opportunities and I took them back, but I must say that when I went back to the district I heard a lot of concerns.

There was a lot of distrust, I suppose, when you have gone through great change and uncertainty and everything that comes in seems to be less employment, less opportunities, and we seem to be boxing ourselves in. So, if you have communities ongoing with this kind of struggle, it brings you about with a certain mindset, and I think the mindset was there, a mistrust in any regard.

A number of things that were said to me were, it did not make any difference if we vote yes or no here today, it was just a mistrust in general. We debated some of those concerns and I had followed through with them in exploring those possibilities, but I suppose the one that came back most from the people in my district was the five years. We know that five years is nothing but a blink of an eye in the life of a community, and the trials, so it continuously came back to me: How can you have something in a five-year span that is going to be viable and, on that basis, have it as an assurance? It really does not mean anything to the people, because we have to look at our communities in much longer terms, as in generations and in mortgages, and what we want to do to be able to go out and prosper and to grow and have a good quality of life, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that keeps coming up in there, it is not so much for the processors or the plant in itself but for the harvesters as well. Back in the Gulf fleet, we had an opportunity to go to Quebec at one time. Because it was owned outside the Province, and the regulations - if you could sail into a port in Quebec, it was fine. You could sail there and you could sell your product and, because they had competition at that time, because that was possible, the price had gone up significantly. They were no longer trapped into a system in Newfoundland. They saw that as a great advantage, and they had seen a price for shrimp that was $1.10 a pound that year to $1.15. It was incredible, the change. The price had doubled because they had negotiating powers.

Those people see any change, or anything that is boxed in, or anything that is coming down, as a change for the worst and not as a change for the good, so I guess the change brings concern naturally. It is not something that you can accept with open arms, because you have so many opportunities there but you also have so many ways that things can go bad.

I think the people were very concerned that it was there, and they expressed those concerns, although there were many in the community as well who saw the opportunity, and I came back and wanted to express that I was not selling this on anybody's behalf, because I certainly would not want to be the person to go out there and say: This is good. I know exactly what is going to happen. I just wanted to let the people know that I was bringing it back. I saw what I saw. I expressed the concerns, and I heard them and agree with them. I have the same concerns, but I also saw the opportunity. I wanted to express those opportunities and the fact that we became a shrimp plant, and a shrimp plant only, because that is where we are growing, and we are growing. We have the Gulf shrimp there, which is a very valuable stock. It is a higher value than the Northern shrimp. So that has been given as a good base, a good assurance that we have value in the system, whether it is FPI or in the whole shrimp industry. We have an edge. We have a hook in there, which is a very good hook, and it gives us some assurance that we see a future.

In seeing a company that is interested in going out and expanding in its marketing abilities - to have a company like FPI who markets more than just FPI and markets other shrimp companies as well. The Northern Peninsula and my district - I have three shrimp plants. The economy of the Northern Peninsula today, the economic engine is backed by the shrimp industry. To have FPI go and expand into Europe, to buy a company that will put them into the face of the customers, to understand their customers better - to get that volume out into Europe from Newfoundland is extremely important. The same as they do in the U.S., by being a company in Europe it will give them an opportunity to get around that 20 per cent tariff. It will reduce the 20 per cent tariff to a 6 per cent tariff when they repackage. So many things have held back the growth of this industry here. We are not being able to take advantage of the industrial shrimp as we should, or bring the jobs in to expand our season, or fill in the holes where we have people laid off, or just not working at a time is extremely important.

I see those things are positive and I can see where Port au Choix will grow and Port au Choix will have an opportunity with FPI. I see where the shrimp industry will grow as a whole, which will mean certainly the Northern Peninsula and certainly the Province as a whole. So, I see the positives. I expressed those positives. Not that I wanted those people to go out there and just agree with me. I just wanted to have a debate. I just wanted to present it and I did. A lot of people did share in what I saw and I appreciate it.

I met with the council, and at the time it was kind of bad timing. We are fortunate enough to have an FPI plant in Port au Choix, but unfortunately the plant had to shut down the day I was there because there was no water in town. So, you always have to take care of today's business today and worry about the future when you get an opportunity, and that was the case there.

The council had gone and debated last night, had brought out the information they had and had sized it up. In talking to the mayor this morning she said it started off basically with a no. I think the concerns are too great. I think we have something, and we have to look and stay where we are today because that gives us a certain amount of security. Then that changed to a maybe, where there is opportunity and you balance the two. Then, at the end of the night, they felt that it was a yes, that we have to go for the opportunities. We cannot stay here. We are just a shrimp plant now. We cannot grow anywhere else. We look at the groundfish as it is being trucked out and we see those opportunities, but understanding the bigger picture, the competition and world global, that the opportunity to have the groundfish is not really relevant, or not really a good opportunity there. The way to grow the town, the way to grow the business would be to expand the shrimp industry and doing that to Europe - which is our biggest market - was the way to go.

The council came back and said, in talking to the mayor this morning: we will go with your wishes. You are here. You have an opportunity to have information that we do not have, but we understand that if you vote yes we will certainly take your backing. I appreciate them doing that because this is certainly a big responsibility today when I stand to vote here.

The line that I heard most of all was from my neighbour here, that this a debate about communities, all of our communities. This is not just an isolation as FPI, that we are just one company, one thing. This is about our communities. It is about rural Newfoundland. It is about the whole thing that we can put ourselves in the place of Harbour Breton and see that you would be debating something that would have a future, that did not include a certain group of people, and that they would be left in the cold; they would be left behind and not a part of our future.

For me, Mr. Speaker, when I got elected first, I came here and Black Duck Cove had just lost its operator. The struggles that we had gone through and that I had an opportunity to be with day in and day out, it was incredible to see the highs and the lows, the despair, the hope and the whole thing. It gives you a real sense to know from any time that you stand and vote on something that is not directly to your district, that you know how low the lows can be. You can see the people who are moving away, the communities are dying and the people are at the food banks. Then, for me, in the struggles that we have gone through, that it turned out fortunate for Black Duck Cove.

I spoke to one of the people that I had worked very closely with and she said it was amazing to see someone, who two years ago did not know, basically, where their next meal was coming from or how they were going to actually get to Alberta, to be out purchasing a new vehicle and being able to take part in a life and the benefits that we have - for so many who take it for granted - to be able to do that and see the change in attitude. For me, the responsibility and seeing my colleague across the way and knowing the people that he represents, I certainly would not want, in any way, to see them left out because I certainly feel what it is.

I think the people here - and we all do, because our communities have been affected. I do not think there are very many people who sit in this House who have not had a neighbour - community, if not their own - who have not been affected in a negative way through the changing in the fishery. As I said, the opportunities that we had in Port au Choix was groundfish, it was shrimp, it was whatever. We sought out the whole possibilities. Then we see where we would shrink back to shrimp and we would see employment that was close to 600 down to just over 100. We see where we would be narrowed in and then we would see where the possibilities of that even becoming less as we saw truckload after truckload of the fish product go by our door and the struggle to try to get a fair share of that.

To see and understand those things, Mr. Speaker, is certainly a wealth of information or a wealth of knowledge or a wealth of experience that we certainly need as to get up there and to understand what we are doing today and how we include all of our people in this because this Province is - we are here as a whole and we must always look at it as a whole. As I say that, we also have to see that we cannot take any one thing and solve all of our problems with it. We have to see that this is the right way to move for this today and it will take as many as we can and benefit as many as we can but we have to see other avenues and other revenues.

I understand the problem is that when you go out of there. The many times that I was offered option number two, option number two was nowhere in the neighbourhood of what we had just lost. Sometimes I go back and say that it has been suggested to me that we should try to get tee-shirts and put something on it and compete with Hong Kong but it just was not acceptable. I think many ways today when we go out there we are putting a bitter effort into our communities and seeing that we are using all of our resources to bring them together to find solutions, which to me is a far cry from some of the things that was suggested to me on the Northern Peninsula as a community leader that would help my community survive. It certainly was not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that, as I said, it is all or nothing in a lot of our communities. I certainly hope that is not the case with FPI, or any community that FPI is in today. I certainly hope and pray that the decision we make today will not leave the people I am responsible for voting for, in particular, disappointed. I have no means of knowing for sure what five or six years down the road will bring for me, but I hope and I look for every sign to make the right decision.

I suppose, in conclusion, the council and the mayor, as I said, in the debate they had last night, went from no to maybe to yes, and I have to agree with the yes part of it, I think, in how I vote here today; because, if you see an opportunity to make something and to bring value and to grow, you have to believe that, where I see opportunity and growth and benefit, the people who are exploiting the resource on our behalf as a people will see exactly what I am seeing and will see the value in staying there and treating this resource and this opportunity and what we offer them into the future.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on what I believe to be one of the most important debates that I have been involved in here in the House of Assembly in the years I have been here, and we have had some very crucial ones over those years.

Certainly, before I get into it, I would like to take a little walk down memory lane, I think, in relation to my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's. Back in the early 1990s, before I got into politics, there were ten fish plants operating in my district at the time, stretching from Trepassey to Argentia. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are two operating, so we have all felt what many people in the Province are feeling today in regard to the fish plants and in regard to the employment opportunities that came from those fish plants, and the importance of the fishery to the people of the Province, and indeed not only in rural Newfoundland, where we get caught up sometimes in talking about how important the fishery is to rural Newfoundland, but indeed how important the fishery is to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that today it is not an issue that we are here to talk about in just the community of Harbour Breton. It is an issue of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that is why this has evolved into the important discussion that we are having here today.

Mr. Speaker, when we go trying to straighten out or trying to correct problems in any industry in our Province, it is important that we get the players to the table who are involved in that industry, that we get the players to the table who have input into trying to fix the problem or trying to at least alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised.

Over the past couple of weeks, and especially over the past couple of days, we have heard of the people who have been at that table. We have heard of the towns that have been involved, the different towns that have FPI plants, notably the Town of Harbour Breton. We have heard tell of the FFAW being at the table, and their having negotiations and discussions and playing a part in that. We have heard also that the company themselves, FPI, have been at the table and been part of those discussions, and that over the past fourteen or fifteen months, as I understand, the provincial government has been part of those discussions.

I have to take the opportunity today - some people may find it somewhat strange - to applaud the government on at least bringing those people together at the table and putting what they believe to be the case forward now, as they understand it, to be the best case for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to FPI. It is up to us, as members here in the House, over the next twelve hours, or ten hours, or whatever is left in today's discussions now, to decide on where we are going to go.

The big thing that I find very compelling and find very strange, to be honest with you, is that, of all of the people who have been at the table here, and out of all of the people who have been part of these discussions, there is one main ingredient that seems to be missing, and it is very straightforward. That is the federal government.

I, as a member here in the House, ask the question, when we look back on the destruction of the fishery - and we all played a part in that. Newfoundland and Labrador played a part in it, and many people involved in the fishing industry played a part, but the main perpetrators of the destruction of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I see it, in my opinion, were the federal government. They were the managers of the resource. They were the people who were responsible for the allocations. They were the people who were responsible for making sure that the industry was run properly. I feel that they fell by the wayside and did not live up to their responsibility.

Now, when the provincial government and FPI and the FFAW and the towns that are involved are sitting around the table and want someone else to be part of the solution - because we have a problem. We all recognize that we have a problem, but we are trying to find a solution to that problem. In trying to find that solution, we reach out to the people who are involved, the people who have been part of the problem, and we reach out to the federal government.

I heard the Premier, in questions that he was answering this morning, mention Minister Stronach, Minister Regan and Minister McGuire, that he has had discussions with in regard to income support, in regard to quotas, in regard to finding a way to get some money from ACOA for business enterprises and so on. I ask: Where are the commitments from the federal government?

They say you cannot be political, but we are all politicians. Where is the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue? - a very important issue to the people of this Province, not only the people of Harbour Breton, I repeat, but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Where is the commitment from the federal government through our regional minister, through the people who are involved?

We are here today discussing a future that we are all - none of us here can look into a crystal ball and see what that future is, but we all have a part to play in it, and I believe that the federal government has certainly shirked its responsibility here, the federal ministers have shirked their responsibility here, and I hope and pray before the day's end that somebody steps up to the plate; because, as I said before, this is not about one town. This is not about one area of the Province. This is about Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the federal government owe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe they owe the people of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula. I believe that FPI owe these people, and I believe that we owe these people. We owe these people to step up to the plate and do what we can.

I believe all members here in the House of Assembly - and I have listened to everybody on both sides of the House over the past day-and-a-half speak - I believe that we are all signing out of the one hymn book, more or less, in most cases. We all believe that there has to be something done, that we have to try to find a solution, but we have to find that solution with all players at the table.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line there has been a major amount of fiscal mismanagement here on FPI's part, in my view, for whatever reason. We ask about the promises that have been made, that have been put forward in the past couple of days, and the commitments to those promises, and the concerns that have been raised by the communities of Bonavista and other communities that are going to reap some benefits, hopefully, over the next couple of years. How strong are those commitments? Where is the security for those commitments, Mr. Speaker? Certainly these are questions that have been asked, and we ask the question that somebody put forward this morning: What community is the next Harbour Breton?

If we have a company that is going to go out now and sell an Income Trust and raise money to further expand their businesses in the Province, is that going to be enough at the end of the day? The money that is raised, is that going to be enough to sustain these other communities, Mr. Speaker?

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, prior to my getting into politics in 1993, there were ten fish plants operating in my district. When you buy into the Income Trust, are you buying into a building or are you buying into a product? My belief is that they are buying into the product of fish. If we have a problem with the resource now, we are going to have a problem maybe next year with resource. Are we all going to sit down here and believe that all the resources are going to come back and all of this is going to be straightened out in a few years, and therefore the money that is being raised is going to be able to take care of the concerns that are out there?

We have communities that are dying. We have communities that, each and every day we hear - and I go back to the Town of Trepassey. I spoke to someone in Trepassey last night. It went from a population of 1,500 people down to a population of between 800 and 900 at the present time. Houses that are worth $200,000 here in St. John's are worth $20,000 in Trepassey. Six hundred people worked in the plant, several hundred people on draggers, providing all kinds of opportunities for young and old alike, Mr. Speaker, and if you drive through that town today, people are struggling to survive. There was a $7 million diversification fund - I could be wrong on that - put in place in Trepassey to help people out. I heard the former Mayor of Trepassey, on CBC radio a couple of days ago, talking about the opportunities that have come from that diversification fund, which created somewhere around 100 jobs, give or take. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are jobs there, but the fact is, it is a long ways from where they were.

I believe that we all have a role to play here, that we all have to put up and stand up and say: This is not about a community, this is about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is about urban Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is about the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is very important that we sit down and try to come to terms with what we are doing here today in relation to the future of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. In all sincerely, I think that we need to get the federal government involved with this, right up to their necks, and have something on the table here from the federal government, for the people of Harbour Breton in this particular case, before we stand up to vote. If Harbour Breton is allowed to go by the wayside on this issue today, my belief is there is going to be a standard set, a precedent set, for the next Harbour Breton, wherever that community may be.

If they are allowed to do that today, allowed to say, here is $3 million, whether it is FPI or someone else, Mr. Speaker - where is $3 million going? The question is: Is $3 million going to be enough for Bonavista in two or three years time? Is $3 million going to be enough for Fortune in two or three years time? Is $3 million going to be enough for Port au Choix in two or three years time? These are the questions that need to be asked. If they are allowed to move on and turn their backs and go on up over the Connaigre Peninsula and forget about Harbour Breton in this situation today, therefore they are going to do the same thing over and over again.

Are we looking at a company, Mr. Speaker, in this case here, that is going to be around in five or six years time? As we see it now - and we have heard it through Question Period here which talked about the dilution of shares and the fact that there is no commitment from the Icelanders on this situation - can they come in and buy the 40 per cent, or pretty well the 40 per cent, and then start moving in on the 60 per cent that is left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, in relation to other fish companies that are here in the Province, most of the fish companies that are here, as I understand it, market through the marketing arm of FPI in the United States. Yes, that has been addressed, and the provincial government has addressed that concern here, Mr. Speaker, but the question is the commitment. Is it strong enough? Is the security strong enough? People have to reach a level of comfort with that.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are here today in a very precarious situation, for the simple reason that we have plans on the books here, Mr. Speaker, for several communities in our Province that are going to, in a lot of cases, help those communities survive. I will use the case of Bonavista. I listened to the eloquent speech put forward by the member yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as he worked in the fishing industry, the fish plant there in Bonavista, and I have heard the people from there. Here we have a situation where these people have a light at the end of their tunnel, Mr. Speaker. They have a light at the end of their tunnel, but at the same time we have the Harbour Breton situation over here that every member in this House, I believe, would like to see a resolution to. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we will have something for that.

That is the situation that we find ourselves in. We are all here, Mr. Speaker, everybody is at the table, in regard to the people who are involved in the negotiations. As I understand, from listening to the members opposite, for over fourteen months the negotiations have been ongoing. The package has been put forward to us as members of the House. At the same time, I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I believe there is something wrong with the equation when the federal government is not a major player at this table, when the ministers who are involved with this file, Mr. Speaker, at the Ottawa level are not a major player at the table, when our own regional minister, Minister Efford - I do not mind bringing anyone's name forward and the fact that they are not part of this solution, Mr. Speaker, in trying to find a solution to the problem that we find ourselves in.

I think if we had something that could give a level of comfort to the people of Harbour Breton today - that level of comfort, I believe, cannot come from the people in this House. It cannot come from the people opposite, in regard to the government, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that: How much is enough. Is $10 million, $15 million, $50 million enough? At the end of the day the money will run out, but the fact is, at the end of the day there are quotas involved and only the federal government can decide who gets the quotas. We can all stand up and support Harbour Breton in its quest for a quota, but the fact is the decision to have that quota put in Harbour Breton is a decision of the federal government, the federal minister and them alone. I think that is the important issue that we find here today. As much as we all want to bring forward and alleviate some of the concern at the Harbour Breton level, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is really out of our hands. We can lobby and we can push forward that concern but at the same time the decision rests with someone else.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I guess, it comes down to - we look back, we look at Gaultois, we look at Ramea, we look at Trepassey, we look at the past and I guess it is wise sometimes to look back as we look forward. I think that is where we are now in this regard, trying to figure out where the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be in five years time, where the flag ship company, FPI, is going to be in five year's time, and how important that company is to the other companies in Newfoundland and Labrador?

One of the members opposite spoke yesterday, quoting the words of Ches Penney, who is involved with the fish company here in the Province, and certainly involved in my district in buying fish product, Mr. Speaker, and how important FPI is to that company in regards to their growth and expansion and their survival over the next couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we go forward here today and we try to reach some level of comfort, and certainly some security that can be put forward in relation to dealing with the people from Harbour Breton - I do not think it is only FPI that needs to step up the plate here. As I say, they have brought forward some things, sure, and may bring forward some others, some dollars worth and everything else that can be brought forward, but, at the same time, there are other players involved here and, as other members have mentioned, it is all not black and white. There is a lot of gray area here in relation to dealing with this issue.

We have a company that is highly leveraged, as some people spoke about this morning. At the same time, how far out on the limb can you go and survive? You know, is the $75 million to $100 million that is going to be raised in the Income Trust enough to keep this company alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador over the next couple of years, Mr. Speaker? Are the commitments that have been made commitments that can be kept, in relation to the fact that, over the next period of time, as the resource dwindles and we all have concerns with the crab fishery and the amount of crab and the quotas that are coming for crab and so on and so forth? The groundfish quota itself that they talked about is worth a certain amount of dollars today. It could be worth a certain amount of dollars a few years down the road.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, that everybody who has been at the table, in relation this issue so far, has put their best foot forward. That includes the FFAW, the people who are involved from the union perspective at the plants, the towns that have been involved, the provincial government that has been involved, and indeed, anybody else who has played a part in bringing us here today.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government needs to step up to the plate. We have a few hours left in this day before we take a vote here. Hopefully, as the day progresses, we have some movement from the federal government, not a promise of dealing with something two or three months down the road, but a commitment that can be made here in this Province today. I call on all federal members of Newfoundland and Labrador, on both sides of the House of Commons, I call on our regional minister here today, Mr. Efford, I call on the different ministers who have been involved in negotiations, to make sure that before we end up here today we have a commitment from the federal government, not only to the people of Harbour Breton but, indeed, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe only by having that commitment can we move forward on this today in a way that is, at least, comfortable to the people of the Province, at least gives us some reassurance and, at the end of the day, some hope.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier about the time I represented the Town of Trepassey, in the ensuing years after their plant shut down, and I can only visualize what is going to happen in Harbour Breton over the next couple of years as the U-Hauls move in and people pack up and leave and the town begins to die. I think that it is a collective responsibility on us all here in the House of Assembly, and indeed all of the people of the Province.

I reiterate and finish up with this comment, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate the importance of having the federal government, and a strong commitment from the federal government, as part of the equation to have a solution to the problem that we face. I think, regardless of who is involved, what parties are involved, the fact is that unless the federal government steps up to the plate before this day is out and plays an important part in the decision that we are trying to make here today, this is only detrimental to the people of Harbour Breton, this will be detrimental to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill before we vote on it. Even though my district is not affected by it in any material way, I find that I am passing judgement on a bill that will have an effect on other communities in our Province.

This is not the first free vote that I have taken part in. I do not know how many votes there have been, but about twenty-five years ago I found myself standing against my party on the flag issue. I believe the only person here who participated in that vote was the Member for Lewisporte.

While my district has not been affected, in that Fishery Products International is not a player in the area that I represent, there is a relationship, as was pointed out to me by my friend, the Mayor of Harbour Breton, Don Stewart, yesterday. There is a relationship between Port au Port and Harbour Breton in that, during Commission of Government, I think, in the 1930s, the people of Sagona Island were transferred to the Port au Port Peninsula, to a place called Clam Bank Cove. They came up there the first summer, they built their homes, and then the families came back the next summer and the community has been there ever since. It is now known under the name of Lourdes in my district. There are a lot of people who still go back to Harbour Breton, and still have close ties with Harbour Breton, and no doubt are following this debate.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, but from 1992 - I left politics in 1993 and came back in 2003, and the district which I had represented had been affected by the moratorium. The fish plant that was in the district, which has been run by National Sea, later had been run by the Pike company, and after that some Americans. It then became a plastic plant, and now is an empty building.

During that time, changes happened in the district and the young people have left. Most people who live in that area of the district - that is the Port au Port Peninsula - a lot of them are seasonal workers who work on the mainland and come back. The economy is in tatters. I guess that was one tragedy that happened in this Province, and Harbour Breton is our latest tragedy.

The Island was founded on the fishery and it has been managed ever since. Our fishery has been managed ever since by the federal government, since we came into Confederation in 1949. I have always said that we could do better ourselves. I believe that the federal government owes a great debt to Newfoundland.

I had the occasion at one time to visit Iceland, and I was totally amazed that a country with the same population as Newfoundland, with less resources but a comparable fishery - I believe ours is larger - has been able, on their own, to do what they have done in their country. I believe that the federal government has not managed our fishery well, and I think they owe something to Harbour Breton. I think, as well, that the same should go for the Harbour Bretons of this country and the fishermen of this Province as for the farmers of Saskatchewan or the cattlemen of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a strange time. The other side of the coin is that, in the past ten years, globalization has occurred. There are two sides to this bill. In this area of globalization, there is no doubt that any company that is trying to do business in the world must have the ability to be able to work in all countries. I heard the Member for Burin last night say that salmon from Peru were being processed in Fortune.

Mr. Speaker, when I left politics in 1993, as a member here in this Legislature, there were no computers in the members' offices. Nobody used e-mail; letters were the norm. There was a fax machine. One time I was dealing with a company on the mainland and the fax machine was in the Premier's office. I was not sure how it worked, and I couldn't tell my secretary how it happened. I come back ten years later and here we are. So, companies must be mobile; it is a different world. Today, we have to depend on the satellite to broadcast the words that are being spoken here.

Mr. Speaker, there is a human side of globalization, and that is the fact that we tear jobs out of our communities and they go to the other side of the world, which is good for them, where there are people who work for lower wages, and I expect that Fishery Products International has to contend with that.

Then, on the other side, you have to ask: What is the price of a child's happiness? I have had e-mails; I have been reading e-mails. They came all day yesterday from children in Harbour Breton, an historic town. It has been bound by the sea, generation after generation after generation, and FPI has left it and they have asked us to bring in this legislation. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for FPI to do something else.

I am not quite sure how I am going to vote, even at this moment. I know that we have tried to close the loopholes in this legislation. I understand that the legal cases go each way. FPI could have probably gone ahead and done it anyway, and when you are dealing with a company, even if you have some control over it, you have to give it its head. I do know that FPI has a heavy debt, that it has to compete in the marketplace, that it has to compete with the Chinese, and the rising Canadian dollar affects it, but does this mean that communities have to go down the drain? Will FPI keep its commitments to us? I certainly hope so. Our only hope is that we can hold their feet to the fire in the communities that they have promised to help.

Mr. Speaker, I have to give praise to the negotiating committee, to the Premier and the negotiating committee. Over the past seventeen months they took something and they have rung concessions from the company. I understand because the company does not want to get involved in a long legal battle. The company is doing something that is quite legal. It is something that other companies do. At the same time, the company is a creature of this Legislature as well as a private company.

I do hope that they will do something further for Harbour Breton. I do hope they will keep their commitments that they have made. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very difficult decision. In the next hour or so I have to make - they say a man about to be hanged concentrates his mind very well, and I hope by the time the time comes for me to say aye or nay that I have made a final decision. But, whichever decision I make, Mr. Speaker, it will not be one that is totally satisfying.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place in the House of Assembly to - and I cannot say that I am happy to rise. I guess I have been around here for sixteen years. I have participated in a lot of soul searching debates and looking at the future of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Meech Lake Accord, denominational education, all these kinds of issues.

I was on the Trans-Canada the other night driving back from my district and listening to the people calling in to the Open Line program. I remember listening to the people and the difficulty that people face within the community of Harbour Breton; I guess a few of the callers and the difficulties that they are facing within their lives and how difficult it is. You know, anybody who could drive without the tears coming to their eyes is very, very - I do not know where you are coming from because this is - right here, what we have seen is a company pitting one community against another.

We, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are very generous people and we always like to do what is best for everybody. We have a company now that will be given the mandate to do whatever it wants and, I guess, today we could be participating in a debate comparable to the Churchill Falls. To me, after listening to all the arguments and listening to the debate over the last number of days, what we may be doing here - and I do not want to go down in history as part of it - as being the biggest giveaway since the Churchill Falls agreement. That is how serious, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today.

The Member for Burin-Placentia West talked about the Burin Peninsula. You know, I represent part of the Burin Peninsula, and when he mentioned the Burin Peninsula the other day he left out some of the communities that contribute greatly to FPI. I am talking about the people in English Harbour East, Terrenceville, Grand Le Pierre, St. Bernard's, Harbour Mille and those communities. These were the people who went out and harvested the fish that was processed in the plants on the Burin Peninsula. They went out in extreme conditions. Some of them were my family, Mr. Speaker. Some of them lost their lives out processing and harvesting the fish. That is what we talking about here. We are talking about a generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have given their lives and their time to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you, twenty or thirty years ago getting on a dragger and going out on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland wasn't a very, very easy task for anybody.

I listened to these people on the Open Line programs and when I got back the next morning I went into a briefing session on this particular bill. I have to tell you that I was really, really disappointed in terms of what was being proposed. At that particular time there was no guarantee for Fortune, no guarantee for Bonavista, no guarantee for Harbour Breton. I have letters here for Bonavista and Fortune. This is the agreement, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know why these letters or this here is not part of this agreement here. When I asked the questions nobody could tell me if this is part of this particular contract, or whatever it is that the government is calling it. These letters are to Mr. Earle McCurdy, President of the union, talking about their investments in Fortune and talking about the investments in Bonavista. Now, I have to congratulate the people of Fortune, without any help from this government they went and negotiated. Led by the union leadership and the committees from Fortune, they went and they negotiated a future for Fortune.

My understanding is, from Bonavista, that the representatives from Bonavista - the union and the leadership from Bonavista - went and negotiated this particular agreement, but I do not know right now if this is part of this agreement here. I do not know if this is a part of this agreement and I would like to feel more comfortable if it is part of this agreement. It does not seem to be a part of the agreement.

Over the last number of days in this House we have proposed some of the difficulties or some of the problems with this particular piece of legislation. We proposed some amendments, Mr. Speaker, and I want to propose an amendment now that will ensure that Fortune and Bonavista will be covered. When we rise today to vote I want it to be made part of the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the future of Fortune and Bonavista will be ensured.

My amendment is that all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefore: "The House declines to give second reading to Bil1 41, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, until provisions are made so that portion of the funds raised through an Income Trust necessary to fulfil commitments made by the Company to the communities of Fortune and Bonavista can be placed in trust with government to ensure that the commitments are kept."

At the end to the day, Mr. Speaker, if this amendment is passed in this House of Assembly it becomes law and it will ensure the future of Bonavista and Fortune. That is what I want to contribute to this debate today, Mr. Speaker. I would feel much more comfortable if this is part of it.

That is moved by the Member for Bellevue and seconded by the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will recess for a few moments to consider the amendment and bring back the decision very shortly, in about two to three minutes.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules the amendment as proposed by the Member for Bellevue to be in order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue, continuing debate.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I had no doubt that it would be in order. I guess, at the end of the day, we can take comfort that if all of us vote for that particular amendment we would guarantee the future of Bonavista and Fortune.

Also, Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune was up speaking today and gave a tremendous speech. One of the parts of his duties that he was supposed to do - he got carried away with his speech. As a matter of fact, I guess I had stepped out and was not here to remind him that he had to do an important function. There is another piece that we needed to add to this law of the country, and that is for the people of Harbour Breton.

I am proposing an amendment, seconded by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune: That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefore: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, because adequate agreements have not been reached with the company for the provision of a quota that would secure the future of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, those are two amendments that we are proposing, and I am proposing, today that would be made law in this House of Assembly to ensure the future of Bonavista, Fortune, and the community of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the member could have a copy of his proposed amendment delivered to the Table, the Chair will again call a short recess to examine the text and come back with a decision in a very few moments.

This House is now in recess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

In view of the fact that we do have it pre-arranged that we would take a lunch break, while you are assessing if the amendment is in order, that we do take the dinnertime break and you can report back, may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, when we return at 2:00 o'clock?

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, then, the House will recess for lunch and the House will reconvene at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon, at which time the Chair will render its decision on the amendment.

The House is now in recess.


June 10, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 31A


The House resumed sitting at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair rules the amendment, as put forward by the hon. the Member for Bellevue District, to be in order.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today as the MHA for Mount Pearl, and some people would say: Dave, what fish plant do you have in your district? Why are you standing up here today?

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is very simple. I am on the government side and we represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We may represent our districts in a certain segment of this Province, but we all represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I am standing here today, Mr. Speaker, and I want my voice to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to Mount Pearl to show you just what effect the fisheries would have on Mount Pearl as a district. When I was on council in 1989 and the cod moratorium came in, we did a survey, and in Donovans Business Park there were twelve to thirteen businesses that were directly affected by the fisheries. So, when you talk about fisheries it is not just rural Newfoundland. The spinoffs do go into the urban part of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of people in Donovans Business Park were - transportation, supplies, first aid, fishing equipment, clothing, et cetera, all of these things were things that were needed by the fisherperson of Newfoundland and Labrador for the fishing industry, so the effect was that Mount Pearl was certainly hurt and certainly touched by the closure of the cod moratorium. There was no question about that; that became a very focal part.

I also want to allude to what the Premier said this morning and what was echoed by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. There have been, time and time again, charges that we do not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to quote the Premier this morning: Nothing could be further from the truth. That is not true. I have been sitting here eighteen months in this government, on this side, and I can tell you that all of my colleagues, whether they be urban or rural, are concerned about rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Labrador.

MR. DENINE: And Labrador.

Thank you, my hon. colleague. I never normally forget that, but I did. Thank you.

 

The idea of portraying the myth that we do not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not true. There are people here today, and I want to make sure that they hear that not only from the Premier but from everyone else in this government, that it is uppermost in our minds.

Mr. Speaker, how I would vote on this issue today, I have to tell you, I came into this Assembly yesterday and I said I was going to sit back and listen to what the debate was all about. I have to say the debate was excellent but, I have to tell you, each and every member on either side of the House has made very, very, valid points on whether you should support this or not support it. They made a lot of good comments on why you should not and why you should. Each and every member in here articulated very clearly the concerns that they had, and I think the Premier alluded to a lot of them this morning.

This is a free and open debate, a free and open vote. This is what we are here today to do. Each Member of this House of Assembly, each member, would rise today, some time today, and vote on this bill. This is where the decision will be made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today, I can tell you I have not had my mind made up. I do not have my mind made up here today and, I tell you, after each speaker has spoken in this House I can see yes, no, whatever, but everyone, as I said, made specific points and very, very valid points.

Mr. Speaker, I also look at the possible outcomes of such an amendment to the Fishery Products International Act. What would it do? I know the promise of the new fish plant in Bonavista. I know what it would do to Marystown, I know what it would do to Fortune, and that, Mr. Speaker, is excellent in this agreement, no question about it. The people in those areas represented on both sides of this House are going to benefit substantially by this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this, some Members in this House of Assembly talked about trust, whether or not this agreement can be followed through and taken to the cashier and say: Here, this is what you promised. Are you going to deliver on it?

Mr. Speaker, I think our government, through negotiations over the last four months, have come from zero to where we are today. Is it perfect? Some members in the House will say no, it is not perfect. Well, Mr. Speaker, being a part of negotiating as a city councillor in Mount Pearl, sometimes negotiations never come out perfect.

There is one key here that I have spoken of time and time again, and I have spoken to the residents, some of the people I know in Harbour Breton. The mayor I know quite well, and the deputy mayor I know quite well, again from my previous experience in the municipal field. I spoke to them and I listened to what they had to say, and some hon. members here - I should not say some - everyone has mentioned the issue of Harbour Breton, and the fact that Fishery Products was there for so long, for such a long period of time, and sustained that community, and not only the community but the Connaigre Peninsula. That was a major focus of the economic force in the Connaigre Peninsula.

What do they owe Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula? Mr. Speaker, I think they owe a lot to that community and to that area of our Province. They owe more than what they are giving today, more than what was offered, and more than is in this agreement here today - or this proposal. I should not say agreement because it is not passed by this House. It has to be passed by the majority of members of this House before it becomes law. What do they owe the people of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula? I say to Mr. Rowe and FPI that they owe more than what they are offering here today. I made my feelings known to FPI, what I feel they should be doing. They should be giving more support for that community. That community needs the support of FPI because they have served FPI for many, many years on the Peninsula, and served them with loyalty and commitment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go to another branch that I think needs to be heard here today. As one hon. member mentioned here today, we control the FPI Act - it will be done here in this House - but the quotas and the responsibility for the fishery lie in Ottawa. They are the ones over the last number of years, as far as I am concerned, who have mismanaged it, and I think they should be here up front.

I know the Premier has been back and forth with letters to basically ask them, where do they stand on this issue? What are they going to offer the people of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula? When are they going to come to the plate?

I will tell you, it is now 2:09 p.m. They are back in Ottawa now and they are working, and let's hope, before too long, that we get a call here from Ottawa to hear very, very shortly some news and some ideas of what they want to come to the plate with. We know that Fishery Products put money in the offer. The government has put money forward. Now we need the other component, and that component is the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, this here, as some people have mentioned, will be a defining moment in the fishery. What is going to happen? A lot of people mentioned trust, and for the right reasons. I struggle with this. I can tell you now, I am struggling with which way I am going to vote today. I want to see some support for Harbour Breton. I want to see more support than is on the table here today. I want to see FPI coming to the plate, and I want to see the federal government coming to the plate here today. That will then be the time that I will decide on which side I will be voting.

Mr. Speaker, we did the Atlantic Accord just recently and some of the federal ministers were saying, take it or leave it. Remember that? Take it or leave it, there will be no more changes. Now, when the vote came to the House, certain individuals came to the forefront: Vote on this. Vote on this because of the Atlantic Accord - and that is true, and I am glad it went through. From what I can understand, it has gone through the Committee stage in Ottawa now, and hopefully on Monday it will go through Parliament, but I want those individuals who spoke on the Atlantic Accord now to come forward to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Harbour Breton and the people of the Connaigre Peninsula, to say: Here is what we offer. Here is what we are going to come to the plate with. Mr. Speaker, they need to come, and they need to come soon.

FPI, again, needs to be able to sweeten the pot to make sure that they do not only what they should do but more than what they should do, not only financially; this is a moral obligation of FPI, and they need to know that. I know they are watching it at FPI headquarters today. They are watching everything. They are watching every member, what they are saying here, and they are gauging it moment by moment. I am going to tell them, make the call here to this government, to the officials here in this government, and make sure the offer for Harbour Breton is a lot more substantial than what it is here on the table today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I read the e-mails from all sides. I read e-mails from Bonavista, from Fortune, from Marystown and from Harbour Breton, and each and every one of them have very, very valid points of what they want to tell us here in this House. It is a time that we will all search for reasons why we have to vote one way or another. I can tell you, from listening to the conversation in the House here today, the minds are not made up. The minds are not made up, as I speak today - no one else in the House, but as we sit here in this House today.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has control of quotas, as we know. They can do something to help alleviate the problems of Harbour Breton. They can. We have come to the plate. FPI have come to the plate. Now, federal government, come on, let us know. I can tell you, you think we are talking here in a vacuum. There are people who came from all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador who are affected here today and, I can tell you, they are listening in Ottawa today. They are paying attention to what is happening here today, so let's get off your seat and let's make it happen. It is now 2:13 p.m. or 2:14 p.m.; let's move and make a proposal. Let's make sure that their proposal is heard.

Mr. Speaker, FPI - we are in a dilemma, and some of my colleagues have mentioned it, we have to do this or this will happen. Now, I do not have a crystal ball and I cannot tell the future. I can only operate with the facts that have been presented to me. I have some concerns and I have major issues with some of the issues there, and I am looking at people from around this Province who are going to benefit by this.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide once all the information is in, and once everyone has a chance to say their speak on this issue. I do not know exactly where it is going to end up today, but I can tell you they had better, better, come forward with something else, because I think everyone in this House here today is looking forward to that next call that could be made here to this government and to this House - I should not say this government because it is a free vote, a free issue - to make a call to this House, to the officials here.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go on any longer but I did want to bring the perspective of urban Newfoundland and Labrador. By the way, just as an aside, if you want to take the definition of urban - I am sorry, rural - all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be rural, because urban is 100,000 or more. I am not sure, but I think the City of St. John's is 99,000 some-odd, but all of Newfoundland and Labrador would be considered rural. I was chair of the urban municipalities group in Newfoundland and Labrador, NLFM, and some people would say, what are you getting on with? But that is the true definition.

Mr. Speaker, the dedication and the commitment was heard by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune who speaks very highly of the Connaigre Peninsula, no question. I have known, again, some of the people there and have had good relationships with those people ongoing and on and off.

I am going to end on this, Mr. Speaker: Whatever the vote, whatever the vote may be today - I am going to echo the minister's statement yesterday and the Premier's statements today - we will not see rural Newfoundland hurt. We will do, as a government, a government of this Province, what we can to make sure that the safeguards are there for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to know that, and the people need to know that. Whatever happens here today, Harbour Breton will still be worked upon by this government, by the ministers who are involved here.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to end on that today and say to the people of FPI, to the people of Ottawa: Make that call. Make some changes. Sweeten the pot for Harbour Breton, and let's move on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to make a few comments on the amendments to Bill 41, and take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult and serious debate that is taking place here in the House of Assembly.

As the previous speaker noted, Mr. Speaker, I am not from a fishing district either. My district is probably the furthest removed in this Province from any fishing district; however, there are many people in Labrador West who are from fishing communities and still have close ties with family members who live there, Harbour Breton included.

Mr. Speaker, although mining and fishing communities are totally different industries, what is taking place here today does bear some similarities to each other. It bears similarities to what took place in the mining industry in Labrador during the 1998 era. I am referring to a time when the Iron Ore Company of Canada wanted to expand their operations, but they wanted to take the resource from Labrador and ship it to Seven Islands, Quebec, to expand the operation there. They stated at the time that that was the only way that they could compete in a global marketplace. People in Labrador West were devastated because they could see what was down the road for them once the ore started to leave to be processed in a manner that was not taking place and did not occur in the past forty years that we have had an operation.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the people in Labrador West were devastated by the news, but the people in Seven Islands were jubilant because they were going to have increased productivity. They were going to have new wealth. They were going to have new jobs with an increase in their population to take place at the expense of people in Labrador West. While that was happening we were all, all of us, employees of the same company and we were all members of the same union. While it did create some problems, we were able to get over them . We took a stand in Labrador West - and the government of the day, we looked to them for assistance and for help. It was not forthcoming because while there was some tough talk in the beginning, people did capitulate and cave in on positions that were taken earlier. To date, that expansion to Seven Islands, while the company has spent two hundred and something million dollars later, it has still not taken place and the place is still not running. But, guess what? The company is still operating and doing fine.

Here today we are witnessing similar events taking place. We are experiencing and witnessing Harbour Breton hearing the death knell being sounded while promises are being made to Fortune and Bonavista areas; all employees of the same company and all members of the same union. So, there are some similarities that take place in industries, even though the industries may be different and may not be related to each other. While this may be good news for Fortune and the Bonavista areas, and I am happy that they are hearing positive news, I ask them to reflect and ask themselves deep down that if their community was on the opposite end of what has been announced during the past little while, if they were the Harbour Bretons of this week and of this month and the last couple of months, what would they expect Members of this House of Assembly to do on their behalf?

That brings me to a little quote that I would like to read, Mr. Speaker. I received a lot of e-mails, the same as all Members of the House of Assembly have received in the past few days from people from all different communities. Harbour Breton feels that they are being abandoned. I do not like this scenario of pitting community against community, promising one community something that has a negative impact, a drastic impact, upon another.

So I would like to read this quote, and while this quote came from a dark time in our history, I think it still has application to many issues that we face in the year since then and that we deal with in our lives. That is the attitude that things are okay if we are not being negatively impacted but that is a very dangerous mindset because the people who are today could be us tomorrow. This quote was written by a Reverend Martin Niemoller in 1945, and it said: First they came for the communists but I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and, by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Mr. Speaker, I realize this quote dealt with a very dark and serious issue in our past, one that I do not think anybody in the world is proud of, but I do think that it has application in a broad range to things that happened to us, too, because we have to stand together and we have to protect each other. The minorities, or people who find themselves in minority positions from time to time, do not have the numbers to be able to win their battles. They have to depend upon the help and assistance of their friends and neighbours.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the proposed amendments that are being debated here today without firm commitments being made to the people of Harbour Breton by the provincial government, by Fishery Products International, and by the federal government. Harbour Breton has been around too long. They have contributed too much to the fishing companies and to the Province to be cast aside so callously. They deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and they must be treated better before I give my approval to voting in favour of the proposed amendments to Bill 41.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments that I am making here today and putting forward here today are not anti-Burin Peninsula arguments. They are not anti-Bonavista Peninsula arguments or anti-FPI arguments but they are pro-Harbour Breton arguments and I do not apologize to anyone for that.

To vote in favour of the bill as it exists in its present form, Mr. Speaker, is, in reality, a vote to terminate the existence of the community of Harbour Breton. I believe that the people of Harbour Breton deserve a fighting chance to protect their communities. They have maintained their communities for generations by fishing and it is not good enough that someone or some company who do not even live in their community and have only been on the scene for the past three or four years has the right to decide whether the community of Harbour Breton lives or dies. That is not good enough and I, for one member, will not stand in this House and vote in favour of something like that happening to a long, well-entrenched community and a proud people of this Province. They have to, and they deserve to have the ability to sustain their community as a going concern, one that people can return to; people are proud to call their homes. People who will be happy to stay there and raise their families in a way that they were raised. Mr. Speaker, that will not be possible without further support than what is on the table right now for the people of Harbour Breton.

Mr. Speaker, FPI has said that they need to create an Income Trust forum. They need to do that to raise capital that will enhance the company and improve their position in the world marketplace. Now, while this is probably a good strategy for them, it should not at the same time and by the same means, mean the destruction of a community in this Province. There are better ways of doing things. I think that FPI has the responsibility after all the years that the people of Harbour Breton have contributed to the well-being of that company, have contributed to the overall good of this Province, that they deserve better than what they are being offered at the present time.

I am also, Mr. Speaker, very disappointed, as previous speakers have said, with the lack of involvement by the federal government in the Harbour Breton case. Their inactivity and their quietness is certainly something that has not gone unrecognized by the people of this Province. Where are they when the people of Harbour Breton are crying out for help, when their very survival is at risk? Where are they, Mr. Speaker? Well, I have not heard too much from them, and I do not think many other people in this Province have either, and they are the ones who are in a position to really make a difference to the people of Harbour Breton in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the commitments that FPI has made to other areas in the Province. I have dealt most of my life wrangling commitments out of major corporations in this Province and I can tell you that at the best of times it is not easy. Let me read a couple of commitments that were made by the very company that we are talking about here today, FPI - commitments that were in writing to the people of this Province, and Harbour Breton in particular. This is John Crosbies presentation to the committee on February 13, 2002, and from there it talked about Harbour Breton. It said that they would receive the new IQ of freezing technology, raw material defrosting, handling and grading equipment and flow lines to enable this plant to engage in H and G cod production, offsetting Harbour Breton's dependence on the diminishing stocks of the red fish resource, thereby ensuring a future for this facility. Eventually, an additional substantial investment will be required to reconstruct the Harbour Breton plant, which is in a state of disrepair as a result of long neglect and lack of capital expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, if the plant suffered from a lack of capital expenditure, whose fault, I ask, is that? It is certainly not the people of Harbour Breton. They did not decide where their money was going to be spent from the profits of the corporation, whether it was going to be spent to improve the physical structure of the plant. They were not the ones who were deciding that. So, when we hear that we are in these partnerships - that the companies and employees are in these partnerships, and we are in this together, let me tell people a good question to ask. Let the employees suggest a way to spend $5 million on improving a facility and they will not be long in being told by the company that they cannot decide that. The partnership ends when the money starts be to questioned, and that is the reality in this Province and it is a reality with corporations everywhere. You are partners as long as it serves the purpose but the minute that you want to use your so-called partnership in order to spend capital to improve the place where you work, then you do not be too long in finding out that the partnership is not as solid or as deep as people would like you to believe.

Mr. Speaker, there is another quote here from John Risley on April 3, 2001. They talk about when the debate was taking place, and he talked about: The dissidents do not intend to close any of FPI's processing facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere. In fact, reinvesting in these facilities and by seeking new sources of raw material, FPI will be in a position to increase the number of Newfoundlanders that it employees. Now, not closing any of their facilities and increasing the number of employees. That commitment included the community of Harbour Breton. What are these things worth today, three or fours years later? I say that promises, and even things in writing, over the course of time do not necessarily mean that it is going to take place. So, I ask people to be very cognizant and very much aware that the promises of today do not mean the realities of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say in closing that without a further commitment to the people of Harbour Breton by FPI, by the provincial government and by the federal government, without a further commitment than I cannot, in any clear conscience whatsoever, rise in this House when the vote is called later today and vote in favour of the amendments that are put before this House by way of amending Bill 41. I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, and unless further commitments are forthcoming between now and the vote, then I will say, unequivocally, that I will not be able to support the changes to the legislation that we are presently debating.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured today to have the opportunity to be able to speak on this issue. That sounds a little bit strange because I have heard some people talk about the fact that this is a difficult day and so on and so forth, and it is a difficult day, but I am honoured because I have the opportunity to speak up for a group of people, like the people who live in Harbour Breton.

As I look down through this new legislation and realize the situation that we are in today and that the company, FPI, is in today, I cannot help but - not just look at where the company is, but I have to look at where the people are in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland and Labrador plays a major role in all areas of this Province. Actually, the Member for Mount Pearl put it very well when he talked about the fact that rural Newfoundland and Labrador affects his district in Mount Pearl. Businesses are affected in his district in Mount Pearl. That is so true today, but I want to talk for a few moments today about what rural Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. It is a different way of life. That is the fact of the matter. Is it an easy way of life? Certainly not. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador plays such a major role in this Province but the people work very, very hard to be able to stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are so many difficulties in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that people in urban Newfoundland and Labrador really do not see. Maybe some of them do, but you know sometimes it is forgotten and it is lost in the mix. The fact of the matter is that a simple situation, like having enough work and having a job to go to everyday, cannot be looked at very lightly, because the fact is that places like Harbour Breton who want to work - they want to work. I have heard people talk about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all across Newfoundland and Labrador saying: Well, do you know what? They don't want to work. They don't care anyway. I will tell you today, from what we see in the galleries and we have seen, and what I have heard on Open Line and all these things, I can guarantee you that the people of Harbour Breton, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they want to work. They want to make a living. They are not looking for a government handout today. I have not heard them ask for a government handout only. I have heard them talk about the fact that they need a quota. They need something so that they can get themselves back to work.

Today, as I look at this issue - and I realize it is a serious issue - I cannot help but go back again to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and what it means. The life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we want to protect. That is what it is all about, it is protecting a way of life. I do not think there is one member in this hon. House who feels that we should not try to protect rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Today we have a company, a large company that is talking about and has already pulled out of Harbour Breton. A company that says: Look, if you don't let us do this than we are finished. We don't know what we are going to do. The fact of the matter is that the people of Harbour Breton have put their lives into helping build a company such as FPI. FPI would not exist in Newfoundland and Labrador if it were not for the fact that these people, along with other people across this Province who work with FPI, built this company. They have made it what it is today.

What saddens me and what makes me upset is the fact that we have a company that will say: We are going to do this, this and this, but we are not going to take care of one group of people. I am going to tell FPI today, and I want to serve notice on them, that if they think they can divide and conquer, it is not going to work with me. All right, I am just going to serve notice on everybody here today. Because the fact is that people on this side of the House, and I am sure every member in this House, feels that FPI has got to come to the plate. They have to step up to the plate. They have to realize that we are serious about what we want to see for places like Harbour Breton.

We are not going to be blackmailed because I feel something like that - I heard the hon. Member for Trinity North last night speak about this. It almost feels as if you are being blackmailed. If you do this, then we will give you this. I am telling you right now, that without a commitment to Harbour Breton I have great difficulty with this legislation. I really do. If officials from FPI are looking at this today and they are thinking: well, maybe they are all bluffing. I can assure you that I am not bluffing. I want to assure you that my commitment is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I live there. I raised my children there. I love it there. As I said before, there are many challenges there. There are challenges in schooling. There are challenges in work. There are challenges in trying to keep infrastructure in place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a way of life that, I guarantee you, I want to protect, I want to keep there, and I want to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I want people in my community to be able to work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I want the people of Harbour Breton to be able to remain in Harbour Breton and to work in Harbour Breton, and that is important.

Today, Mr. Speaker, again, as I said, you get mixed signals and you are not sure which way to go because I am very happy that the company, FPI, have decided they will step up to the plate and they will do something for Bonavista. That is very positive. I am very happy about that, and I think it is very important. I want to say this as well, that I believe if it was not for the intervention of the Premier, if it was not for the intervention of this government, that we would not see what we see today.

The agreement looked a whole lot different fourteen months ago. The agreement was: We want to do this. Period. End of story. But, because of what the Premier has done and because of what the government has done in terms of negotiating, now we see that there are some other things there that can certainly help areas like Bonavista, areas like Burin, and these particular areas - and Fortune - and I am very pleased with that. I am happy with that, but today - even though I am happy with that, I have to stand as a rural Newfoundlander and Labradorian and say that with all those commitments in place, as good as it is, we still need more.

I have heard a number of people talk about: Where is the federal government in all of this? Where are they? We don't see them. Where is the federal minister? I wonder, where is he? I have not heard the federal minister speak out on this issue in the last little while. Is he going to speak out? We are still waiting. I believe the hon. Member for Mount Pearl said it was 2:09 p.m., it is now 2:38 p.m. and we still have not heard anything. We are still waiting to hear something from the federal minister. If our federal politicians decide that they are not going to speak up, that they are not going to try to do something for this Province, then, you know, it is a sad day for this Province. If they do not want to do anything for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is really a sad day.

As I said before, I am very pleased with what the company say they will do for places like Bonavista. Now, I certainly have an historical connection to Bonavista. My grandfather was a minister down there. Actually, he was the first minister of a particular church down there. My mother spent ten years of her life being raised in Bonavista. Even back then, fifty-odd years ago, Bonavista was probably the fishing capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whenever you talk about Bonavista, you talk about fish.

I have a confession to make today. This is a bit of a funny confession - and the hon. Member for St. John's Centre knows this; he is the same way - I do not like codfish. I cannot stand the taste of it. Every time I would hear about Bonavista, I would know I was going to Bonavista, because we would always go down there and visit, but I would always be concerned that, oh, my, if I go down there, I don't like fish and I don't know if Randy is going to have fish for dinner. I would always be concerned about having it.

I am going to tell you that Bonavista is one of the greatest places in the world, no question about it, and they have such an attachment to the fishing industry.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries, I think, is really concerned that I do not like codfish, but the fact of the matter is -

AN HON. MEMBER: And you are looking for a food fishery.

MR. ORAM: And I am looking for a food fishery, because I enjoy jigging.

Having said that, I said all of that to say that I do have an attachment to Bonavista. I do feel good about what FPI says they will do for Bonavista, and I would feel even better if I could hear a good announcement today on Harbour Breton. We can talk about this forever. We can talk about the positive things that FPI plan to do, and that is all good, but, again, I would like to see something more for Harbour Breton.

Of course, I do not believe the company is saying that they are not going to do anything for Harbour Breton. I think they have stepped up to the plate to a certain degree. Again, it is because of the intervention of the Premier, I say. The fact is, they have come a ways but they are not there, and we need to see them make that step, and I need to see them make that step, before this vote. I will tell you right now, to get my support, to get a lot of support - certainly I will speak for people on this side of the House - to get a lot of support here, we need to see something more for Harbour Breton. Let's just hope that FPI can see today that this is very important.

What I see with FPI today in this legislation, and I have seen for awhile, is the fact that they seem to be a desperate company that is strapped for cash. They do not have the cash. They do not have the ability to continue on as a company. They have a large debt load. I am concerned about the large debt load. I am concerned that if they do happen to raise, let's say, for instance, $100 million or $120 million from this sale, yet, if they have $100 million debt, they are going to pay $30 million down on the debt. Will that be enough for them to be able to continue on, to be able to keep this company moving?

I am concerned about that. I will admit it, that alone concerns me. A company with a large debt, a company that wants to sell off the best part of their operation, the part of their company that is actually making money, they want to sell off a portion of that. It really concerns me today, because I realize that this company is absolutely cash-strapped.

To me, I would love for this issue to probably go away, but I know it is not going to go away and I know we have to deal with it. Having said that, when I look at the fact that they are cash-strapped and they have these problems, I still understand that in business you have to be able to raise capital, and this company, obviously, cannot raise capital.

I have asked myself many times over the past couple of days, what will I do? I mean, you know, if I vote this down - and not only I, but if we all vote this down, for instance - what will happen then? What happens the day after? What will happen to places like Bonavista? What will happen to places like Burin? What will happen to places like Fortune? So, do you know what? In all honesty, I have been put in an awkward position. All members of this House have been put in an awkward position.

I look at one side of this as not being happy at all about what is going on with Harbour Breton, because I feel for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I feel when other people, when our brothers and sisters in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, are hurting today. I feel for those people. Yet, I also see the other side of it where I see some good that could come from this. FPI has made some good promises, and I feel today that I am torn. I am still torn, you know. I do have difficulty voting for it, and then I have difficulty not voting for it because I am concerned about the fact that if I do not vote for it, again, if I decide I am not going to vote for this, if we decide we are going to vote this down, what will happen to the rest of the FPI ventures across this Province? What will happen to the rest of the company? That gives me great difficulty. It really concerns me.

You know, in business, I have seen days when cash is tight, you do not have the dollars to do it. Some days you do not have the dollars to meet payroll. What I have seen in small businesses is the owners of the business having to say: I cannot take a cheque this week - do not have the money, do not have the cash flow - but if I could only bridge some way to get there.

Then, you know, the option that a lot of companies have is that they will go back to a bank and they will say: Could you give me some bridge financing? I just need some financing just to get me from here to here. If I can get from here to here, I can survive.

Basically, I believe this is what FPI is asking for today. They need something to be able to give them an injection of cash to be able to help them move forward. The problem is, there is a social aspect to this. That is the whole problem. This is not like a private company where there is no social aspect. This is all about people today. This is about people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am concerned about the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as I already said many times.

All I can today is encourage Fishery Products to step up more to the plate for Harbour Breton. The time is going. The fact of the matter is, the time is going. We need to hear from FPI. We need to hear from our federal politicians. How long is it going to take?

I think that the company, if what they tell us is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, if what the company is saying, that they are in a desperate financial situation and they need to do this in order to survive, they need to be able to do this to be able to keep the other plants going, if it is so desperate, if it is such a desperate situation, all I can do is encourage FPI, as my colleague from Lake Melville keeps saying, make the call. Somebody else said it sounded like a TV teleconference thing, or a telephone call-in, make the call, but it is serious. It is very serious.

I will tell you right now, I believe - I know I am, and I know there are other members on this side of the House - we are waiting to vote because we are waiting for that call. Without that call, we have grave concerns about how we are going to deal with this issue. I can only again reiterate to FPI to say, please give us some comfort level. Help us here. Help us help you. We cannot do this without your help today. FPI, we need you to help us help you. If you want to see us come through, if you want to see us do something positive for your company to help FPI - for our company, really - if you want us to do something positive, help us help you, because I believe we can.

I believe we are supportive of FPI. There are a number of people who have worked with FPI over the years and they have gotten a living from FPI, and I am sure the people from Harbour Breton who have worked in the FPI plants for years and years and years can attest to the fact that they have been good. FPI has been good to a lot of people, but the fact is today we just need that little bit more. We need a little bit more so that we can get this thing done so we can move forward in this Province, because I believe rural Newfoundland and Labrador has a great future. I really do.

Some people thing I am silly, but I am telling you that I believe rural Newfoundland and Labrador, such as - the Premier mentioned it this morning. I have heard all these silly comments that the Premier does not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and all this silliness. I am telling you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. I have seen this man agonize over this issue, and I am sure he would not mind me saying this. I have seen him agonize over this very issue, over this legislation. His primary concern is that all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, would find a benefit from this, that everyone in rural Newfoundland and Labrador would see something positive come out of what we are doing today.

We are not looking to do something negative against rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier is looking for a positive way to come through this, and I believe it is there. All we need is for FPI to stand up, be counted, show us what you can do. Help us help you, FPI, and we will do the right thing as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to say a few words on Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the decision that is going to made in this House of Assembly today by the forty-seven individuals in this House of Assembly, aside from yourself, Mr. Speaker, which makes forty-eight, is a very difficult decision to make, a tough decision, but it will directly impact thousands of individuals living in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have listened over the past day and a half to each individual speaker who has spoken in this House of Assembly. I have listened to the Premier answer questions in this House of Assembly, trying to give an accurate, true picture of what we face in the decision that we have to make in this House of Assembly. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, who I thought gave a very good speech, Mr. Speaker, on why he believes there are weaknesses in this agreement. The Premier has been up front and said that there are no absolute solutions to this problem but this government is trying to look and solve the issue in this Province with FPI for the long term; because, as I said earlier, it directly impacts thousands of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the individuals who live in eight communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, of course, Harbour Breton itself which now has been certainly negatively impacted since last fall. As a matter of fact, I have had discussions, I have been on the committee with the Premier and the other ministers, trying to resolve this. We had a number of meetings with the group and the committee from Harbour Breton.

Last fall, last Christmas Eve, I think, I was speaking to the Mayor of Harbour Breton, trying to get some bridge financing, some help in the very short term to try and get to the long term. As I said, we are in a situation in this Province where we need to make a decision, and no matter what we do in this House of Assembly today, provided we get to a decision today, there is an old saying that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't - unless, of course, FPI and the federal government come through with something for Harbour Breton.

When we met with FPI and they made their case, they made a very good case for going forward with these amendments to the FPI Act. When I came into this House of Assembly yesterday, I will be honest with you, I was leaning a certain way; but, having heard individual people speak in this House of Assembly, at this point in time I am up in the air, to put it bluntly.

I heard the Member for Grand Bank make the case, the reason why she will vote in favour of this. I heard the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune speak this morning, and Harbour Breton is in his district - a very passionate speech, as he often gives in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker - making a case. On this side of the House of Assembly, we had the Member for Bonavista South make the case, and I understand why he will vote in favour, but one of the speeches that really got me yesterday was the Member for Bonavista North. He got up, and he has a great history with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. He understands the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and all the players involved, as do many of the people in the House of Assembly understand the fishery and the importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and in rural Newfoundland, but when it came right down to it he talked about the concerns that he has with respect to this proposal - and we all have them. The Premier has said a number to times, been quite up front with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - trust. Will FPI live up to what has been put forward in their own proposal?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that this Administration has been working for fourteen months on this, and when FPI first came through the door with respect to this proposal we were all very, very skeptical on this issue. We have been negotiating for fourteen months and we have a package before us now that the people in this House of Assembly will have to ultimately stand and say aye or nay to this proposal. As I said earlier, it is going to have some major impacts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, as a government - and, again, I want to comment on a free vote in this House of Assembly. I have had some discussions with people on the opposite side of the House and understand where they are coming from, as I did on this side. We have people in the gallery today listening to the rationale and the rationalizing of our members sitting in this House of Assembly, and where we are and where we would like to go.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I said, I am torn because I know if this flies and there is no further commitments for Harbour Breton, then Harbour Breton and the people living in Harbour Breton are going to be certainly hurt more than they are hurting right now at this point in time. Again, if you look at it from the perspective of the people in Harbour Breton who, as the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said last night, stood for hours, days, weeks, months, years, thirty-five or forty years for some of these individuals, put their heart, soul and life into FPI, and FPI benefitted from that, they were and are a part of the life of FPI. From my perspective, I believe that FPI has a social and moral obligation and a responsibility to each and every individual who has worked with FPI over the years, not just the seven communities that will certainly benefit if FPI continues to prosper, and leave Harbour Breton out in the cold.

Now, if the federal government and FPI, in conjunction with the work that has been done by this government behind the scenes for fourteen months, can come up with a package that is acceptable, I suppose, to the people of Harbour Breton, acceptable again to FPI itself, to the government and to the Members of this House of Assembly - all members - that would be great news, and we still have time for that.

There have been comments made in this House of Assembly by individuals with respect to the federal government: Where are they? Where are the representatives in the federal government from Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal minister? Pretty quiet. Unusually quiet, Mr. Speaker. We usually hear from him on every topic that is on the go in Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly heard it last fall. Right now, where is he? The Premier and the people on the committee are working as we speak trying to get something that is going to clinch this deal, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully it will be resolved to everybody's satisfaction.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this House of Assembly who may vote against this even if they do get a positive solution for Harbour Breton, because we had the Leader of the Opposition up, as I said earlier, and he gave a good speech. Certainly, I listened to him and he pointed out the weaknesses that he saw in this proposal. He may end up having to vote against it because of his own conscience, I do not know, but if we can get something here that is unanimous for everybody in the House of Assembly, all the better for it. Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to say, at the end of the day, that there is a positive solution for everyone involved; but, again, we have time to do that.

If you listen to FPI, and the case that they make, they say they need this amendment to the Act to be able to progress, to be able to diversify, to pay down their debt. All the arguments that they put forward are quite logical, quite sensible, from a business perspective, Mr. Speaker. Then again, you listen to the arguments being put forward by certain individuals that, when FPI was first put in place, it was put in place by public dollars to be the vanguard, I suppose, of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, now, they are in a situation, in my mind, that the dollars that they need to be able to continue on, to survive in Newfoundland and Labrador - one of the cases that FPI made was that when they first started out they had thousands of customers, now they are down to hundreds of customers. We had the resource change on FPI, all of these factors that people - a lot of people in the industry, people in this House of Assembly, as I mentioned, the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Bonavista South, the former minister, and the minister we have today, the Minister of Fisheries, know the fishery inside out, much better than I do, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at it from the perspective of the people who work for FPI, have worked for them for years and years and years, really, there has to be some payback. It always does not boil down to the almighty dollar, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I know we have to live in the real world. FPI is in competition with other fish plants in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, other companies, harvesting companies and processing companies and what have you, but the bottom line again is that we all have to look at this from a perspective of what is going to be best for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If it boils down to some individuals having to say, well, if FPI cannot survive we may have seven more Harbour Bretons on our hands. If they do survive, we have seven communities, and not only those communities that are directly involved with the plants in those communities but there are the communities around those communities that have people who work in these plants, so it is a factor, I suppose, that goes up exponentially, if you want to, and you look at just the plant itself. It is a pretty broad picture. It is a company that owes, I suppose, its life to the people who worked in those plants over the years and are still willing to work there if they have the opportunity.

Again, I have given a lot of thought to this, had a lot of discussion at the Cabinet table on this issue. We had a lot of discussion at the committee meetings and the meetings we had with the representatives from Harbour Breton on trying to survive. I do not want to repeat myself, but last fall when the announcement was made about Harbour Breton and the rug was pulled out from underneath those individuals, I remember, I think it was Christmas Eve or the day before Christmas Eve, as I said, I was speaking to the mayor trying to get some bridge financing for these people because we understand the hardships.

When people are working in plants and then they have to live on their EI, and they are going from day to day, week to week, month to month, trying to survive, and then they have that pulled out from under them, the desperation there is not an easy thing.

I grew up in a family of twelve children, one person working over the years, so we have a feel, I suppose, not of the direct experience these individuals are going through, but we have people here - the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development talked about when she was growing up on the South Coast, and how it impacted her when certain things happened in Burin, I think it was. She talked about when the plant was going to be closed there, and what they had to go through, so there is an understanding here of what impact this is having on the people on Harbour Breton. It is all interconnected, of course, talking about one community supporting another community, and we have people trying to support the people in Harbour Breton at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the Administration that is in power today want to get a long-term solution on this. It is all well and good to say that we will give them some money in the short term; but, just in watching the Premier work, watching the way he negotiates in trying to put something in place, we just do not want to resolve this for the immediate, right now. We want to get something that is going to be for the long term.

Again I want to go back, when I am talking about the long term, to the guarantees. There are no absolute guarantees here, Mr. Speaker, none; but, then again, are there any guarantees in anything that we do? The five year aspect of this, you know, when you look at a resource and we say there are 5,000 tons or 10,000 tons, whatever the case may be, given to a plant or whatever the case may be, and you have to process that, now, if five years down the road the resource is gone - we saw what happen in the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker - is a company required then to keep a plant open without any resource?

You can only do what you can do. You can only put in certain securities and guarantees that can, I suppose, from government's perspective, be able to - the Leader of the Opposition uses this word all the time - use a hammer to be able to force the company to do certain things; but, is it realistic to be able to require a company to do certain things that are going to be at the detriment of other communities?

I hope I am being clear or making sense in what I am saying here, but if you look at a company such as FPI and we require them to do certain things, I think, Mr. Speaker, the penalty that is there with respect to the resources and the enterprise allocations will be turned over to government if they breach the conditions of this contract.

If they breach the conditions of the contract, Mr. Speaker, the government will then be in a position where we say your quota, your enterprise allocations, are gone. We take them from you. We are talking big dollars here, Mr. Speaker, big, big dollars. That in itself is a hammer, as some people would refer to it, Mr. Speaker.

The other point that needs to be made on this agreement, too, is that if they breach the contract, and government says they have breached the contract, and they disagree with it, then it would go to arbitration, an independent arbitrator. What that independent arbitrator states is what will be the final decision.

Now, can a company live under those conditions? That remains to be seen. I say, Mr. Speaker, that remains to be seen.

Again, as I said, I listened to each individual speaker in the House of Assembly. You can hear it - who was mentioned earlier. Yesterday and today in this House of Assembly - and I know there are people in the galleries who normally have not been sitting in the galleries before and looking at the House of Assembly. There has been respect here in this House of Assembly in the past few days for each individual's point of view. We have listened to people on that side of the House with the Opposition, the NDP, the Independent and members on this side of the House speak and there has been no interruptions. It has been quite civil because each individual Member of the House of Assembly, I believe, understands the seriousness of this situation and what it means to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In particular, those eight communities that I referred to - not the seven, the eight - where the FPI plants should be, I suppose, and it would be great if they were there. When FPI started out years ago, they had more plants, many more employees. Situations change, and I am not making any case for FPI, let me tell you. I have to tell you, at this point in time I am up in the air, and I am still going to listen to what - I expect the Leader of the Opposition will be on his feet again, maybe the Leader of the NDP. The Premier right now has not spoken yet. He will certainly be putting the government's case forward and his case and his personal point of view on this.

There are negotiations still going on, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. So, what is going to come out at the end of the day still remains to be seen. I have talked to individuals privately here and some people that I thought would be definitely supporting this legislation are not going to unless there are changes made. Then there are others that I thought would not be, are going to be. So, this is a true, open vote in the House of Assembly - thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have two minutes left. There is going to be a true, open vote in this Legislature. I think it is the first that I have seen in the twelve years that I have been here, and there will be no consequences of what people say, how they feel, what they are going to do when they stand to vote in this Legislature.

I was interviewed the other day, and I was asked by a media person: How are you going to vote? I told him I did not know. I said, when it boils down to this - I know my time is just about out - all I can do is listen to what has to be said in the Legislature, look at the information we have before us at that point in time, and then when the vote comes, hopefully, I will stand and I will make the right decision for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. In particular, the eight communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that so heavily depend on the fishery in this Province, and heavily depend on FPI.

I will say this before I sit down, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope that the federal government will come through and I sincerely hope that FPI realizes, as I said earlier, they have a social and a moral responsibility to all the people who worked in their plants and, in particular, at this point in time, to the people of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak today, as everyone else, about the present issue we have in front of us regarding FPI and how we are going to proceed with this bill. How we do proceed will certainly affect Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I was born and raised in a rural area. With the exception of times when either I was in university or my husband was in university, we have remained in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. My family today, my young child, certainly, remains in the Town of Stephenville. We have a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I started dealing with this issue - and certainly it involves the fishery - I wondered how much I really understood about the fishery because I am not from a fishing community nor has my family ever been involved in the fishing community, which is really different being raised in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and actually having no connection to the fishery. I was raised in Bishop's Falls and my family was involved with the railway in this Province. Mr. Speaker, what the people of Harbour Breton are going through right now, and potentially other communities with regards to the fishery in the future, is exactly what the community of Bishop's Falls went through throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and up until 1988 when the railway was actually gone from Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I had just finished university in 1988 and I moved on. I moved on to the West Coast, at that time, where I have since decided to stay and call it home. But, Mr. Speaker, I return to Bishop's Falls on occasion and I still find it very difficult to go into that community and realize that the station is not what it used to be, that the roundhouse where they turn around the trains in this Province no longer exists, that the freight shed which took up a whole block on Station Road does not even stand anymore, and the piece of land where the station manager's house has remained vacant since the early 1990s when they took down that actual house in the town. Mr. Speaker, to go into that town and realize that it existed because of the railway, and it no longer exists, leaves a void that cannot be replaced.

This whole issue of the fishery, although I do not personally have a background in it, I also do not represent a district that is heavily involved in the fishery. However, within the District of St. George's-Stephenville East there are fisherpeople. Bay St. George South has fisherpeople. They fish from Heatherton, St. David's, St. Fintan's, Highlands, McKay's, Cartyville. Codroy itself, within the Codroy Valley, is heavily dependent on the fishery and the fish plant for its very existence in the Codroy Valley. So, although the fishery does not represent a large portion of my district, the presence of the fishery and the fact that we have people who depend on the fishery is very much a part of the district.

This whole issue that we are dealing with involves rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, as far as I am concerned, rural Newfoundland is the heart of this Province. Although I do not have a background in the fishery or in business - my background is in social work - I am very concerned about the social agenda of this Province. That is basically why I decided to pursue the career I have right now, because I want to make sure that we have sound, social policies and a very positive social agenda that will lead us into progress in this Province.

The fact of the matter right now is we are dealing with FPI, which is a business, which is a publicly traded business in this Province, but it is not a Crown corporation. The decisions that have to be made by FPI have to be made on a basis that they protect the business and they are able to survive and contribute to the economy and be able to make money. That is the whole existence of any business. It only makes sense when we look at the deal and the proposals that are before us right now that they will be investing in research and development because for any company to survive, whether they are in the fishery or in any industry, they certainly need to advance their research and development. They need to expand, they need to modernize, and their plans to do so is very positive for certain sections of this Province. Unfortunately, what has happened is communities have been pitted against each other. We are almost brought to a decision that if we support this bill we are supporting Fortune, we are supporting Burin, we are supporting Bonavista, but we are not supporting Harbour Breton, and that is the part about this decision that I find most distasteful.

The company of FPI is looking for a way to address its financial concerns. They have decided that an Income Trust would be a successful venture for them or a way that they can deal with some of the financial issues that they are now facing. On the surface, to see that they want to enter into this Income Trust seems to be a very positive move. However, FPI themselves, and some of the players in FPI, and their behaviour in recent years has certainly cast suspicions from the people of this Province on their motives. Mr. Speaker, do I have reservations on their motives? Yes, indeed, I do.

Mr. Speaker, we will have a free vote here in this House of Assembly. We have to take a position and we have to vote on what we feel is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, you have to question: What is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador? In front of us we have an issue today but we have no guarantees. We have an issue and we have identified loopholes in it. When you have to make a decision that you hope is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador but you have no guarantees, you really have to struggle and debate the issues before you can actually make up your mind and decide which way you are going to go. If this Income Trust venture is successful and the company lives up to the guarantees and the proposals that they have made to Newfoundland and Labrador, we will see investments in Bonavista, we will see investments in Fortune and we will see some money going into Harbour Breton, but the people from Harbour Breton feel more should be done for them.

We cannot guarantee any community where FPI is present today, that they will be there in five years or ten years or fifteen years. We cannot guarantee how long the stocks will remain at their present level. We cannot actually predict if they will grow or decline. Unfortunately, we have seen the decline over many years and we have had to adjust to that decline in the fishery. We also cannot guarantee the Canadian dollar and where the dollar will be in twelve months, in twenty-four months or thirty-six months. Mr. Speaker, we also cannot guarantee what will happen in China, what type of investments or developments will unfold in China. So we really have no guarantees. We can look at the pattern of business, we can see how things develop, but we cannot predict the future.

If we do not support this bill, my concern is, how many Harbour Bretons will develop in Newfoundland and Labrador? How many communities will lose their fish processing capacity? How many communities will lose their lifeline in this Province? As for in this government and as we make decisions, we have to realize that we have a mandate. We have a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will grow and we will maintain rural Newfoundland and Labrador with or without FPI.

Mr. Speaker, at this very time and through the fall, and over the next few months and years, Harbour Breton needs the government to step in and help them. Not only does Harbour Breton need the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at this time to help them, they also need the federal government to step up to the plate and let them know what they are prepared to do to help that community. As a government, whether provincial or federal, we have to deal with all aspects of our jurisdiction, whether it is our Province or whether it is our country. I believe that each and every place in Newfoundland and Labrador has to be treated in a fair manner. Fairness does not always mean equal. Sometimes in order to be fair we have to provide more investment or more money or different programs into specific areas of this Province, and we are prepared to do that as a Province to help Harbour Breton.

As I say that, we also need commitment from our federal government to ensure that they can deal with Harbour Breton and provide the necessary supports without feeling pressure that they have to provide equal support to every place in this country, because Harbour Breton is a unique situation at this time and they need to be treated in that manner. Other than the governments, the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government and the federal government, Harbour Breton also needs FPI at this time. There in lies the difference between FPI and most businesses and companies. FPI, as I said, is a publicly traded company, but this company came from the Legislature here in Newfoundland and Labrador and there in lies its implied social responsibility to this Province.

Harbour Breton needs to be a priority at this time for FPI. The people of Harbour Breton gave their careers and their lives to FPI. They worked with FPI. They were committed and they were dedicated to that company. Without the dedication and commitment of all those workers, FPI would not have progressed as it did over the years.

Mr. Speaker, FPI could not operate without these human resources; nor could they operate without this Legislature either, so at this time they need to make a commitment to the resources that Harbour Breton needs to remain viable. I do not mean to say they need to go in and operate that fish plant again. If they have decided to leave that community and close their business doors in Harbour Breton, that will be their decision, but they are obligated to provide the support necessary for Harbour Breton to remain a viable community in this Province, and they need the resources to remain viable at this time.

Mr. Speaker, with the Income Trust, and again without guarantees, if FPI is able to raise the revenue that they need from the Income Trust, they predict that they should be able to raise approximately $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, the priorities of FPI are to rural Newfoundland when we look at the commitments to Fortune and Bonavista and their other plants, but their priorities need to include, in their $100 million, Harbour Breton in a way that satisfies that community.

Mr. Speaker, the investments and the proposal that FPI have put before us have investments in areas that will affect their bottom line, that will turn a profit for them and will help that company, but we are looking for one investment at this time that will not affect their bottom line. We are looking at an investment into their social agenda.

Many people will say a company does not need a social agenda, and usually that is a fact; however, as I have said, this company came from the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, and therein lies their social responsibility and their need to have an agenda to affect the communities that they leave.

Mr. Speaker, the question to look at is: What are the alternatives that we have here today? FPI walked out of Harbour Breton. What if they walk out of the other communities because they cannot survive? We all understand that, based on the financial situation of the company today, they have proposed the Income Trust, and if they do not improve their bottom line then potentially they could also walk away from other communities. Who will be there to pick up the pieces when this happens? When this happens, and when a community loses its industry, they need support from many, many sources. They need to be able to feel that the government of the Province and of the country is onside to help. They also need to understand in Harbour Breton that the company should be there as well, and FPI needs to make these investments.

There is support for this change, for this bill, from many sources. Many areas that will see the positive investments, whether it is Fortune, Bonavista, or anywhere on the Burin Peninsula, people are pleased with this and want this bill to pass so that their communities can have the investments that they so need and desire, but the one area that is being left out is the Connaigre Peninsula and, Mr. Speaker, that leaves us in a very serious situation. The people in Harbour Breton today are worrying about how they are going to pay their mortgage. Most people here in the Legislature have probably been in Harbour Breton in recent years. It is a beautiful community, a very well maintained community with a very high standard of living when it comes to housing. Mr. Speaker, today the people are probably worrying about how they are going to pay their mortgages. They are worried about how they are going to pay their car payments, how they are going to heat their homes and keep the electricity going, how they are going to pay for their telephones and, more importantly, how they are going to keep food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Harbour Breton were not wealthy people but were certainly people who were financially stable, who knew when the next paycheque was coming. They knew their financial means and they could live within their means. Mr. Speaker, to have to face today - after many years of working in a fish plant - that you may have to now deal with issues of poverty, issues that you have never faced before in your life, must create overwhelming anxiety for those people day to day, having to meet your neighbours and talk, the talk at the dinner table, and trying to get to sleep at night and worrying about all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, we just cannot, in reckless abandon, feel that we can make the best decisions without the concerns of Harbour Breton being paramount. Geographically, the Connaigre Peninsula and Harbour Breton is a very separate and distinct area of this Province. Unlike when the main industry came out of Bishop's Falls, we were quite close to other communities, large communities, whether it be Botwood or Grand Falls-Windsor. The people had another basis or another economy, or another industry or another service centre, where they could find work; but, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for the people of Harbour Breton to commute to Grand Falls-Windsor for work in the daytime. They are at least three hours away from that area. I am very concerned about the survival of Harbour Breton.

Harbour Breton needs help at this time, and they do have a future. Harbour Breton, with the right resources, the appropriate resources, will be able to diversify. They will be able to make the appropriate plans for that community, and they will able to survive, but survival right now is dependent on the resources that will be available to that community.

Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland and Labrador is an absolute priority for this Province. When I vote today, I want to vote in a way that I feel I am doing the best for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. At this time I have honestly not decided how I will vote, but I will continue to listen to the debate because this debate will not be over until every person who wishes to speak is able to speak and make their points. Until I hear every point of view, and all the merits of this discussion on both sides, at that point in time when we no longer will be debating or speaking and we have to vote, at that time I will cast my vote and I will decide what I feel is in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of this Province that the social agenda and the social issue will be paramount as I make my decision.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 41 is certainly the most significant piece of legislation that I have had the opportunity to speak on during my short term in this House.

While I represent the wonderful District of St. John's Centre, a very urban area, I understand the impact that the fishery has on rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the significant effect that the success or the failure of this industry has had and will continue to have on the lives of the people in this Province and the lives of the people in the gallery here with us today.

The proposal brought before this House is the result of fourteen months of detailed negotiations, and coming with it is over 500 years of history. As has been said many times today and yesterday, the problems in the fishery caused the creation of FPI and the problems may not be solved with the passage of Bill 41; however, we do know that the problems will not go away if Bill 41 does not pass.

During the briefings and the meetings and the reviews of the negotiations and the proposals that led to Bill 41, I understood that FPI was going to offer an Income Trust because it was a cash-starved company and it needed to raise capital. It needed money to finance its operations and its expansion to make the company stronger and allow it to become more competitive, something that would be good for all of the communities in which it operates. It needed an infusion of capital to take the company off life support and give it a chance to live and a chance, hopefully, to grow stronger and to make the communities in which it operated a lot stronger.

I understand that the company hopes to raise upwards of $100 million from this offering, and it intends to put $30 million on its debt and another chunk of money into capital, into expansion of existing operations and community assistance programs. The remainder of the money will be used by the company to strengthen its operations. Maybe it will acquire some competitive companies. Maybe it will expand its marketing operations and do new marketing initiatives, or there may be other ways and other opportunities that they see they would want to spend this money on.

On the surface, when you first look at it, this looks like a good deal. The company gets its cash infusion and it becomes stronger and more competitive. The rural communities will benefit. Fortune will get an $8 million investment. Bonavista will get a new plant. Harbour Breton will get a new plant and $3 million in capital. The government has some security with the deal because the company and the communities get the benefits that I have already mentioned. We have gotten the company to agree to keep control of appointment of the board of directors. We have gotten the company to agree that the 15 per cent ownership on the Trust units has been agreed to by two of the major shareholders in FPI, Sanford and Clearwater companies. There is a seven-year agreement by Ocean Cuisine International to market the FPI product on a go-forward basis, and that can be extended for another seven years at the discretion of FPI. There are limits on dividend payments. There are agreements on debt equity ratios, and we have a five-year commitment by FPI to the communities. We have a commitment that all groundfish will be landed and processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, and FPI have pledged their quotas should they default.

So, it sounds like a good deal. It sounds like we have gotten a lot from FPI. The question, though, is: Is it enough? Are we satisfied that the deal before us is the best deal possible? Are we satisfied that the benefits of this deal outweigh the potential downside and liabilities? There have been many downsides and may liabilities brought out here over the last day and a half.

As has been mentioned by many members on both sides of this hon. House, there are serious concerns and reservations with what is being proposed. There are concerns over the control of the company and if, in fact, we will lost that. There are concerns over the qualifiers being used on some of the commitments. By qualifiers, I mean words like economic viability and resource availability. There are concerns that FPI is too desperate to do this deal. By that I mean, on Monday, overnight on Monday, two very significant changes occurred to this proposal. When I left my briefing on Monday, I understood that there were no changes or alterations going to be made to the proposal, but on Tuesday morning, while driving into this Assembly, I heard that two things had occurred. There had been a change in Fortune and there had been a change in Bonavista; however, I did not hear any change about the people in Harbour Breton, or their situation.

Is the company desperate to do the deal? Why are they so desperate? Why is it that they changed so quickly what had been said less than twenty-four hours before, in a meeting that I attended?

This is our dilemma, Mr. Speaker: Do we support Bill 41 and give FPI the opportunity to strengthen itself and remain competitive? Or do we defeat Bill 41 and strangle the company and the communities in which it operates?

Mr. Speaker, this proposal is certainly not perfect. It has many flaws. I have called FPI and spoken to their CEO, Mr. Rowe, and expressed my personal concerns to him about this deal. I will agree that it is much better than what we started with some fourteen months ago, but I also have to be honest and say it is certainly not an ideal solution.

I have concerns over the direction that FPI may go in the future if this proposal is accepted. I have concerns over what is on the table, or maybe I should say what is not on the table, for Harbour Breton. I have concerns over the commitments that have been made to the other seven FPI plants in this Province. Will these commitments come to fruition? Will FPI use the qualifiers of economic viability and resource availability to try and kill these commitments to the seven communities that they have made them to? Will they try to create some wiggle room for themselves? Will they try to wiggle out or back out of the commitments at some later date if this House of Assembly approves this bill? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak for their intentions, but past experience has not given much comfort to those communities that all of these commitments will be met. There certainly is, to me, an issue of trust, of faith, of believability and of sincerity. While I wrestle with these feelings and these emotions, I cannot help but wonder: Where is the federal government and their support? Why are they not at the table with us?

A couple of days ago, while immersed in the FPI issue, I heard that General Motors had announced they were going to lay off 25,000 of their workers in a number of plants throughout North America, and just last night I was reading on the Internet that the federal government is talking about maybe assisting the General Motors plants in Canada. Why is it that the federal government is already looking at assisting plants in Canada when we do not know yet whether or not they are going to be affected? I have not heard them talk about assisting Harbour Breton. Is it because we are remote? Is it because we are off at the end of the country? Is it because it is 300, 400, 500 people and not 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 people? Well, if it is, it should not be because of numbers. If that is why the federal government is not here, then that is the wrong reason.

I believe that the federal government has not assumed its role in this situation as a leader and as a contributor and as a compassionate and caring government that should respond to a disaster in this community. A disaster in any community in this country is one which the federal government should take notice of and I believe the federal government, in this case, has not done so. We need the federal government to make a commitment to Harbour Breton, to assist in whatever way it can to work with the Province and all of the other parties at the table to bring some resolution to this problem, and it has to happen now. It cannot happen next week, it cannot happen next month, it has to happen now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: The federal government has a role to play and I do not believe they are playing it at the moment. I ask the federal government to come to the table to respond to the needs of Harbour Breton, to respond to the needs of our rural communities, to respond to the needs of FPI. Come to the table and respond now, help the residents of Harbour Breton.

If the deal that we have before us is the deal that we have to stand and vote on, there is going to be a lot of soul-searching happening between now and when that vote occurs. This deal needs to become better. FPI needs to make it better, the federal government needs to make it better, and the provincial government, through the Premier, has indicated that we are prepared to make it a better deal. We want to see this deal succeed. We want to see this legislation pass, but we want to see it pass and look after the concerns of all the people affected. As it sits right now, I am not convinced that will happen.

So, I implore all the other interested parties who are trying to make this a reality, to let these people go home, go back to their homes with some level of comfort and let these people get on with their lives. I implore all of the interested parties who have a stake in this to speak now, not be quiet, not bite their tongue, not hold off for another few days or another few weeks, not even another few hours, we need to hear from them now. There will be a vote in this House of Assembly very shortly and we need to hear what else is going to be put on the table for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, for the community of Harbour Breton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, I will be using a portion of the time that was agreed to under the rules that would be allotted for the critics, either fisheries or justice, in the Opposition Party.

To make some concluding remarks about Bill 41; a very momentous decision, a major decision, and one that I suggest needs to be made. Albeit, I do not necessarily agree that it needs to be made right now, today, at this time.

I would also like to make it quite clear for the record that I am not opposed, in the least, to FPI establishing an Income Trust. I agree wholeheartedly, that for financial, economic growth reasons they - if that is what they feel is necessary - ought to be permitted to do that. No problem whatsoever. Anything that is going to make FPI a better company, bigger company, operate better, more efficiently and securely, go for it. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever. If that means that communities in our Province - Burins, Fortunes, Bonavistas, Port au Choixs, Marystown, anywhere - gets helped, that is great. Do not misunderstand where I stand on the Income Trust, please. I am in favour of establishing an Income Trust if that is what they wish to do.

The concerns I have are with what is not in the agreement in terms of securities. I have raised these questions in Question Period of the Premier and of the Minister of Justice. As it has been alluded to by members on both sides of the House, we know that there are still some big gaps here from that security point of view. There are gaps here from the commitments themselves point of view. For example, we all know there is no commitment here, vis-B-vis, the future of Harbour Breton. So, that is the first problem I have with what is happening in this transaction. We do not have all the commitments we ought to have because we do not have anything for Harbour Breton. That is very problematic.

Secondly, on the security provisions, we do not have it. Now, hopefully, maybe something can get pulled out of the hat at the last moment, the eleventh hour. If that can happen, fine and dandy, and I do not just mean for Harbour Breton. I mean for the missing pieces on the security provisions. It has been acknowledged by the Minister of Justice yesterday that we do not have from the federal people, as far as we know or I know at this point when I speak, any kind of commitment from the federal government that they are prepared to back what is in this agreement about the quotas. If FPI do not deliver, the groundfish quotas would, indeed, be given over to the Province. That causes me concern. If that can be fixed, it certainly improves this deal big time for myself. Because, right now, saying that you have this security over the groundfish licences to back up and force FPI to do what they have committed and saying they are going to do is great, but it is not worth the paper it is written on if the party who controls those quotas are not a party to the deal and agree to allow that to happen should it become an eventuality.

So, it is great to have somebody tell us we have commitments for the Bonavistas and the Fortunes and the Burins, that is great stuff, but I have some grave concerns, at the same breath, in the same paper and the same agreement. The very people who can back that up with their assets and give the securities are not prepared to do it. That is problematic. What they are saying here, again, and the extent of the security - they are only giving security here, if it comes to be a reality, on the groundfish quotas. They are not providing their shellfish quotas as security. They are not providing their dragger fleet as security.

As I used the analogy yesterday, if you go to build a house and the bank gives you the money, the bank takes a mortgage back as security over your house, and if you do not make your payment they come and take your home. What we have here is a situation where we are allowing them to go build their house, called an Income Trust, but we are saying if you do not do all the other commitments you said you were going to do - such as fix up the lawn and put up the fence, for example, the Bonavistas and so on of the world - we are going to take your shed back. We are not going to take your house back. We are only going to take your shed, and that is what is missing here from the security point of view. We have not demanded enough of FPI. If they feel so strongly that they need this Income Trust to do what they want to do - which we all agree should be a good thing to do if it is going to grow the company - why would you not, in the same breath, be prepared to say: And I stand by what I am saying and I am prepared to give you the necessary backing commitment, put my money where my mouth is, and give you whatever security you want? But they are not doing that.

The Premier mentioned yesterday, the parties are dealing in good faith. Well, surely, that does not mean because it says in this agreement that the parties are dealing in good faith that we have to take them on their word. You do not operate in the business world or the banking world just because someone says I am going to act in good faith to you. We have courtrooms in this country filled up with people who said that and did not keep the faith after. All we are saying is take reasonable precautions. What is the point of a commitment to Bonavista if the people of Bonavista do not have a guarantee that it is going to happen? That is what is missing here in this agreement, big time. This is not a case of just being uncomfortable because I do not think something might happen or whatever. This smacks you right in the face, that we do not have the necessary securities. If it is so valuable to them they ought to provide the security. I do not think that is unreasonable of the government.

FPI; yes, investors have, since it was created, privately put a lot of money into this. They deserve to have their profits back and they should maximize their profits but they also have to realize we never would have an FPI here today to be talking about if it was not for the Province and federal government having created it in the first place.

So, we are not asking for security to take back something that we have no right to. This belongs to the people of this Province, and all we are saying is: go use it, make it work, make it grow. Let us have the benefits of it, but if you screw it up and you do not do it right we want to take it back. By changing this Bill 41, we are not giving ourselves, as a Province, the ability to have that protection anymore. Once we pass this here today we forever, as a Province, lose the control that we now have, legislatively, over FPI. That is a big cross to bare in my eyes. It is too big, and there is no need of us having to take that risk; no need whatsoever. If the Income Trust is so valuable and so necessary to the board members of FPI, and they believe in it so much, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and give the security to back it up?

On another issue, the privative clause that this Bill 41 is going to take out. We put a clause in this Act saying that if the Province, through the government, put restrictions on FPI at any time or did things to FPI, in the best interests of the Province - because that is how a Legislature would act and a government would act - but if they did it and FPI did not like it, they would not be able to sue the government because by suing the government, of course, you are suing the people of the Province again. So, we put in a clause saying: No matter how upset you get with us, FPI, you are not going to sue us because what we are doing we are doing in the best interest of the people of this Province. This bill removes that.

Now, the Premier in response, said: Well, all companies who are publicly traded cannot operate in that sphere where you are operating in a business world, yet you cannot sue the government. Why not? They have operated it that way since we put it there. I do not see them not operating because it has been there for the last two or three years. So, I still do not have an answer as to why we would jeopardize our protection that we have with that privative clause and take it out, and I do not have an answer. Nobody has given me an answer, and I have not heard it from FPI and I have not heard it come out here. That should cause people concern and we have not gotten it.

I heard comments this morning about, is voting for - yes, if I stand up here in this House and vote yes for these amendments, the suggestion is that I am standing up for rural Newfoundland because it protects places like Bonavista and Fortune. The suggestion is, the converse of that, if I vote no, that I am not standing up for Newfoundland, and particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is just not the way it is. My concern here is exactly that. We do not have the necessary protections and guarantees that we ought to have for rural Newfoundland and Labrador in this piece of legislation.

I am not prepared, as a member of this House, to cast a vote here that only goes so far as putting communities, like: Bonavista, Fortune, Burin and Marystown, on life support for five years with no guarantee as to what might happen to them after. I am not prepared to do that. I am certainly not prepared to vote yes, and positively, absolutely, guarantee the closure of Harbour Breton. I certainly hope we do not hear anybody in this House suggesting that a person, whichever party they are a member of, who stands up and votes against this resolution, that it is a vote against rural Newfoundland or vice versa. So, I hope no politics gets spun on that. I would think my concerns, which I raised, have been very legitimate.

I said yesterday, and I will say again now: I applaud the government and I commend the government for dealing with the issue. You have taken fourteen months, you have a lot of good commitments in here. You have come a long way, but we simply have not gone far enough, and there is no rush today to let FPI off the hook and pass this. There is no rush.

Is FPI going to close its doors tomorrow or next week if we vote against this resolution today - seriously? It will send a strong message to FPI that, we are prepared to go the whole ball of wax with you, but you have to give us the necessary protections that we need. We are not making unreasonable demands. Go build whatever house you want and use it however you want, party hardy in it and grow it, but if you abuse it and you abuse what you are telling the people of this Province you are committed to do, we are taking it back.

I say we are doing a major, major disservice to the people of this Province, if we, as legislators, are going to take the chance of selling rural Newfoundland down the tubes, vis-B-vis FPI, by forever removing the constraints of the FPI Act. It is not a one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, I think I am explaining myself quite clearly. My view is that you should not allow FPI, without the commitments I am saying. No problem in doing it, I am absolutely in favour of doing it, but not doing it the way that you have it structured. Saying that we could not get the deal we wanted is not good enough. That is not good enough. That is not an option, to say that we asked for all of those things and did not get them, so therefore because we did not get them we are going to cave in, capitulate. That is not the answer. If we are such good negotiators, and we were good negotiators - your government was a good negotiator on the Atlantic Accord. You kept the feet of the Prime Minister to the fire and the federal government to deliver. Why not keep the feet of the FPI board to the fire, and say, if you do not deliver, you are simply not getting it, we are not prepared? If you are going to die you are going to die, if that is the case, but you do not have to die, just be reasonable and give us the security we need. That is what I am suggesting here.

There is an old saying that, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Well I say, Mr. Speaker, we have neither bird here, because we have a bunch of commitments that we have no security for. I have big, big problems with it. I hope and pray, that if this goes ahead today and this comes to a vote, that there is a rabbit that comes out of the hat. I hope there are some commitments forthcoming from the federal government vis-B-vis the quotas. I hope the government here is insisting upon the additional securities, vis-B-vis the shellfish quotas and the dragger fleet. I hope the government can negotiate something here for Harbour Breton. If that happens, I do not think there is anybody in this House who has a problem with this. I wouldn't see why anybody would. It is a win win for everyone. Right now, they have the government's feet to the fire it seems. They are saying, you either vote for this today or we are going to die. I do not think that scenario works either. Thank you very much, FPI, but we, as a Province, have a right to insist upon what we are asking for. Thank you very much. It is not unreasonable. You are only asking to grow yourself and we are definitely going to support you in growing yourself, but give us the protections that we need.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I have grave problems with this, because I think if we allow it to pass in its current form, we, indeed, have done a great disservice to this Province and to the people, particularly, of rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like my colleagues here in the House, I am pleased to rise, to be given the opportunity to speak on this very important amendment put forth in this House dealing with quite a serious situation, as serious a situation, Mr. Speaker, as I have ever gotten up and spoken upon.

It is certainly gratifying to know that, on both sides of this House, we are working towards the same goal, a goal to make a decision here in this Legislature that is going to be in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Given a free vote means that there are no partisan politics involved, that this is not a government proposal, that this is certainly an amendment that is brought forth, as I have already referenced, that is for the good, we hope, of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially, Mr. Speaker, those who occupy rural Newfoundland. When we look at the reasons that we are here, we fully realize that it is to ensure that a way of life continues in many, if not all, of our communities in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, of course, the amendment deals with a company, FPI, a company that was formed to provide, I guess, the resources that are necessary for the survival of towns like Marystown, Fortune, Bonavista and others, and Harbour Breton as well. This company was formed to bring some prosperity, some hope to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, again in particular the people in rural Newfoundland in these communities that I have referenced. Of course, we all know that if this company is a strong company, indirectly or directly we would have a strong rural Newfoundland. This operation began in Newfoundland, expanded beyond the borders of Newfoundland and Labrador, and went on to international, national and international markets, and have holdings, I suppose, not only in this Province but in other provinces and indeed other countries. It is quite important, I guess, that it survive and survive in a manner that it can continue to provide some degree of prosperity to the communities that it serves.

As a member of this Legislature, I certainly am having the same difficulties that many of my colleagues are having, in trying to find a way out of the dilemma that the hon. member just talked about, the dilemma of saying the yes or the no with regard to the amendment. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is almost like a no win situation. A yes certainly would help some communities, and a no, perhaps, could be the death of a particular community, Harbour Breton.

As we look down through - and I have listened very intently to the debate as it has unfolded in the last number of days - I say, Mr. Speaker, it has been an enlightening debate. I started, in my listening to what was going on, clearly unsure of which way I would place my vote with regard to the amendment. As I stand here, Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the eleventh hour of this debate, I am still in that dilemma, as to whether to support or deny this particular piece of legislation. I am looking for that balance where all parties can be winners, that we can move forward in a positive way with strong communities, a strong company, and indeed a stronger Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not have to reiterate the challenges that have been presented to rural Newfoundland over the past decade. I know, all too well, the reasons that we can attribute to the challenges. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that with those challenges that came forth, many communities have been able to meet those challenges, continue to be prosperous, and continue to be able to provide the services in their communities that are necessary to ensure the health, I guess, of the people in those communities, to ensure that there is some hope for future generations. The challenges have overcome other communities, Mr. Speaker, with these changing demographics, as our population ages, as the number of births decline, as the out-migration has taken, perhaps, a generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. When it comes to our resources, especially with regard to our fish stocks, beginning, I guess, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the cod moratorium and depletion of other stocks has, certainly, made it an extreme challenge in some parts of this Province.

It appears the latest victim, Mr. Speaker, of those sorts of challenges and changes is the community of Harbour Breton. I am familiar with this particular community and know, full well, the importance that this particular company, FPI, had with regard to not only their past, but certainly their future, and how circumstances have taken them from the have community that they were to, perhaps, the have not that they are at this particular time. As these negotiations over the past fourteen months took place, first and foremost on my mind was this particular community and how absolutely necessary it was to, in those negotiations, ensure that their needs would be looked after.

I would have to congratulate the committee from Harbour Breton that formed shortly after the news of the plant shutdown and so forth came out, and how they have been tenacious in following this over the last fourteen months, of engaging themselves in negotiations with FPI and how they haven't dropped the ball, Mr. Speaker, and continue, right up to this minute, in keeping the pressure on this particular company to come forth with what is required for Harbour Breton to move forward. I have nothing but admiration and pride in the way not only that committee but the people in that particular community have met this challenge and continue. They deserve to get what should be theirs and that is a future in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with them, that it is absolutely necessary that the company step up to the plate, to fulfil and go that last mile, to bring about the resources that are necessary for that community to pick up where FPI has left off so abruptly and continue on. In continuing on, Mr. Speaker, we know there is, in these negotiations, other communities that have been mentioned, and, of course, there lies the dilemma. I know these negotiations have also extended lifelines to these particular communities, and these communities are, I guess, somewhat pleased that they have been given consideration. They see this as their lifeline as they continue to go forward and try to continue their community in a manner which will allow them a good future not only for themselves, but, of course, for those who come after.

I referenced already, Mr. Speaker, the government's involvement and how over the last fourteen months - I guess, at the start of it we were at ground zero - through the committee, through the Premier efforts and the efforts of other members of this government, they have continued to go back and force the FPI company to cough up, if you want to put it that way, Mr. Speaker, and as I said before, to step up to the plate, to make sure they are able to get what is necessary for, not only Harbour Breton but also the other communities that are involved with the FPI company, to get what is required for them to grow.

With regard to the company, Mr. Speaker, again we would hope that they are looking at this interest trust with the right intentions. I guess it is all about trust, because when you look at the past record of this particular company, it has been a rocky one, and some of their actions make it very difficult for someone like myself to have some degree of trust in their ability to fulfil their commitments. I have seen some of the members get up and express the same type of a reaction, that we need to be sure that somehow or another we can have what others have called a hammer, I suppose, to make sure that the commitments that they would have made to the Bonavista area, for example, would indeed be carried out.

I have some serious concerns about that because, once again, when we look at the actions and the selling of the interest trust, perhaps the dilution of the ownership, eventually, of this particular company, when we look at what they are going to do with that particular money, certainly it sounds good that $30 million of it would be to pay off debt, that they would somehow or another invest it in the communities that I have already referenced, that through this particular move they would indeed strengthen their position and be able to grow the company, again I am skeptical, to some degree, of their ability to be able to do that. When we look at it, we want to be sure that we have some level of comfort that will enable us to vote whichever way we are going to vote, especially with regard to the positive.

It is an awful dilemma, Mr. Speaker, and one which I certainly will take under consideration in the hours that follow, but the other part about it, again I have mentioned the involvement of the community of Harbour Breton, and also the other communities as well, as they have lobbied hard to make sure that FPI continue their involvement in this particular Province in a way that is best for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have mentioned as well how the provincial government, through our Premier, have been very vigilant in bringing about the deal which we have before us today.

The other partner, of course, and one that has already been referenced and one that I will reference as well, is the involvement of the federal government. Of course, I must reserve my judgement until we get to the vote to see how indeed the federal government are going to step up to the plate and provide us, in this Province, with some degree of support for this particular situation. Up to this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been - and the Premier has referenced his contact with the various ministers involved, Minister Stronach, Minister Regan and others, but again very little reference to the MPs who represent this particular Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We all know that they were very vocal when it came to the Atlantic Accord, especially as it was being settled, but when we look at the government MPs we certainly have to wonder where they are on this particular file because, once again, we need them to lobby their government to come forth with the required support that we need in order for us to be able to resolve the situation.

We are moving towards resolve, but I, at this particular point, as many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, am waiting, and waiting somewhat impatiently, for word to come that indeed the federal government have come forth with the required resources to, in particular, help the community of Harbour Breton to move forward, that it is so important that they be given the resources that they need in order to build up to where they were prior to the pullout of FPI, to give them the hope that they need to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, again, as a member of this Assembly, I certainly take this vote quite seriously, and at this particular time am apprehensive that maybe resolve will not be found. I know the vote will be taken, but for us to move out of this particular House without resolve will be problematic not only for the community of Harbour Breton but for rural Newfoundland in general, because it is so very, very important that we put together a strong Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, as I referenced the challenges that we continue to have in this Province, like I said, as the population changes we have a more aging population.

Certainly I would say, in summing up, that many of the things I have already said and would like to say have been expressed by just about every member here. It is a free vote. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. Members on both sides of this House will have to make up their minds, when they look at it, as to what is best.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is by no means a perfect deal, by no means, when we look at the fear that we have that we are somehow or another getting less control over the operations of FPI, that there are some grievous concerns about our ability to hold them to their commitments. They talk about five years down the road. That is a long period of time, especially when you are looking at the challenges that I referred to, and keeping this company to those commitments is very, very important. We need to have some level of comfort, in going forth, that they will be able to deliver what they have indicated they will.

We would again like to see the federal government come forward with what they require in order to facilitate the rebuilding of the community of Harbour Breton, to make sure that FPI have sustainability as they go forward with regard to the other communities, that we, as a government - again, I am very, very pleased with the way this government has dealt with this situation. We have certainly stepped up to the plate in keeping FPI to the task of helping out with the community of Harbour Breton, with regard to the other communities, that we have put forth what we can.

I am also sure, no matter what the resolve that comes out of this today, that this government has made a firm commitment not only to the communities that are referenced in this particular vote but also to all of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this government is intending to move forward in a strategic manner to move whatever files are necessary to create the type of Newfoundland and Labrador that promotes growth, that promotes hope, that allows our generations to come the opportunity to live and prosper in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For me, Mr. Speaker, again, I am very pleased that I had the opportunity to rise to speak. As I have said throughout my speech, I am waiting to see what comes out of the latest negotiations with regard to FPI, with regard to the federal government. When that comes through, I think I will be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to vote either yea or nay with regard to this amendment.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said last night when I rose that we are probably debating the most important amendment that has ever been made to a bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would just like to have some clarification, if the Leader of the Opposition is using the time that is allotted as the critic for Fisheries and Justice. There has been a one-hour time frame, and the Chair would just like clarification if the Leader of the Opposition is using up that particular time right now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that any time that an interruption has been caused - we do not want to take any time away from the Leader of the Opposition.

The amount of time has been allotted. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to utilize that time when he sees fit, I think. Directly to your question, I believe that is the case. I think you have forty-five minutes left. The Leader of the Opposition has forty-five minutes left, by my recollection or by my timing, is my understanding.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I said last night, this is probably the most important amendment to a piece of legislation that we have ever had in this House before. Having witnessed what happened here in the last two days, I am certain right now that it is the most important piece of legislation, or amendment to a piece of legislation, that we have ever had, because it affects so many people in so many communities and so many regions in our beautiful Province.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am somewhat responsible for this piece of legislation being here today, and the vote, the free vote that we are having on it. I remember last fall, in questioning the Premier about the possibility of doing the Income Trust for FPI, I asked him if he would commit that he would bring it to the House of Assembly before he gave the go-ahead. He committed at that time that he would indeed bring it before the House, and we would indeed have a free vote. I thank the Premier for that. I do not particularly like the process that we are into in the last couple of days, but that is not something we are going to argue about.

For those who are watching in the gallery and those who are watching on television, and you are wondering why members of the Opposition have not stood this afternoon, one of the agreements was that each individual would speak once, and most of our caucus spoke last night or this morning.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about process, I received a call from my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, last Sunday night, because he had spoken with the Government House Leader and he was informed that we were going to be debating the FPI Act and the Income Trust on Thursday and Friday. At that point, we did not know anything that was in that Income Trust or the legislation that was being put forward to the House.

We asked for briefings, and on Monday morning we received a briefing from government. On Monday afternoon, I called FPI and asked Derrick Rowe and his group to come in and also give our caucus a briefing. What we were told on Monday morning was basically this: If we would allow FPI to sell 40 per cent of their American assets into an Income Trust, here is what we would give to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Number one, we would keep all plants open for five years. Number two, we would, at the end of two years, decide if we were going to rebuild the crab plant in Bonavista or move it to Catalina. Number three, there was a commitment to build an addition to a plant on the Burin Peninsula for secondary processing. In return for that, they were going to keep the plants open. The only conditions, I guess, that we could put in those - oh, no, beside that, they said the only way we can keep our promises, though, is if there is resource availability and it is economically viable. We will talk about that later.

On Monday afternoon we met with Mr. Rowe and I asked him if he was going to build a plant in Bonavista. He said: We will let you know in two years. I said: Two years if you are going to build it in Bonavista, or if you are going to move it to Catalina? He said: We do not have that decision made yet and we will not make it for two years. This was Monday afternoon.

When I asked how much money they were going to put into the plant in Fortune, he said: We have not decided that the secondary processing line was going to Fortune. I said: What is in it for Harbour Breton? They said: $1.5 million up front and $1.5 million once the Income Trust is finished, on the condition - because there are always conditions with FPI - that they drop their charge, or their suit, against FPI with the Labour Relations Board. Because the people of Harbour Breton firmly believe, as I do, that they were not given sufficient notice, under the law, by the way. They were supposed to get twelve weeks, as far as we know. They were supposed to get twelve weeks notice that their jobs were no longer there. FPI did not do that, so what the people from Harbour Breton did was launch a suit with the Labour Relations Board. They have calculated, in Harbour Breton, that FPI basically owes them somewhere between $2 million and $3 million, I believe, in severance. So all FPI is giving them is what I consider to be what is rightly their dues.

That was all on Monday, so I figured this is what we are going to be debating on Thursday. Now, we did not see the change to the legislation, because we asked for that on Sunday night. My colleague asked for that on Sunday night: Let us see what we have to do with the legislation to make all of this happen. We did not receive that on Monday. If it was, it was very late Monday or early Tuesday.

I went to Central Newfoundland on Tuesday morning, and later in the day I heard the Mayor of Bonavista on the radio saying we have a new crab plant for Bonavista. No consultations with us or anybody else, because I was of the understanding that there was no commitment to Bonavista beyond two years and then the decision would be made. Then, in the same day, I think, or hours thereafter, I heard that there was a commitment to give to Fortune that the secondary processing facility was going to be built in Fortune, or an addition to the plant or a refurbished the plant.

What I am saying is, things continued to change. There was still no change in what was there for Harbour Breton. Harbour Breton was basically out of the fishery, no quotas, and they were going to get $3 million if they signed off on their litigation that they had against FPI. So, you can see why I am a bit disturbed about the process, because when I sit down now I am not going to be allowed to speak any more to this issue. I am not going to be allowed to ask a question any more today about what is in this.

It really scares me, because right now, as far as I know, unless someone knows and has not told us, we do not know if there is anything in this package besides the $3 million for Harbour Breton. I know the Premier is trying to look for fish to put into Harbour Breton. We have heard things like redfish, but they are all rumours. We do not know what is in it for Harbour Breton. Unfortunately, somewhere between now and 10:00 o'clock tonight, according to our rules, I have to vote whether to accept this package or reject it.

What disturbs me even more about it is that we are pitting community against community, region against region. As we speak here today, we have people in the gallery from Fortune, we have people in the gallery from Bonavista, who are telling me and my caucus members you have to vote for this. You have to vote for this, because this is the only ray of hope we have.

If I were my colleague from Fortune, who represents Fortune today, I would be voting for it because there is a promise, but that is all it is. There is a promise to the town that, if she votes for this and we vote for it, she is going to get a new secondary processing facility and it is going to employ 200 people - 201 to be exact - in her community in her district. If you do not vote for it, I guess, you are not getting anything because there is no commitment other than that to Fortune.

If I were the Speaker here today, or the Chair of the Committee who is sitting in the Chair, and he is from Bonavista, I guess I would do the same thing because a promise is better than nothing. It holds out a ray of hope, something that we have been living on in this Province since we arrived here 500 years ago. But, I looked at my colleague from Harbour Breton and, as it stands right there, what is there for him now? Absolutely nothing - $3 million, a make-work program, see you. How many times have we seen it around the Province? How many times? I do not need to tell you the towns: Burgeo, Ramea, Gaultois, Trepassey, and many others who had nothing only a bit of make work after their fish quotas were gone and their plants were closed, fortunately.

The same thing happened, by the way, to St. Anthony. FPI owned that plant at one time. They had a crab licence, believe it or not, and you know how much of a dispute myself and the Minister of Fisheries today have had over the crab licence in St. Anthony. They had a crab licence. They gave it away. FPI gave it away, didn't they? They closed the plant, took their quotas, moved out, took the offshore shrimp licence, moved out, left them with nothing.

I say to you today, Minister, that without the quota that you received from the federal government, and the help that you received from the provincial government at the time, because we supported it, and I think, Brian Tobin was your federal member at the time, and he supported it - or the Premier; or he was the Premier - you got your shrimp quota and now you have your crab licence, and I think that St. Anthony might be in a position that it might survive, but we are talking about Harbour Breton being left with nothing only a hope.

How many times are we going to sit or stand in this House and say we have to drop one town to save another? We have to say goodbye to Harbour Breton and Burgeo and Gaultois because we have to try and save the rest of the communities? How long are we going to do that? That is a good question.

There are a few problems I have with the whole deal. Even if there was something for Harbour Breton, even if there was something for Fortune, and even if there was something in it for Bonavista and all the other FPI plants, the problem that I have with it is the legislation, what we are going to do with the legislation.

My colleague talks about FPI making all of these promises, but we have no way of making them live up to these promises. There is no kicker. We have been calling it a hammer, I think, in the last few days. There is no hammer to hit those fellows over the head if they do not live up to their commitments. There is not. There is nothing there.

You know, number one and number two, the two clauses they have in it, none of this can happen unless it is economical viable and we have resource availability. So they can back out of any one of these promises based on one of these. I do not mean to frighten, believe me, the people of Bonavista, because I have a great deal of respect for the member. He is a buddy of mine, or I think he, but here is the problem with resource availability. The quota on the Northeast Coast of this Province, Bonavista North, was reduced by 20 per cent this year. DFO recommended 35 per cent. I have talked to scientists at DFO and they said, because we did not reduce it by 35 per cent this year, we are probably going to have to reduce it even further next year.

I do not think the minister down there would disagree with that; that is a real possibility. I certainly hope it does not happen, but that is the caveat, or a hole or a window, that FPI can crawl through in a year from now, or two years from now, before that plant goes. They are not going to start building it until the fall of 2007, and there is no indication that the stock is going to recover in that time. If you were a betting man, you would probably say it was going to decrease.

That is one thing that FPI can walk out of the deal on Bonavista with right now, resource availability. Now, what can we do if they break one of the commitments? What can we do? The only thing that I have seen, and that is what my colleagues spoke so well about this afternoon, the only recourse that the Province has right now, is to take their groundfish quotas. We do not even know if they can do that yet, because that is something else that is part of the deal that we are voting on.

The Fisheries Minister told me this morning that we cannot do that unless we get consent from the federal government, and - correct me if I am wrong, Minister - that consent has not been put to paper yet. That is right. Just imagine if the federal government puts that consent to paper and says, yes, you can remove the groundfish quotas, so if they do not build a plant in Bonavista, what happens? Government takes their groundfish quotas. So, you have no plant in Bonavista and, as a result, the government is taking their groundfish quotas. What are they going to do in Marystown and on the South Coast without a groundfish quota? The government would be effectively closing these fish plants. I do not think that is an option, ladies and gentlemen. I do not think the Premier or any government today would pull their quotas. Instead of one plant closed, then you have five or six gone. The other kicker in it is, FPI, I think, has the right to lease them back from the government. How silly. Think about it. We are going to take your licence from you, because that is the only hammer we have to hit you over the head if you do not live up to a commitment, but you have the right to lease them back from us. Think about that. Think about it. That isn't a commitment.

The economic viability, as I said last night to the Minister of Justice, he and I could both own a similar business on the same street corner in St. John's or in Corner Brook or in Burgeo, selling the same stuff, and he could make that company economically viable; but, because I do not have the business acumen that he has, I do not. So, how do we know if FPI is going to make a real effort to make a plant economically viable? We do not, but that is an out for them. That is another window they can crawl out through.

There is the problem I have with, as my colleague said, no securities, but there is a bigger, far bigger, problem for me with this whole thing. The minister who represents Lewisporte knows this bill, and he knows it well, because I think you brought in an amendment to it in 1987.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, sir, I brought in the bill.

MR. REID: You brought in the bill, good. You brought in the bill in 1987.

As I said last night, I admire - the first time I have ever said this - Brian Peckford for establishing FPI. That is the first time I have ever said that I admire anything about Brian Peckford, but I do admire him because that company has done a lot for this Province, and it would continue to do a lot for this Province if we could somehow work to ensure that, if they did not, we would be able to deal with it.

Anyway, to get back to it, there are a couple of very important clauses in the FPI contract, or in the FPI piece of legislation, that we are going to change tonight. The two most important things are: number one, no individual or group of individuals can own any more than 15 per cent of the company. We did that so that, after setting up the company, putting our money into it, the federal government, we set it up, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through our government, we did not want some individual to come in and buy it up, walk away or sell it, so we put the share restriction there. No one individual or group of individuals could buy any more than 15 per cent of FPI.

More importantly, I think, there is another clause in that contract and the bill that we are going to change tonight. That is: FPI cannot sell all, or substantially all, of its assets. FPI cannot sell all, or substantially all, of its assets. Think about that, and think about it carefully, because when we change the legislation here tonight we will, in effect, be allowing FPI to sell all, or substantially all, of its assets - of the American assets. All or substantially all of the assets -

AN HON. MEMBER: Of the marketing arm.

MR. REID: Of the marketing arm.

Guess what, ladies and gentleman? The American assets - that is the marketing and the secondary processing in the United States - make up 60 per cent of FPI. Sixty per cent of the income to FPI comes from the American assets. If we change this bill tonight, there is nothing that is going to prevent us from letting anybody buy up 60 per cent of the assets of FPI. Just think about it. Sixty per cent of the assets of FPI, 60 per cent of the money-makers, 60 per cent of the cash cow, is gone. They might not be able to control it, because of the regulations in the bill, but they will own it. If I own something, believe me, someone else might think they are going to control it but that is not going to happen for very long.

Besides buying up 60 per cent of the assets, they can also hold 15 per cent of the entire company. There are three individuals: Mr. Risley in Nova Scotia, Mr. Sanford in New Zealand, and an unidentified group in Iceland; they all own 15 per cent each. There is nothing stopping the Icelanders, tomorrow, from buying - if we change the legislation tonight - all of the American assets. So, they are going to own 60 per cent over here and they are going to own 15 per cent over here. They are going to own, as far as I am concerned, all or substantially all of the assets of FPI, because we are going to amend the Act. That is what I have the biggest problem with.

My colleague talked about how there is another thing in there to use as a hammer if they break their commitments, and that is true. There is nothing in the contract expect take their quotas, and we know you cannot do that, take their groundfish quotas. We cannot do that, and no one here is willing to strengthen that. It does not matter about the penalties that are in there if someone owns all or substantially all of the company. If we sell that tomorrow and the Icelanders buy all of the American asset, which is 60 per cent of FPI, and they have 15 per cent of the other part of the company, they own it. As far as I am concerned, they own it. If they say, yes, we will give you the commitments, boys, what is going to stop them next week if they come in and close down every single plant that they own in Newfoundland and Labrador? What is going to stop them in this Act? There is absolutely nothing. Commitments! What commitments? We own the company. You do not own the company. We will relinquish any control we have over FPI by changing that, I say to the Minister of Justice. You might say that it is the American company, and yes, they will own the American company, but one of these companies will own 15 per cent of the Newfoundland assets too, by the way.

What happens if the three of them get together and buy the American assets? They already own 45 per cent of the Canadian assets and the overall company, and they buy all of the American assets. Sure they are going to own 80 or 90 per cent of the company. What are we going to do then? What recourse do we have, ladies and gentleman?

The people in the audience who are asking us to vote this way or vote that way, I do not think it matters how we vote, because there is nothing in any of this that will allow us to exercise any control over FPI if we pass this bill tonight. I will tell you what, I have had a number of calls from very influential people in this Province, and if I mentioned their names, which I do not want to do, you would all know them. Do you know what they are calling it? They are telling me this - do you remember Churchill Falls, ladies and gentleman? Being a Liberal, I have had to live with that since I was a very young boy, the biggest resource giveaway in the history of the Province. Right? Guess what they are saying to me, these influential individuals? They are saying: Gerry Reid, if you vote for that tonight you are voting for the biggest resource giveaway in the history of our Province. It is not the fish quotas we are giving away, we are giving away our people. If there are no quotas and there are no plants, there is no Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown, Bonavista, Port aux Choix, and no Catalina. What are we doing?

Here are the problems I have with the Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not just the fact that there is nothing in it for Harbour Breton right now, because even if the Premier pulls a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute and says, we have something for Harbour Breton, we want you to vote for it, there are still major concerns. What we are saying is, I hope you get the quotas for Harbour Breton but let's still work on this piece of legislation. Let's work on FPI to ensure that we do have a hammer and that these individuals do not take ownership.

I have been told, today, by a very influential individual - I asked the question: Why doesn't the government put ownership restrictions on the Income Trust shares? Why doesn't the government ask FPI to put restrictions on how much they can buy of the American assets? I think maybe you have asked that of the Board of Directors. The answer came back, as Mr. Sanford in New Zealand said, that is okay, I will agree not to buy any more than 15 per cent, and Mr. Risley said, I will agree not to buy more than 15 per cent, but the Icelanders said, we are not agreeing to that. While they may say we agree to it, there is nothing stopping them from changing their minds tomorrow and going out and buying it. Where are we? Where are we with this?

I do not know if it frightens you people, but, boy, I am telling you, it is tearing the guts out of most of the people in the Province, or most of the people who know enough about it. It is not as simple as saying, we have a plant for Harbour Breton and a quota. It is not as simple as saying, we have a plant for Fortune and a plant for Bonavista. I do not think that we can even say that if we follow through with the legislation that is on the table. What we are asking is, let's strengthen it. Let's put some of those hammers in the legislation securities, that if they do not do what they said - I was the Minister of Fisheries back in 2002 when this group of people made their commitments to Bonavista. We were in the communities. The Member for Bonavista, who is sitting in the Chair up there, was with me. The Minister of Fisheries was with me. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was with me. The Member for Bay of Islands was with me. The Leader of the NDP Party was with me.

We went around this Province and visited every community that had an FPI plant, after, I might add, this group of FPI directors told us that their commitments when they took over the Board of Directors were: Number one, we are going to rebuild the plants, we are going to make them state of the art modern plants; number two, we are going to rebuild the boats, make them state of the art vessels where we can harvest what fish there is out there; and number three, and most importantly - number three is the one that got to me and it gets to me today because we are heading down the same path, ladies and gentleman - we are not going to lay people off, we are going to hire more. I do not think there is anyone in the gallery here today who never hear that: We are going to employ more people, not fewer. They were not in their offices six months when they tried to lay off 700 people on the South Coast of this Province. What does that mean? That was a lie, that is how I look at it. That is not a broken commitment, that is an outright, boldfaced lie.

We stopped them from doing that. They said: Oh yeah, we will not do that. Guess what they told us, the All-Party Committee, what we agreed to? No layoffs unless negotiated with the union. Well, where are the people in Harbour Breton today? What negotiations did they have with the union? I do not think, for a minute, the union negotiated the closure of Harbour Breton, but the plant is going. If you want to ask people about commitments from FPI, ask the people of Harbour Breton, go to them and say: How do you feel about the commitment that I am getting a new plant in Bonavista or Fortune? Ask the people of Harbour Breton that. I think the politest thing that they could say is, don't take that to the bank, but I do not think that those are the words they would use. I really do not believe those are the words they would use.

You can see why we are upset here today, why we are torn. I truly do not like outsiders. The Premier mentioned today about how the Board of Directors of FPI are influential, decent, hard working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Guess what? I do not think there is one person in this House of Assembly who would disagree with him. They are. I have talked to them. I know they are decent individuals. But, guess what? They are not the owners of the company. They were appointed by the shareholders, and I guess when you are hired by somebody or appointed by somebody you do what you are told. Obviously, the owners, the shareholders, must give some direction to the board of directors. Guess who are the owners? I know who 45 per cent of the entire company belongs to: John Risley, Mr. Sanford and the Icelanders.

The interesting thing that I was told again today was that: You know, Iceland - I have been there. Two hundred and forty thousand people survive totally on fish, nothing else. You hear comments on the Open Line Show, all these fishermen are rich in Newfoundland and Labrador because they drive around in expensive pickups. Well, guess who is the top echelon in society in Iceland? The fishermen. Why shouldn't they be? The country would not exist without them. But in Newfoundland and Labrador, for some reason, boy, if you are a fisherman, you are not supposed to be up there with people who have done well in other businesses. Now, these are the people.

What has happened in the United States, as of late, is that the Icelandic companies - and there are a number of them, different consortiums. Apparently, the two largest ones just merged in the United States, like all kinds of merges. It is my bet that the minute the Income Trust is offered up, the Icelanders are going to grab that up because they do not want competition. They do not want that competition. If they buy up that asset, the money we used to, and Vic Young used to take from the asset that was making money all during the moratorium - the only part of FPI that made money during the moratorium was the American assets, the Marketing Division, the Value Added Division.

I told you last night I went through the place down there, great spot. They were making money for Newfoundland and Labrador and Vic Young was taking it and funnelling it back into the plants that he managed to keep open during the 1990s through the moratorium. But, if one company buys all of the assets in the United States, who does the board of directors look to first? Who does he look to first? He, obviously, has to look after the shareholders or the owner of that. If there is any money to be made, I cannot imagine the owner of that resource, that division saying: That is alright, boy. Send that money up to Newfoundland and Labrador. I know they are having a hard time in Harbour Breton, boy. Send that money up. We will employ them up there. Just think about that.

What happens if they buy all of the assets, where we used to dip into the till in the United States and help us out up here? The till would be gone. So, we are standing on our own then, and that frightens me. I do not want to see the American assets of FPI sold off, believe me, ladies and gentlemen. I do not, because as far as I am concerned that is our nest egg. That is our banks. That is the money we have put in the bank and that is the money that will help us through a hard time, and we are going through a hard time right now. Maybe that is the reason they want to sell it off, but I do not know if there is any other way FPI can raise the money to do what they are planning to do. I do not know, because I asked Mr. Rowe the other day: Why are you going with an Income Trust rather than looking at some other way to raise capital? The only answer I got was: that is the preferred route that we want to go. He did not tell me that they were in financial difficulty, that they could not raise the money on the market or could not borrow it from a bank. He did not tell me any of that. He just said that was the preferred route.

I do not know if FPI cannot raise the money anywhere else. Just think about what they are saying they are going to do when they do raise the money. They are going to put a few dollars into Burin, or into Fortune. They are going to put a few dollars into Bonavista. They are going to pay a few dollars or more dollars on the debt. I do not know if the debt is all in Newfoundland and Labrador or if part of it is in the United States, but the lion's share of it, $50 million, is going elsewhere. Where is it going? Do you know? If you do, you should tell us because we do not over here. If there is anyone on the government side who knows where that extra $50 million or $60 million is going, I would like to know. It would make my vote a lot easier tonight. It would make my vote.

They are talking about investing - and these are rumours, because I do not know the facts - I heard today, in a shrimp plant in Europe which will help them get shrimp in. Maybe there is some validity to this. There is another rumour - and I will say it is a rumour - that they are going to open a secondary processing facility in China. Now, these are rumours, I do not know if they are true or not, but if anyone knows what they are going to do with the $60 million, I would love to hear it. If we change the legislation here tonight and we lose control of that company, these rumours could become reality very fast and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

I have a real problem with people in Europe going to work in a shrimp plant that was built by a company which was established in Newfoundland and Labrador in this House, right on this floor. I certainly have a real problem with the Newfoundland taxpayers money having gone into FPI to originally set it up and now they are going to sell off some of the assets and open up a secondary processing plant in China where they can undercut us, and they are not going to put some money into Harbour Breton, the people who built the company.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: As my colleague from Fortune says, by so doing, undercut Burin and Fortune in secondary processing. Who built the company, FPI? It started here. It started with taxpayers money as a loan. It was paid back but it was started here. Who built it though? We all take great pride in saying we built FPI; we started it. I do not take credit for that. You know who built FPI. It was not me and it was not anyone in this House. People in the gallery, that is who built FPI. It is the individual who told me he had thirty-seven years in the plant in Harbour Breton and got fired. What is he getting out of it? What is he getting for his investment? He is being told to take his family, at fifty-five years old, because that is how old he is - seventeen when he went in the plant, fifty-five now. Thirty-eight years in the plant and now he is told: You have nothing, you do not have a pension, you do not have a medical plan, take you children and move. Where is he going? Maybe FPI will take him and move him to Europe to work in their shrimp plant. I do not mean to be funny because this is far from being funny. What are we doing? Where do we go?

I tell you, I spoke to three groups today in the lobby and it would tear the heart out of you. Mr. Reid, you have to vote for this, boy, it is our only hope. They know - believe me, these people are not stupid. They know it is a commitment and that is all it is. They have heard commitments from these people before, but it is their only ray of hope, and they are willing to bite the bullet.

I am telling you, I have very serious problems about leaving Harbour Breton behind because if we get rid of Harbour Breton this year, in five years from now is it going to be Fortune, Marystown? Is it going to be Port au Choix or Port Union? I do not know, but I will tell you, I think it is time to draw the line in this Province.

We all talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We all wax eloquently about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyday, as we speak, there is an exodus from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We sit and stand in this House of Assembly and we are the champions, and they are all gone. They are moving. Now we are saying to another whole area, whole region, not just the town: nothing we can do for you. Because believe me, ladies and gentlemen, without fish, Harbour Breton will never survive, and without the right kind of fish Harbour Breton will never survive.

My problem is, even if they get their fish and the right kind, with this piece of legislation, I am finding it very difficult to be able to vote for it because I think we are going to be back - we will not be able to come back though. We will not be able to come back to the Legislature to try - we will not be able to come back to the Legislature anymore to debate whether or not we are going to let FPI do this because we will not own the company. We do not own it now but at least we have the legislation here that can pretty well make FPI do what we want them to do, but that is subject to change tonight.

My only fear is this, they made the commitments, they made the promises, they broke them in the past. They may break them in the future, they may not. My only fear is that with the change in the legislation, if we do not strengthen the legislation and not let them buy up the 60 per cent of the company that exists in the United States - if we do not put the hammer in there to make sure that they are going to build these plants, I am afraid that we are going to see many more Harbour Bretons. I think that we are going to be here one of these days ourselves, like the people in Harbour Breton. We are going to yell and scream and shout but at the end of the day, we are going to beg because we will have no other recourse but to go to the Board of Directors of FPI and beg: Please, do not do it because our legislation will be gone and so will our company that we all take great pride in. So, ladies and gentlemen, I am telling you, we are into a serious quandary here tonight.

What I would like for the Premier to do - because there are so many unknowns. When I sit down here now - and I do not want to sit down but my time is running out. I am not going to be able to ask the question of the Premier in a few minutes if he comes in and says we have fish for Harbour Breton. I am not going to be able to ask him, have you talked to the people of Harbour Breton? We have to vote on this tonight. So the people of Harbour Breton, can the people of Harbour Breton even know themselves, by the time we are going to vote - if the Premier does get something for them, how is he going to find out whether or not it is acceptable to the majority of people in Harbour Breton? How are we going to do it? I am not going to be able to ask him a question, like: How much did you pay for the quota? Where did it come from? Is it going to be of any value? I have to shut up and put duct tape on my mouth as soon as I sit down here tonight, and vote. I find that very difficult.

What I am asking the Premier to do, and I mentioned it to the Government House Leader earlier, I am begging the Premier: for the benefit of all towns, let's take a break from this. Let's adjourn this House today, right now, without a vote, and I will tell you, I will put my politics aside. I have the commitment from every individual over here that we will work with the Premier, work with that side of the floor, and I am sure the Leader of the NDP will work with us. If we need to go to Ottawa and fight for a quota, if we need to go to FPI and see if there is anything else they can do besides sell off their assets and we lose ownership in the company, I am willing to do it. I am willing to leave no stone unturned, and I will keep the politics out of it.

At the end of the day, if we cannot find another solution short of selling off the company, then maybe we will have to come back to the House of Assembly and do it. I am a firm believe that if we work together and leave the politics out of this, we can accomplish something - and we do not need a long time, because I do not believe that FPI needs this answer by10:00 o'clock on a Friday night in June. It has been beaten around now for eighteen or twenty months, or fourteen months or something.

I am begging the Premier, not just for the people of Harbour Breton but for the other people who are in the galleries from Bonavista and Fortune, let's look for some other alternative so that we can at least have a guarantee that if we sign something like that, we are going to be able to hold them to the guarantee and make sure it is done. Let's look for a solution that allows us to keep control of FPI in the House of Assembly rather than sell it.

I am begging the Premier to do exactly that and, I will promise you, I will leave the politics out of it, because it is beyond us. It is about the people. I think it is time, seriously, in the history of our Province, that we stand united.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is a fairly important debate on the future of FPI. It is not the first one I have participated in, in the House. Actually, the last time I think we had a pretty significant discussion is when I sat in the seat that the Leader of the Opposition is now sitting in.

It is important, I think, to take some stock of history, and I want to give you my point of view on it. I am not completely comfortable with what is in front of us today, to be quite frank about it, for a couple of reasons. First of all, I want to deal with history which dates back to the current board of directors and the individuals who are now in control of Fishery Products International. I guess the first real big deal we had of this was in 1999, I believe it was, when the company known as NEOS presented a proposal to the Province to basically change the legislation according to the FPI Act. The commitments of the day were simply this, and I can recall them as vividly and as clearly right now, the debate in this Legislature then, as if they were today. This is a company, this was a group of people, who said FPI, as it currently exists, will not continue into the future. There is no effective management; there is no effective control;, there is no plan or vision for FPI and rural Newfoundland and Labrador; people cannot be found to work on a long-term basis because this company, as it currently exists, under the current board of directors, under the current management, is not providing the vision for the future to ensure that there are sustainable operations in the existing communities - I want to say that right up front - that allows for longer operations and a future.

The current board and then wannabe board said that the share prices are not returning value to shareholders, which, unto itself, is an insight into the fact that the company is not growing and is not healthy.

When the board came back again, through another reincarnation, when the old board, through institutional investors, or institutional shareholders - I apologize - primarily pension funds in Ontario, got together, I guess the board that is in place right now made enough of a sales pitch and an argument to institutional investors that they became and got in control of FPI, but here is what I remember. I remember a picture on TV, where somebody took their wallet out and said: Take my word for it, your community will survive.

That is all I saw at the time. We did not support the legislation at the time, or the proposed legislation - I will say that, the proposed legislation at the time - as an Opposition, and for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that all that was on the table was promises. If you catapult that to where we are today, there are a couple of fundamental differences in the process of how we are debating it and how it has come about.

First of all, this same board of directors who made commitments, promises, and essentially sold hope to communities in Newfoundland and Labrador - because that is what they sold, there is no more to it than that - that is all they were selling at the time. That is why we did not support it at the time. There were no guarantees. There were no commitments. There was no wrangling like the government of the day has done - like this government has tried to do - in trying to move forward, understanding, completely understanding, that there is a problem with FPI as it currently exists. There is no question about that, and I believe that is a fact that has been accepted by most; but, having said that, I want to just talk about the difference in the process.

For the last eighteen months - some of my colleagues this afternoon have talked about it - for the last eighteen months, or fourteen or fifteen months, when discussions began with government on this particular issue, as the Premier indicated in Question Period this morning in response to Question Period, government's initial reaction was, we are not interested.

Through the process of that we have been able to put forward - and a commitment that was made on behalf of the government by the Premier of the Province - a package, I guess, in terms of through the process of discussion and negotiation of where we are right now in terms of commitments that FPI have made, commitments with respect to the board of directors of their marketing division, commitments with respect to not all communities, which is worrisome and troublesome, but there have been some commitments made.

The other fundamental difference in the process is this: This is not a government-sponsored bill. This is not a bill that government has said to all members in the House that this is a bill that government is bringing forward and each and every Cabinet minister and each and every government member will get up and speak to it and support it. This is a very important public discussion, an issue that is occurring right now, and the fundamental difference is that each and every one of us, particularly when you are in government - not so much in the Opposition, having been there for ten years at one point, but particularly when you are government - where each and every individual member will have the opportunity to vote the way her or she sees fit.

So, on the issue before us, from my point of view, really, from my own perspective, I have not decided as of this moment how I am going to cast my vote when I am asked to, for two reasons, because I think there are issues of trust, fundamental issues of trust, associated with the current board. I want to be frank about that. They have a history, and it is not a history where they have made commitments to people that they have lived up to those commitments, and I want to be very, very clear on that. So therein lies - the Leader of the Opposition said it, and the Premier has indicated as well yesterday morning when he talked about the current package and what his view of it was.

I am not convinced, or I do not know yet - and I want to be as forthright and as honest as I can on this issue, like I try to be on every other - I am not there yet in terms of yes or no. I am really nowhere. I have listened carefully to what each and every member has had to say, because everyone brings a perspective to this and not everyone has the exclusive jurisdiction over what is real or what is not, so I have been encouraged, I guess, by listening to the debate this afternoon.

I want to say that there are significant issues from my point of view. I do not speak for government on this issue, because this is not what this piece of legislation is about, but from my personal point of view, having been through this debate on two separate occasions with FPI, there is a legitimate and bona fide argument that can be made that this is just another run at something that, up until this point, the company has been unable to accomplish to date.

Having said that, here is where the quandary exists: There is no question that Fishery Products International, as other companies, fishing companies in this Province, and the fishery itself - because my colleague from Port au Port talked about it earlier in terms of globalization - we are facing pretty serious situations when it comes to our export industries; not just fish, but when it comes to forestry and our forestry products, when it comes to mining - basically all commodities - but in particular the fishery and forestry right now in the Province, through increasing pressures worldwide, because of increasing pressures through globalization and the ability of, in particular, North American products to compete with emerging Asian giants like South Korea and in particular China. We need to recognize that, and if you do not understand it we need to bring people up to speed on the understanding that what has traditionally kept us and brought us here and has helped us thrive and survive here is under challenges like it has never been before in our 500 year history.

In recognizing that and understanding that and grappling with that, and you look at the company itself, it is a publically-traded company, it is unique in this sense, that it was enacted and came into being as a result of a piece of legislation enacted in this House, but the company does have some serious challenges. No matter who is in charge of the company right now, these fundamental issues would still be in front of us, and therein lies my quandary. I guess therein lies why I am right here today, right now at this point in time, undecided on which way I will cast my vote as a representative of the Legislature, as a representative of the people of Kilbride, and as a provincial minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, to the issues the company have, there is no question that there is significant debt, no question about that. That has to be dealt with. In trying to reposition itself into other markets, or reposition itself in terms of its own strategic operation plan and where they want to be ten or fifteen years from now, no question about that, that needs to be done, and it is going to require capital. The capital it requires, they see an opportunity within their own sort of structure to take advantage of what is emerging right across the country, not just with Fisheries Products International but as a legitimate mechanism for companies, large companies in particular, to create an Income Trust to bring capital into their company, to reposition themselves or move in other directions.

One of the largest drilling companies in North America just did it out in Alberta. They sold off all of their American assets, created an Income Trust - I think they raised something in the vicinity of $4 billion or $5 billion - held on to their Canadian assets, repositioned the company to deal with the markets and the emerging markets, particularly in drilling in the Alberta oils sands, where, I think, over the next ten to fifteen years some $20 billion worth of drilling is going to occur. They saw an opportunity to respond to an emerging need in a marketplace. They hived off their American operations, created an Income Trust, sold that and started to count and look strategically just at a market within their own backyard, within Canada. In doing so, they created a significant amount of capital or got access to a significant amount of dollars, money essentially, to do exactly that, to reposition a company.

I truly believe that the issues before FPI, outside the personalities who are involved, the issues that the company face, are real. I do believe that. It is of no use for any of us to ignore those realities, because in doing so we ignore them at our peril and at the peril of communities. I think we need to understand that, fundamentally come to grips with it. We can say, yes, there is a amendment here that was put forward by the Member of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - and I do not want to get into too much of that, because we will talk about that when it comes up, about, let's do a three-month hoist or a six-month hoist. I am not sure exactly of the time frame. All we are doing is punting the ball three months down the field to make the decision that needs to be made now anyway. The merits and the demerits of that will occur when the amendment is brought to the floor to be debated.

The challenges the company faces, and as a result the fishery faces, and more importantly, as result of all that, that our fellow citizens and communities are facing, are also real. The burden of the responsibility tonight rests on all of our shoulders, as individual members, to vote with what we believe is in the best interest of our communities and what we believe is in the best interest in the Province generally.

Now what has government done? My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, talked about: Well, FPI have only put up, in terms of security, their assets in groundfish, why wouldn't they up it up on crab? I am not here to defend the company or defend anything, but I will speak to some of the issues where I think there are some counterpoints that need to be made to that argument.

It is very difficult to get a mortgage on something when the company is already mortgaged up to here anyway, and no matter what mortgages you are going to get you were second or third in line to get what you are going to get, if the worst case scenario happens. In other words, it is very difficult to put up securities on quotas that are mortgaged to the hilt already. We have to recognize the level of debt that the company is in.

This is a pretty significant time for government, when you get a commitment on the quotas. No government in Newfoundland's history has ever gotten into the fish business from a quota perspective or got the type of leverage, I guess, or the type of commitments that this government just did on quotas. We did it in Arnold's Cove, actually outright purchased a quota from National Sea, the first time government ever did it, a very significant and fundamental policy shift. No matter what happens in Arnold's Cove, if something happens there, that the operation ceases to exist, the Province still has the quota in their hand. It is not as if this government would not go down that direction, we already have. I think it is important to point that out.

We have talked about the lack of - I think the Leader of the Opposition talked about how there is not a big enough hammer in what is before us right now, in terms of the legislation, that would hold this company to the commitments that they have made. The Opposition and individual members, in doing their duty and their roles, putting forward amendments that they would see would strengthen what the current bill is, so that if it does go forward it would give more of a security in their minds, individually, and the minds of the people generally, that if we are going to move down this road to make FPI a stronger company - by extension, I guess, you would mean to make our communities stronger, more viable, and the opportunity for them to be in place for a much longer period of time - then, I guess, that is what these amendments are about.

Mr. Speaker, from the government's point of view, and particularly this file being driven by the Premier, the Minister of Fisheries, and my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I do want to compliment those colleagues in particular, as the Premier and the lead ministers on the file, in terms of what they have been able to put forward. Is it the best package? Is it everything that everybody wants? Acknowledgeably it is not, acknowledged by the Premier and, I think, acknowledged by my own colleagues, but it is a lot further than it was fourteen months ago. I can sit here with absolute honesty and say, in the other two times that we have debated this issue, there are a lot more guarantees that are in play today as a result of their efforts than there were on the two previous discussions that occurred, when we talked about allowing FPI or the new board of FPI to move in a direction like this.

There are the concerns about what would happen if you put in an Income Trust and they raise the money that they believe that they can raise. The fundamental, biggest concern that the Premier had, that the government had, and that individuals members who were involved in the debate had, was, if we do not seek protections or guarantees, all we would, in a sense, be doing would be allowing a company to raise money that would have, at its access, a very tempting, significant pot of money, from a shareholder point of view, to grab the equity and put it in the shareholders' pockets. I think there are a legitimate amount of guarantees that protect against that, when we talk about the extraordinary profits and the extraordinary dividends that would not be allowed. I do want to emphasize that.

Is it a package that everybody is happy with? Absolutely not. Is it a package that people, in particular in Harbour Breton, are happy with? Absolutely not. That is why the Premier came out and said what he said yesterday, in terms of trying to leverage more, a lot more, for the communities in which FPI currently exists.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up too much more time. I just wanted to, I guess, put my oar in the water on this debate, and in an unsolicited way say to members, that we have an opportunity that has been presented to us. I am not one who is going to say which way members should vote. The only thing I will say to individual members is this: Look at the history of the company, from where it came, look at the history of the individuals who are involved, who are running the company right now, look at what government and the negotiating group from government have been able to leverage, and acknowledge, please, that there are legitimate and fundamental problems with FPI and a status quo is not an option.

From out point of view, as government, from out point of view, more importantly in this debate, as individual members, we have individual choices to make. Those are for each and every member to do so, recognizing, of course, that there is not everything negative with what is before us today. There are a tremendous amount of positives. If you look at it unbiasedly, on certain aspects of it there are tremendous amounts of positives that this government, in particular the Premier and my two colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, with the support of the Cabinet, have been able to leverage out from this company. Is there potentially more there? Maybe, just maybe.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we are about to find out, sooner rather than later, what it may be.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We would normally close, according to the agreements that we have had, at 5:30 p.m. As opposed to bringing up another speaker, that their time would be split up, I would like to make the suggestion that we break now for the supper break.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement that we would now recess for the dinner break?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

This House is now in recess until 7:00 p.m.

 

 



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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Continuing debate.

The hon. the Premier.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of clarification, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I can clarify.

This afternoon, I guess probably a little after 5:00 o'clock, I asked to meet with the Opposition House Leader and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to advise of progress that had been made by government over the last twenty-four hours with regard to increasing, I guess, the offer for the people of Harbour Breton from Fishery Products International, as well as attempting to get commitments from the federal government, from various departments, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, and the Minister Responsible for ACOA.

Over the course, we expected to have a commitment - we have made progress with FPI. We expected to have a commitment from the federal government, in writing, this afternoon. At one point, in the middle of the afternoon it was indicated to us that we would have it within an hour, which would have given us something by about 4:00 o'clock this afternoon. It then appeared that, because of whatever reasons were happening in Ottawa, there were issues, very important issues that were pending. As well, we could have simply got caught up in Friday afternoon in Ottawa because one of the ministers had actually left and was on the way back to his home. So, he was not able to be contacted in order to confirm and to ratify the contents of the letter.

It was indicated to me, at that particular point in time, that all that could be presented to us under those circumstances, for want of a better term, would be a soft letter. We felt at that point in time, that would not be in the best interest of the community of Harbour Breton and the interest of us all, generally. We wanted to try and get the very best commitment that we could. As well, if we had a soft commitment from the federal government and proceeded on that basis, it would place Members of the House of Assembly in a very, very difficult position. We felt, after discussion with the leaders of all parties, that it would be best if we put this matter off, and not until Monday; if we could adjourn until Tuesday. It would be best if we could do that to allow the federal government time over the weekend in order for the ministers to get together and decide on a content of a letter that could be presented to us. As well, they will have a working day on Monday. The alternative would be, that we come back on Monday and we continue with the debate but without the information. So, we felt that an extra twenty-four hours on the other end would be helpful.

What I was going to suggest to the House is that probably if we could actually convene on Tuesday afternoon but perhaps even 11:00 o'clock, around midmorning on Tuesday. If we could adjourn the House until 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday morning, if that is satisfactory to the other leaders. Hopefully, by that point, we will have some answers. If not, then we will reconvene. We will reconvene with all leaders and we will discuss where we go from here, but the intent would be that that information would be available, that we could conclude the debate on Tuesday and be in a position to have a vote on Tuesday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm the discussions that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and I had about this issue. It is consistent with the spirit, indeed, of my amendment to hoist the bill so that we could ensure that the pieces of the puzzle were in place, particularly with respect to Harbour Breton.

This period of time, over the next few days, should allow an opportunity for FPI to improve its circumstances, and also allow us to find out what commitments can be made by the Government of Canada. I think there has been genuine concern here, from all sides of the House over the last two days, about the plight of the people of Harbour Breton. We are extremely interested in seeing something put in place, rather than being forced in a situation where communities are divided, where people are divided and we are forced to make unpalatable choices.

So, we support that, and if it is not in place on Tuesday and we need another day or two, then we can discuss that amongst the leaders between now and then.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, Premier, think you did the right thing. As you know, I asked this afternoon - in fact, I begged that you remove it from the table because I do not think that anyone wanted to be put in the position here tonight to vote on a bill or an amendment to a bill that had nothing, basically, for the Town of Harbour Breton, except for that which FPI put forward. I do not think that it was acceptable to them, and I am sure it was not acceptable to us over here.

We are in full agreement with coming back on Tuesday, even though a couple of our members have already scheduled meetings in Ottawa. The Member for Torngat and the minister are up dealing with the Land Claims Agreement. So, we will be here.

Premier, besides trying to put more into the pot for Harbour Breton I think you, as well, should have a closer look at the terms and conditions that FPI has put forward here and try and plug some of the loopholes and add some security so that if we do have to vote on that bill on Tuesday night, that we feel a little bit more comfortable with doing so than we do today.

Thank you.

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

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

The Premier has outlined, I guess, what we feel is a way forward, in consultation and in general agreement with the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party.

With that, I am going to put the motion forward that the House now adjourn. I will leave it open-ended, just in case anything else changes. I will leave it open at the call of the Chair, with the knowledge that we are aiming for Tuesday, and that I, myself, will be in contact with both the Opposition House Leader and Leader of the New Democratic Party to arrange what would be an acceptable time.

With that, I do now move that the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn until Tuesday, unless there are some instructions that are given to the Chair.

MR. E. BYRNE: At the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Just to correct the understanding, the House now adjourns at the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.