MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery, a gentleman who has been visiting the House of Assembly for many years and has been seated in the public galleries. We usually see him day after day in the gallery located at the far end of the Assembly.

Chester Harris began visiting the public galleries of our Parliament at the Colonial Building during the National Convention. At that time, Mr. Harris was a student at Memorial University College located on Parade Street, and he tells me he may have missed the occasional class while listening to the numerous debates that characterized Newfoundland's road to Confederation.

He was born in New Chelsea, Trinity Bay, nearly eighty-three years ago. He served his beloved Province as a teacher, a social worker, and as a salesman. He also writes short historical commentaries that he often shares with the Corps of Commissionaires.

Mr. Harris, it is a pleasure to recognize your participation in the public discussions that formulated so many policy initiatives over the past sixty-five years. This afternoon, we recognize your consistent attendance in the public galleries over so many decades.

Sir, as you said to me many times, you wonder why, after all those years, you still have to come in under the category: Admit strangers.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, June 8, I had the opportunity to attend a Festival 500 celebration announcement at the Gentleman's Garden in Ferryland in my district. Festival 500, Mr. Speaker, is an international festival of choral music and celebration of song which every two years welcomes 1,200 to 1,400 international choristers, family and friends who share the joy of singing with our Province. Choral groups coming from Australia, Canada, Ireland, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States will participate this year.

This year, in addition to the regular programs in St. John's, two rural components of the Festival were announced - "Up the Shore" in Ferryland and "Around the Bay" in Carbonear. The Festival will run from July 1 to July 8. This expansion of Festival 500 into our rural communities will no doubt build on and celebrate the strong historical, cultural and musical heritage of rural communities like Ferryland.

On July 7, Mr. Speaker, Festival 500 programming will move to Holy Trinity Church in Ferryland where three choral groups will perform, including: The Mornington Singers from Ireland, High Park Choirs from Toronto, and the Quintessential Vocal Ensemble from our great Province, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the ticket sales raised from the performance in the church will be used to continue the restoration project of the 143 year old church in Ferryland and continue to build on our expanding tourism sites for tourism and the overall industry.

Mr. Speaker, the ability to host such an event is truly an honour and a tribute to the volunteers, including the Ferryland Tourism Group led by Mr. Jerome White and the partnership developed with the Festival 500 board. I also extend our appreciation for the Festival 500 group for allowing Ferryland to host this event and the opportunity for the participants to spend the day exploring the rich history and culture in the area, and the worldwide exposure it allows us and our communities. Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt another enhancement to the ongoing tourism efforts of so many groups in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the Festival 500 for expanding their Festival into the region, and extend an invitation for one and all to take in the performance on July 7 and experience the celebration of the international choral music.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the RCSCC237 Truxtun Corps in Lawn. The Newfoundland and Labrador Cadet Marksmanship Team, represented by RCSCC237 Truxtun in Lawn, has claimed a National Bronze Medal.

The medal was presented after three days of intense competition in the "unit team" category at the National Cadet Marksmanship Championships held in London, Ontario, May 6 to May 11. Twenty-four marksmanship teams consisting of Sea, Army and Air Cadets represented their provinces and territories in a bid for a place on the medal podium.

Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Truxtun's team consists of: Chief Petty Officer First Class Jennifer Drake, Petty Officer First Class Justin Power, Petty Officer Second Class Jonathon Strang, Lieutenant Commanders Shelby Jarvis and Scott Jarvis, and team coach Lieutenant Maurice Tarrant. Lieutenant Commander Jonathon Strang and Petty Officer First Class Justin Power placed among the top twenty marksmen in Canada, finishing tenth and eleventh respectively. Lieutenant Commander Strang also edged Petty Officer First Class Power by a single point to claim the Top Sea Cadet Marksman in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Marksmanship Team of Lawn, and their coach, and wish them success in all future competitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge two organizations that have had an indelible impact on the lives of the youth in Bonavista North: the 2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps and the 840 Indian Bay Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron.

The 2910 Corps is based in the New-Wes-Valley area and has been providing service for thirty-five years. The Indian Bay Squadron has an equally impressive history and has been operating for thirty-two years. Both organizations have given generations of young Newfoundlanders the opportunity to develop skills, experience the world, and become leaders in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour and privilege of attending the Annual Ceremonial Review for both groups, and I can say that the level of proficiency and discipline shown by these exemplary young men and women was nothing short of extraordinary. Captain Juanita Hoben, the Commanding Officer of the Indian Bay Squadron, and Captain Paul Batstone, the Commanding Officer of the 2910 Corps, should be very proud of what their groups have accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the 2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps and the 840 Indian Bay Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron on the completion of another exceptional year of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to a Carbonear Collegiate student, Daniel Mackenzie, who was the top competitor in the Province for the Michael Smith Science Challenge Exam held at Carbonear Collegiate in March.

Mr. Speaker, the Michael Smith Science Challenge Exam is sponsored by the University of British Columbia. The challenge was developed by a group of professors at the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry, Botany and Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia to raise high school student awareness of the many branches of science. Named in honour of the late Nobel laureate and University of British Columbia professor, the contest is based on Grade X science curricula and is written by Grade X students across Canada. The exam is designed to test the problem solving skills in physics, astronomy and related mathematical concepts.

Daniel was presented with the first place provincial prize of $100 from the challenge that took place at Carbonear Collegiate recently. He placed twenty-second out of the 538 students across Canada to take the challenge. He is the son of Shauna and Robert Mackenzie of Harbour Grace.

Mr. Speaker, also from Carbonear Collegiate, Mark Ryan wrote the exam and placed third overall in the Province. Mark is the son of Ray and Debbie Ryan of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Daniel MacKenzie, who placed first provincially and twenty-second nationally, and Mark Ryan who placed third provincially at the Michael Smith Science Challenge Exam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 2, I had the pleasure of attending the Annual Review and Inspection of the 905 Viking Royal Canadian Air Cadets in Paradise.

The 905 Squadron has just completed their seventh year anniversary and is comprised of seventy-three Cadets from Paradise, Conception Bay South and St. Philip's-Portugal Cove area. Their Annual Review winds up the year with an inspection of the cadets, a display of mobile and static events and award presentations.

The top first year to fourth year Cadets were: Kayla Viguers, Brandon Bartlett, Charles Borg and Stephanie Smith. The Lord Strathcona Medal, which recognizes the highest achievement as a cadet, was presented to Warrant Officer 1^st Class, Stephanie Cranford.

The Squadron meets at Holy Family School each Thursday night and utilizes the Paradise Community Centre for weekend training. The cadets range in age from twelve to fifteen years and undergo weekly training in various levels of the cadet program qualifying them for advancement and their attendance at camp. Their training includes physical fitness, citizenship, music, aviation and leadership. It is a tremendous program, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all Member of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating all of the award recipients, and all those who participated to make this a very rewarding experience for so many of our youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to two Grand Falls-Windsor students, Emily Hatt and Jonathan Pye who were recently honoured with the Exploits Valley High Female and Male Athlete of the Year Awards.

Mr. Speaker, athletes cannot excel without dedication, commitment and desire to perform their best every time they play their game. Emily Hatt was named the Female Athlete of the Year at Exploits Valley High for performance and dedication to her school's basketball and volleyball teams. She has played both sports since Grade 6 and now in Grade 11, her continued involvement has garnered her this coveted award.

Mr. Speaker, Jonathan Pye has again been singled out as Male Athlete of the Year. He was first awarded this honour when he was a Grade 9 student at Exploits Valley Intermediate and this year for his involvement in sports at Exploits Valley High. Along with the award for Athlete of the Year, this Grade 11 student was also named the most valuable player of both his basketball and volleyball teams.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulating to Emily Hatt and Jonathan Pye who were honoured with the Exploits Valley High Female and Make Athlete of the Year Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statement by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, thirteen of our Province's brightest young scientists recently returned home from the Canada-Wide Science Fair. The competition was held in Truro, Nova Scotia earlier this month. As expected, Mr. Speaker, they did our Province proud.

Each of the students made the provincial team by winning regional science fairs and four were recognized at the national competition as having exceptional science projects.

Stephanie Gallant from St. Peter's Junior High in Mount Pearl won a silver medal in life sciences, Saraj Hamodat from Holy Heart in St. John's won a bronze medal in health sciences, Cayley Linehan from Exploits Valley High in Grand Falls-Windsor won a bronze medal in biotechnology and pharmaceutical sciences, and Paula Slaney from Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn won honourable mention in life sciences. These four young women should be proud of their accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, and feel confident that they represented their schools, communities and Province well on the national stage.

Today, science and technology is an integral part of everything we do. In today's science classroom, students learn about the fundamental principles of science with a focus on applying this knowledge to the world around them. New courses encourage students to learn through hands-on experiences that build valuable scientific skills. These are skills that last a lifetime.

The provincial government strives to strengthen scientific literacy by providing our students with the best modern learning resources relevant curriculum and an environment in which to succeed. Budget 2007 provides $1.65 million to improve laboratory safety. This is in addition to last year's commitment of $2.2 million. This funding will be used to improve safety standards, provide professional development, and develop a school safety science manual. The manual is expected to be ready for the upcoming school year.

Mr. Speaker, I offer congratulations to these young people and to the thousands of other students in the Province whose determination and drive will help build a prosperous and self-reliant Province.

We have many success stories in our school system and students need to feel confident that they can do just as well as any other student, anywhere in the country. I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in acknowledging, celebrating and encouraging this success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of her ministerial statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition I want to congratulate all those who took part in the Canada-wide science fair recently in Truro, Nova Scotia.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, we congratulate each and every one of them because they are all winners after having won the competition at the regional level. Rather than to go into all the names, I want to congratulate the four young women on receiving the silver, the two bronze and the honourary mentions at this competition.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, technology and science, no doubt, is an integral part in our school system today. As they expand on their knowledge in the various fields as noted here, I also want to pay tribute to, I guess, the department with the new manual that will be coming into effect in this school year. Not to be critical on anything after this good news story, the only thing I say to the minister, I hope that she will move swiftly on the problems that we are having with the math curriculum so that our students in this field, as they take on people in national competitions, that truly this will be another success story.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the young women on their accomplishments to date and wish them every success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, our artists make a valuable contribution to the social and economic life of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government invests in our artists through several existing programs and we are committed, Mr. Speaker, to increased investment in original artistic creation within all disciplines and at all levels and stages of artistic development.

In recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the efforts of our creative people, it is my pleasure today to announce the establishment of the Status of the Artist Working Committee which will assist this government to increase direct support to, and recognition of, working artists.

I am pleased to inform the House that Pam Hall, a visual artist, film-maker and writer, will chair this working committee. Ms Hall's work has been exhibited across Canada and internationally, and is represented in many corporate, private and public collections. She has worked extensively in the development of both federal and provincial public policy in arts and culture, education, and communications.

Mr. Speaker, other committee members include: actor and playwright Amy House, the Artistic Animateur of the RCA Theatre Company; printmaker Audrey Feltham, who has exhibited her work in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia; award-winning poet and author Carmelita McGrath; and, Stan Hill, who has exhibited and won awards for his Iroquois bone carvings throughout Canada and the United States and is president of the Association for Aboriginal Artists of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, our cultural plan, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture, contains a commitment to give priority to creative people and their artistic endeavours, and to better recognize their unique value to our culture and to our economy.

The establishment of the Status of the Artist Working Committee will help us to achieve this goal, to ensure that the work of our artists in all disciplines and at all career levels will be highly valued and that artists will receive greater recognition as working professionals.

Mr. Speaker, our professional artists and the art they create are the heart and soul of cultural activity. It is important that our creative people are properly valued and compensated for their artistic endeavours. I look forward to working with this committee on the implementation of practical measures that will have a real impact on the lives of artists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Again, Minister, this is another good news story for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While all of the people who you appointed to that working committee are knowledgeable and capable, Minister, the next time that you add a committee of this nature - not to criticize the appointments or the committee - let offer a little suggestion: The next time you appoint a committee of this nature, add a little more heritage, add a little more culture, Minister, and add someone to these committees from Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, on many occasions, to clarify his department's inaction on protecting Newfoundland and Labrador companies who work on the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. We know that at least 50 per cent of this work will be completed by Quebec companies in Quebec.

Section 7 of the Public Tender Act states: We understand and agree to list the names of all sub-contractors and suppliers whose bids have been used in the preparation of this tender price in Appendix A. The list will be subject to the approval of the owner.

I ask the minister: Did the Quebec companies awarded this contract, Pomerleau Inc., follow section 7 of the Public Tender Act and provide a listing of sub-contractors? If so, are they using the sub-contractors named in the tender documents?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To answer the member's question, I am glad he has gotten it right because in his comments the other day, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, he said: I will say to the minister again, it is the Public Tender Act, I think it is section 27.

Indeed, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it is section 7. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, right off: We have followed all of the requirements under the Public Tender Act. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, this is a design bill for the long-term facility in Corner Brook, and since the bidder in this case is using their own pricing there is no requirement to list the contractors.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member for the Bay of Islands, before he goes off yapping about this again, that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the hon. House and the people of the Province that benefits are accruing to the Province, indeed to the city and to the area in Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, Pomerleau Inc. now has one superintendent who is from Nova Scotia. We have two carpenters, Mr. Speaker, from the Bay of Islands, from the member's district. We have a labourer from the Northern Peninsula. We have two electricians from the Bay of Islands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as I knew, the list of sub-contractors in section 7, that was put in the tender document, the minister did not protect the jobs of Newfoundland and Labrador, and out of a $57 million project he is bragging that a superintendent from Nova Scotia is doing the project. That is just unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, last week there was a meeting in St. John's to discuss the Agreement on Internal Trade. While government was willing to award the contract for the long-term care facility in Corner Brook to a Quebec company because of the interprovincial agreement, the minister has made it quite clear that the fibre optic contract and the contract of the new provincial ferries will not be subject to this agreement.

I ask the minister: Can you explain the difference between the long-term care contract in Corner Brook and the fibre optic and ferry contracts that would see one subject to the Agreement on Internal Trade while the other two contracts are excluded?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the Opposition continue to mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would just like to read some excerpts from a letter that we received from Marco Limited, and I am just going to take some of the sentences here. "We tendered on the project..." - this being the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. "We tendered on the project in December of 2006 and placed third behind a local firm based in St. John's... While we were disappointed in the result, we never had any objection to the tender process or the awarding of the contact to a Quebec firm."

It gets better, Mr. Speaker. "The Official Opposition and the local television media have left people with the impression that Marco objected to the process and the awarding of the contract to a Quebec firm." Now, in all fairness to the television media, it is coming from the hon. gentleman opposite. "This is entirely false. From the outset, we disagreed strongly with any argument advanced with the view of protecting local contractors and giving preference to bidders because of their physical origins. We currently have offices in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia and Moncton, New Brunswick. We regularly compete against Pomerleau Inc. and other firms from across the country in the three Maritime Provinces and are successful in many tenders."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will, Mr. Speaker.

"If there was any preference given to a bidder dependent on the location of their head office, we would never be able to work outside of our own province."

You can have a copy of that if you want it, anytime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, and I thank the Premier for the copy of his documents, but you should stand up for the people in Corner Brook, in your own district, who are calling me and asking me for Pomerleau's address in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question again to the minister or the Premier, whoever wants to answer it: How can you explain the difference between the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and the fibre optic and the ferry contracts that would see one subject to the Agreement on Internal Trade while the other two are excluded? Can either the Premier or the minister explain how you can pick and choose which one will fall under the Internal Trade Agreement and one does not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the member opposite, because he obviously does not understand the Agreement on Internal Trade, the fact of the matter is that all of this stuff is covered under the Agreement on Internal Trade. It is not that one is exempt and one is not, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the members opposite: Why, here in 2007, do they all of a sudden have a problem with the Agreement on Internal Trade? Why, all of a sudden here in 2007, do they believe that we should have provincial preference for contracting work in the Province, when in 1994 they were the very people who signed the agreement and did away with the Provincial Preference Policy?

The fact of the matter is, under the Agreement on Internal Trade for economic development opportunities and regional economic development, we can apply for an exemption, Mr. Speaker, or state that we are having an exemption.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: In the case here, Mr. Speaker, the contracting businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, obviously, believe that they would rather have open access to our Province so that they can have open access to other provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister, not all of them, and that is why there is a case down at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, not all of them agrees with what you are saying there, I can assure you that.

Mr. Speaker, government recently announced that the Torbay Bypass Road will be constructed on a fifty-fifty cost-shared basis with the federal government. The total commitment from both levels of government was a combined $10 million.

I ask the minister: What is the total cost of this project? What work will be completed this year and when will this project be completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to make a correction on that, the total cost of the Torbay Bypass will be $13 million. The provincial government will be putting in $8 million and the federal government will be putting in $5 million.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that has been on the books for something like thirty years. When the former Administration were in power - the Minister of Transportation and Works at the time was John Efford - they put the Torbay Bypass on a back burner with some 15,000 cars a day going over the Torbay Bypass. It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. Again, as I said, $5 million from the federal government and $8 million from the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not know I was so good, having to get four different people to answer the one question for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I see the Premier came to the defence of the Minister of Transportation and Works. It is too bad he does not come to the defence of the workers in Corner Brook who are looking for work, with $25 million done up in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that the environmental assessment has been completed on this project and when is the completion date expected for the bypass?

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

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The environmental preview is actually being done as the contract is being completed, Mr Speaker. The Torbay Bypass is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2009.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the doctors of this Province are concerned enough about wait times that they have placed ads in newspapers around the Province. Doctors are saying that people are waiting too long to see family doctors, waiting for tests, waiting to see specialists. We have almost 100 vacancies in this Province, many in rural areas, and a turnover rate of 10 per cent a year. Doctors and patients say that they have been waiting too long and there is not enough being done.

I ask the minister: What additional initiatives are you planning to address this serious situation in our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr Speaker, just to comment on a couple of things the member opposite has raised. The issue of wait times, let's take that particular issue firstly. If you look at the measurements that we have in this Province, where we compare ourselves to other jurisdictions across the country, we compare favourably with wait times in all the areas where we have benchmarked ourselves against the rest of the country. I say, Mr. Speaker, in those areas where all the provinces in the country have agreed to compare themselves, we compare very favourably with other jurisdictions with respect to the wait times in those key areas.

The second thing he raised with respect to the whole issue of resourcing, I have mentioned in this House several times in the last couple of weeks, that right now today, Mr Speaker, we have more physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador today than we have had in our history. Last year, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we achieved a higher number of nurses in this Province than any other time in our history. So, on some very key areas we have had some tremendous success and it is directly a result, I say, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that I am sure the minister is aware of, is that the wait times, according to those benchmarks, actually starts when a person makes an appointment to see a specialist. What our doctors are referring to is actually the wait times to actually see the primary health care provider, which in a lot of cases is a family physician. Mr. Speaker, the doctors of this Province are telling you that the current efforts are not good enough and more has to be done. The doctors of this Province have told you that the key to reducing wait times is not just about having the right number, it is to ensure that we have the right number of doctors, providing the right services at the right places.

I ask the minister: Will you now listen to these doctors? They are telling you that the people of this Province deserve to get the medical attention that they need with no hassle. When are you going to listen to those professionals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I was saying a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the results that we have achieved in those recruitment efforts for physicians, nurses and other individuals, other health disciplines, are a direct result of this government's commitment to quality improvement, a direct result of the significant investments that we have made in health care in the last three years, and it is a reflection of the commitment that we continue to make, to continue to grow the health system in this Province, to continue to enhance the quality that we provide, and to continue with some of the significant initiatives that we have undertaken to attract more quality health professionals in this Province, whether it be physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, and the list goes on, in areas where we have had some great success.

We have, in fact, Mr. Speaker, been taking advice from the physicians, we have been taking advice from the nurses' organizations. In fact, many of the initiatives that we have undertaken -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many of the initiatives that we have undertaken, and had some success with, are as a result of our collaboration with physician groups, nurses' groups, allied health professionals. It is a result of actually listening, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that it is action that the physicians are looking for.

On another note, Mr. Speaker, one issue that has come to the forefront in the last couple of days with the passage of Bill 9, the so-called safer communities and neighbourhoods legislation, is a lack of proper supports for families who are impacted by some sort of problems in society. Turnings is one group that is working to deal with some of these most serious situations. The minister recently denied an application of $30,000 for this group for funding.

I ask you now, Mr. Minister: Will you reconsider this application so that they can continue to do the good work that they are doing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would recognize, from having participated in the Estimates discussion this year around this year's Budget, we have, in the Department of Health and Community Services, for a number of years now, supported key community organizations in the tremendous amount of work that they do.

One of the unfortunate things is that we have so many, such a large number of community based organizations out there who are doing some tremendous work. They are making a tremendous impact on the communities and the constituents that they serve, and they work in partnership, frequently, with many of our health authorities in the provision of services to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year, I believe, our grants to community agencies was something like $1.2 million, I think it was, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I want to conclude on is that this government successively, since we formed government, have, on an annual basis, continued to supply -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, on a quick note to that, the money that the minister was referring to in the Estimates, I am aware of that, was $50,000 for two years, from a pharmaceutical company. What I was referring to was $30,000 program funding which was program funding that you guys had done last year.

I ask the minister once again: Will he consider that $30,000 in funding, not the $50,000 that was supplied by the pharmaceutical company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the $30,000. I was referring to the $1.2 million, I believe it was, that we put into community agencies that work with us. They work with our health authorities, they work with the Department of Health and Community Services, in providing much needed community based supports and we will, this year, next year, as we have in the past three years, continue to commit to work with community based organizations in the delivery of programs and services, and we will support their efforts, I say, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to support their efforts financially. This year it was $1.2 billion.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible.... We had something, I think it was somewhere in the range of about $3 million worth of requests, and on an annual basis we have, unfortunately, to make choices.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have made choices, I say, Mr. Speaker, and this year we have now made choices to support to the tune of $1.2 million community organizations who provide great programs at the community level, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice, and concern the safe communities legislation, Bill 9, that we passed in the House yesterday.

One of the major concerns expressed with this legislation has been the lack of meaningful consultation. Seven women's groups in the Province, we are aware, Mr. Speaker, were not contacted. Today, the Turnings group are now saying they were not consulted either and are expressing concerns that the SCAN legislation will not contribute to violence prevention. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are predicting that it will give birth to a new breed of criminals and that many families and relationship problems will probably increase as a result of some of these initiatives.

Minister, I have to ask: Why were so many groups not consulted, given the significant concerns that are now being expressed by this group and by the women's groups?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it was an oversight that the seven Women's Centres had not been consulted earlier. They were consulted. The consultations were meaningful because they led to six amendments that were proposed and accepted in this House on the legislation yesterday.

What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, based on the concerns that were raised by the women's groups, and keeping in mind that we did do consultations with the Status Advisory Council, violence prevention groups, and a number of other groups were consulted within November and December, but keeping in mind the concerns that were raised by the Women's Centres last week and the week before, when they were consulted, we had contacted the Women's Policy Offices in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Women's Centres in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well, and they see absolutely no concerns with the legislation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand the fears that were raised but there were several amendments that were brought in and accepted to address those fears, and I will give confirmation and certainly give my commitment that in the development of the protocols and the regulations for this particular legislation we will do very broad consultation, including with Turnings, with municipalities, with all groups in the Province that should have input into this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in debate the minister did give a commitment that he would endeavour to have consultations with the women's groups before the proclamation of this bill.

I would like to ask him when we can see those consultations started, and if he is open to further amendments to the legislation based on the input and the feedback that he gets from those individuals.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I will say that I believe wholeheartedly that this is good legislation, and that the fears - I will not say that they are unfounded because these are very valid groups and very valid concerns that they are bringing forward, but I do not believe that the fears that are being raised will translate into what is being said will happen in the Province.

Based again on the legislation that we have, which was founded on legislation in Manitoba, we have made several improvements prior to bringing it to the House and made six amendments to that particular legislation - but, absolutely, based on the consultations that we have, Mr. Speaker, prior to the protocols being developed, prior to the regulations being developed, if we feel that, based on those consultations, further amendments are needed to the legislation, by all means, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - I will ensure that the consultations that take place will be absolutely meaningful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a final question.

The minister indicated he had consulted with other provinces, especially Manitoba, with regard to this legislation. We have been informed that Northwest Territories also entertained legislation similar to this but, after consultation, decided not to implement this particular piece of legislation.

I ask the minister: Have you consulted with Northwest Territories, and have you received any feedback on why they may have scrapped the legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers of Justice last year, there was a report based on the success of this legislation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Based on that, it was recommended that all provinces and territories adopt the same legislation. It is good legislation.

I am not aware of the concerns that Northwest Territories had, Mr. Speaker, but I am aware of the very high degree of success in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of 1,300 phone calls, complaints to the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods inspectors in Manitoba that they have had great success with, and it only resulted in six closure orders out of all of those calls. We are aware of the great success, Mr. Speaker, but we are definitely prepared to do further consultations.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Justice.

Last week, when the government announced the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge for Labrador West, the minister stated that this appointment was part of a plan to restore full access to judicial services in Labrador West.

My question for the minister is: Apart from the Supreme Court Judge, what does the minister mean by full access to judicial services, and when will these other services be put in place in Labrador West?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the member for her question.

The court centre in Wabush will be reopening as a part of this announcement, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, under the Northern Strategic Plan and under several announcements made through the Department of Justice, we have expanded justice services and legal aid services throughout the Province. We have enhanced services under this year's Budget.

More directly to the question, the court centre in Wabush will be reopening as a result of the appointment of a new judge for Wabush.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the lack of legal aid services in Labrador West has created a serious backlog of cases where clients have to wait for a legal aid lawyer from Stephenville to take their case. This means that residents of an entire region of this Province cannot get timely legal assistance or adequate face-to-face meetings with lawyers unless they can pay for it.

My question for the minister is, and based upon what you just said: Will the restoration of judicial services and the opening of the court centre include immediately the creation of a legal aid office with a lawyer and a paralegal and a Crown attorney assigned to Labrador West?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have received an inquiry from an individual in Labrador West about legal aid availability. I know that, Mr. Speaker, based on the appointment of the new judge and the opening of the court centre, we may need to, in fact, look at enhancing legal services and legal aid services further in that region. That is something that we are prepared to look at. It is not something that I can commit to on the floor of the House today, obviously, because we would have to look at that and the implications and the costs around it, but it is certainly something that government is prepared to look at. We want to deliver adequate justice services to all regions of the Province, including Labrador West, which is precisely why we made the announcement of the new judge and the opening of the court centre in Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure who it is the minister has heard from, but I am aware that Noreen Careen, the Coordinator of the Women's Centre in Labrador West, has been speaking to this issue for a long time. So, it is not that it is just an individual who is concerned. She is concerned because it has been a major impact on the women's community because of not having the access to legal aid services.

Mr. Speaker, the MHA for Labrador West has stated in 53 North, on June 10, that the court waiting area needs to be revamped because right now plaintiffs and accused must wait and confer with the lawyers in the same badly separated area.

Again, my question for the minister is: Will the opening of the court centre mean that the court waiting area will be redesigned to allow for separation of plaintiffs from accused?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look at this.

What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is we have just announced a new judge for Labrador West. We have announced the opening of the court centre for Labrador West. This is good news for the region.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look at whatever inquiries are brought forward from any individual in any region of the Province or, for that matter, any member of the Opposition. This is great news for the Labrador West region. It is something that they have been asking for since 1991, when the former Administration discontinued the judge in Labrador West and closed the court centre in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly looking at improving judicial services for all regions of the Province and the good news is, we have just reinstated the judge in Labrador West and reopened the court centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, tenders were called by the federal government for contaminate soil remediation at the St. John's Airport. The company that was the lowest bidder did not have the necessary permits from the provincial government for operation of equipment to carry out this contract. Officials within the provincial Department of Environment and Conservation were overruled by the minister and directed to issue the necessary permits.

Can the minister tell this House why he overruled the officials in his own department and fast tracked the paperwork for this very sensitive approval?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is going to be very simple. In order for any contaminated site to be cleaned up it is going to have to meet the environmental standards of this Province. In this case, the standards as set out will be met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the question. Officials in his department made it very clear that the lowest bidder was not in a position to do this and they were considering going to the second lowest bidder. At the eleventh hour, the minister overruled them and permitted the permit to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the process for approving someone to do this kind of work often takes months because of the public safety issue involved. Can the minister tell us, what were the concerns which people in the department had in relation to the approval of the permits for this operator, and can he tell us what monitoring occurred to ensure that proper procedures were followed after the soil was removed from the contaminated site?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that any contaminated soil that has been removed, any procedures that are followed, will meet stringent environmental standards within this Province. In this case, likewise, no different than any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the first question. Did he overrule the officials of his department?

Mr. Speaker, contaminated soils may contain toxic chemicals from gas and diesel fuel and the procedures for the transportation and disposal are very detailed.

I ask the minister: Can he provide this House and the public of this Province with assurances that these proper procedures were followed, and will he make public all records, which the department has, on how this soil was disposed of?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the treatment of any contaminated sites, any contaminated soils, will meet the standards that are set out. We have no problem at all in releasing information related to that, Mr. Speaker. Nothing more than that.

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 for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador have lobbied extensively on behalf of towns to the government to get control of Crown lands held in their boundaries by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing so they can use and develop this land as a source of income in economic development.

I ask the minister: Will the government act on this request from the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, I will say to the hon. member opposite, he should have asked the question to the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

This is an issue that has been ongoing for many years within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the municipalities have been requesting that Crown lands within the municipality's boundaries would be turned over to the municipality so that they could basically disperse, sell off, and make a profit from that, Mr. Speaker.

It is something that we have had some discussions on within the department but there are no final decisions made on anything of that nature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 32)

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Premier made reference to a document that he read from. In line with Beauchesne, page 151, §495, when a minister refers to a document, I would assume that he is prepared to table that document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, no problem. The Premier indicated in Question Period that he is prepared to make the document available. I believe we have it now and it is ready to be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice who is giving, I do believe, a Notice of Motion.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act. (Bill 34)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a Tribunal under section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice on May 26, 2006 except for its recommendations respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges; and

WHEREAS the recommendations of the Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges were submitted to the Minister of Justice on April 30, 2007; and

WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges was tabled in this Honourable House on May 10, 2007 under section 28.2 of the Act; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under section 28.2 of the act to approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept the recommendations of the Tribunal as contained in the report of April 30, 2007;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House accept the recommendations of the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Effective Administration Of The House Of Assembly, The Standards Of Conduct Of Elected Members, And Their Ethical And Accountable Behaviour. (Bill 33)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, pursuant to Standing Order 11, move that the House not adjourn on Thursday, June 14, at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people who use the park in Frenchman's Cove on the Burin Peninsula. They are not only dismayed but they think it is atrocious that a contract to make reservations at a provincial park has been let to a company in Quebec. What they find particularly galling is that, when they call to make the reservation, they have to pay $10.60 to reserve a site. What is happening, of course, is that this is in addition to any cost to stay at a particular campsite. In addition to the $10.60, they have to pay for the price of staying on the site.

Mr. Speaker, what is really upsetting about this as well is that if they want to stay more than one week, which is not uncommon for people who use Frenchman's Cove Park, they have to call and make the reservation again. They cannot make a reservation for more than one week.

What we are talking about here is that a lot of people who use Frenchman's Cove Park, in fact, go down there and put their tent or their camper or their RV on a site and they would like to leave it there. What is happening now is that they have to call and make a reservation that costs them $10.60, in addition to the phone call, in some cases, for some of them. Then, if they want to make another reservation, it costs them another $10.60.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: If they are there for four weeks, each time they call it costs them $10.60. They cannot understand why it is they cannot just continue on in the way they have done for years and years utilizing the park in Frenchman's Cove.

It is a park that is - in fact, that have a committee in place, it is called Friends of the Park, and they have done a lot to ensure that there are improvements made to that park over the years. They have ensured, by touching bases with various government officials, that the needs of the residents who use that park are met. Now, for this to happen, it just throws the whole process out of kilter for them, because they are used to just going down to the park, waiting in line if need be, going in and making their reservation, picking the campsite. In a lot of cases it is a site that they have had every year since they have been going. Now, all of a sudden, they have to pick up the phone, call Quebec, where the call centre is taking the reservations, and that costs them $10.60. If, for some reason, they have booked for two or three different times, that they have called and booked for one week and then they call back and book for another week, and call back and book for another week, it costs them $10.60 each time. If, for some reason, they cannot keep the reservation that they made, they have to call and cancel. That costs them another $9 plus tax.

So, if you look at the cost just to make a reservation, and hopefully there will not be any cancellation that they will have to do for whatever reason, if they are going to be there for any length of time, and if it is for eight weeks over the summer, you are talking $100 just to make reservations, and that does not include the cost of staying there.

In some cases, Mr. Speaker, you know, people have been availing of our parks because that has become a vacation that they can afford. For the people on the Burin Peninsula right now, with the economy the way it is, being able to take a vacation anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador, or even to travel outside of this Province, has become too costly for them. They look forward to being able to go to Frenchman's Cove Park and would only, of course, expect to pay the cost of a site. That is not the case any more, and I cannot understand how a government would enter into this kind of a process knowing full well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS FOOTE: They are finding it really hard to understand how a government would enter into this type of a process knowing the additional cost that will be incurred by the people of the Province, and in this case by anyone who chooses to stay at Frenchman's Cove Park on the Burin Peninsula.

They are asking the minster to reconsider. They are asking the government to think this through and hopefully, I do not know if it is too late for this year, but they would like to think that this type of process would not be in place any time in the future. They also feel there is every opportunity here for the minister to go back and say, we have made a mistake here. In fact, we have so many students who could avail of this type of employment, we have made a mistake.

You know, Mr. Speaker, be able to admit that and, in doing so, lessen the cost for people who want to stay at the park but at the same time provide much needed employment for our students.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also appreciate an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the people of Southwestern Newfoundland with regards to the use of the parks, and, in particular, the fees being imposed by this government simply because our residents wish to use a provincial park, our parks, our environment. We brought this to the attention of the Minister of Environment and he does not seem to be listening at all. I believe this is the fourth time I have brought this petition here and there is not even a response justifying what is happening here.

The residents of this Province are paying $10.60 just to pick up the phone to book a site in a provincial park. This is atrocious. Not only that, the person who answers the phone is in Quebec. That is another issue altogether, whether we should even be having people outside of this Province with call systems, that we have to place calls to, to book a place in our park. They do not know whether they are in Gannet's Cove or Cheeseman Park. They have no idea where the park is even located, and here we are with the privilege and the honour of paying $10.60 to book a site for the weekend. It is absolutely ridiculous. You talk on the one hand about all the good things you might do in the Budget for the people of this Province and you turn around and gouge them on the other hand. It is just unacceptable.

A person who tries to make a weekend for himself and his family and go to a provincial park, has to call a Quebec firm, pay $10.60 to book a site. To make matters worse, if for any reason, including an emergency, that person must call back to that call centre in Quebec to say: I am sorry, I have had a family emergency. I cannot keep the booking that I had at J.T. Cheeseman Park on the weekend. They will say: Thank you very much, we are going to charge you another $6.40 now to cancel. Oh, by the way, I would like to do it next weekend with my family. Thank you very much, it is going to cost you another $10.60.

This is absolutely ridiculous that this Province and this government, who touts themselves to be for everybody who lives here, regardless of where you are from and anything else. Yet, we are going to gouge these people $10.60, Mr. Speaker. The people are outraged. They are absolutely outraged. I have told them, I can only do so much. I can only bring their concerns here to the floor of this House and implore the minister to do what is right. Governments can always do what is right, but if this government - if they do not want to do it, they just simply do not listen.

That is the message that is being delivered loud and clear, is that this Minister of Environment and this government just do not want to listen to you and you can take your $10.60 and be you know what. If you want to go to the park, you pay it and keep your mouth shut. We have heard that too much from this government, that it is none of your business. That is just not acceptable and people will remember that type of behaviour and treatment they are getting, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents in my district and this is with regard to the cellphone coverage on the road section between L'Anse-au-Loup going north to Cartwright. It is an extended piece of highway. Most of it is actually gravel highway and travelling through some interior remote regions of Labrador. It is very important to the people in this area, that they have some access to communications. The preferred access would be through cellphone coverage.

Mr. Speaker, the reason they are petitioning the House of Assembly with regard to this is that they feel government has a responsibility to partner with private companies or other companies to be able to put this kind of technology in remote and rural areas of the Province. What is happening is that the telecommunications companies are saying that it is not feasible for them to provide for cellular phone coverages in areas of the Province like this. The business cases that have been made have not been substantial enough in terms of revenue accruing back to the communications companies to make it feasible for them to go forward with an investment like this. What they are asking is for the provincial government to develop a program or a strategy whereby they would partner and invest in telecommunications like cellphone coverages in rural areas of the Province in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the petition speaks to the fact that government provided $15 million to Persona Communications to assist in future technology developments to enable that company to become more profitable. They feel that government should be looking at the needs of rural communities in the Province as well and investing to be able to meet what their particular needs are in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell anyone here the kind of feeling it is when you are caught out on a section of road in the middle of the winter in a storm and you have no access to the outside world. You cannot contact anyone by phone or by radio. You are in a completely remote area. Basically, you are just parked there until you can be rescued. That has happened many times on this section of road, as it has on other roads in Labrador as well.

If you look at the road between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West and that area, it has become a major issue up there. While government was not prepared to address the issue in terms of cellphone coverage, they did provide for satellite phones; which worked, I think initially, for the first couple of years, but then the government fell down on the job. They did not keep those units up-to-date. They did not keep the batteries charged. They did not keep them serviced. As a result of it, people were picking up a satellite phone, having some security in knowing they had it abroad their vehicle for the seven or eight hour drive, but, in many cases, when they got a flat tire or they ran into a storm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a couple of minutes to clue up there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RIDEOUT: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested and leave is granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader.

Anyway, when they needed that and they broke down or something happened, the satellite phones were not operable. As a result of it, it was just as well as they had nothing. So, I do not see that as being a solution at this time, in terms of providing that service in the district. If it was there it would be great, but it would have to be guaranteed to be serviced on a regular basis. What would be of more benefit to us is having the access for cellphone coverage. That is what this petition is asking for. I hope that government will design a program to enable them to partner with private companies to provide for that service in rural communities in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, today I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Ramea regarding their groundfish processing licence for their plant. I would like to say, right from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I want to thank Reg MacDonald for the amount of work, time and energy that he has put into the Ramea Co-Op to try to find a way to have that plant in operation. Reg has just returned, or recently returned from Toronto where he had a double-lung transplant. Even before he had the major surgery there last year - under very difficult and trying times and health conditions - he persevered, along with other members of his committee, including people like Leslie Cutler, who saw the major advantage of having the town's fish plant that had been reestablished, refurbished, renovated and hopefully, that they would have found some way to operate and to employ some people from that island community.

It is people like Reg MacDonald and others who really try - under very trying circumstances - to keep their communities alive under very adverse conditions. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it is because of work like Reg and others, that they can find a way to enable their communities to grow and survive. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, for the island communities, and I think I have said here before that small rural communities in the remote rural parts of the Province, and especially island communities like Ramea, should receive some particular recognition.

Just as we find from the federal situation, we are talking about equalization and provinces like Ontario and Quebec who have all the power and provinces like ours have very little, it is also very important from a provincial point of view that we recognize the plight of these small rural communities and we do something so that they can have an opportunity to sustain themselves and to improve the quality of life for the people who live there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I have a second petition here, as well, to present on behalf of residents in my district. This one is concerning the rate of electricity that is being paid out to commercial operators who are part of the diesel operated system and also the integrated system in the Labrador Straits area.

Mr. Speaker, basically what this petition is saying is that government - in light of the new revenues that are coming out of Labrador and new profits that are going to the provincial government, they feel that the reduction in power rates should be applicable not just to the domestic customers but also to commercial users as well.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, they outlined that the fish processing companies, those owned by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, by Torngat Fisheries, Coastal Labrador Fisheries and the Quinlan Group of Companies, should not be paying electricity rates over and above what any other industry users of their size would be paying throughout Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this particular petition. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is something that I believe that government should be moving forward to implement, and I have certainly made those views known on several occasions to the government and to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that is the need to have rate reductions for customers in my particular district and in the northern region of Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking for is not unreasonable. Basically, right now in the Labrador Straits area a lot of the commercial operators are paying anywhere from eleven to thirteen cents a kilowatt hour for power. So, if you own a garage, if you own a hotel, if you own a restaurant, if you own a fish plant, you are paying that amount for electricity on a regular basis. If you are in the area operating from Lodge Bay going north to Nain you are in a different bracket all together where you are paying up to eighteen or nineteen cents a kilowatt hour. So, if you have any business in that area, whether it is, again, a garage, a hotel, a restaurant, a B&B, a fish plant, a farming operation, a mink farm, it does not matter, you are still paying that higher industrial rate for your power, whereas in other regions of Labrador, like in the Labrador West region and the Goose Bay region, those same industrial users of power would be paying less than five cents a kilowatt hour, and in some cases down as low as two-and-a-half cents a kilowatt hour.

So, in essence, our commercial operators are paying three times to five times more for the amounts of electricity that they are using. This is providing for not a competitive edge in business, I can tell you. In fact, what it does is, it makes it even harder for these businesses to be able to operate at a profit in those smaller rural regions. As you know, their customer base is not as large to draw upon, but yet their overhead and their operating expenses are much higher based upon the rates that have been set by the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as I know I only have a few minutes left, I just want to say that the minister is well aware of this, and so is the Premier, and so is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I have had a number of discussions around this with them, as well as raising it in the House of Assembly. I can only ask that they would give it some more due consideration and that they would look at bringing in a rate mechanism for commercial operators and for fish plant processing companies in that region of Labrador and on the North Coast that will allow them to be more competitive in their operations, be more profitable in the businesses that they have, and in essence provide a better service to the people in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we move into government business, I would like to call Motion 1, that this House not adjourn today, June 12, at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, June 12, at 5:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also, I would like to call Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock this evening, Tuesday, June 12.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, June 12, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, we should have a recount, then. If the Opposition won, I demand a recount.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to call Order 1, Committee of the Whole on Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am speaking again to Bill 1. I had an opportunity yesterday to speak for twenty minutes on this but, you know, this bill is of such a serious issue and is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that I guess, given the opportunity, we could speak for hours, certainly in terms of the impact of what is happening in our Province.

When we are looking at this act in particular, repealing the FPI Act, that is a travesty from my perspective. I do not know how others feel about it, but I know that when I look at the kind of assurances that are offered to the people of the Province and to the government by having this piece of legislation, I fail to understand why any government would want to get rid of a piece of legislation that gives them the authority to act in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly those involved with the fishery; whether it is those who work in our fish plants, or whether it is those who actually fish, our harvesters, or those who work in our secondary processing plants, or those who work in management with respect to FPI itself.

Why government would choose to do this again, I say, is beyond me. It raises a lot of questions, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we know that what is happening is not something that here in the Opposition we agree with when it comes to dismantling a company like FPI. It is not FPI, in particular, that I am concerned with here, because maybe FPI's time is gone as a company, but why not look to another company, if that is what we need to do, to absorb all of FPI? Instead of dismantling a company and having the plants being bought by one group, the marketing arm by another group, why not try to go down the path of ensuring that all of FPI's assets are, in fact, bought by the one company and still have an act? Make it a condition of the sale when you are dealing with whatever company is interested in buying the assets of FPI, that they, too, will be governed by a piece of legislation.

The fishery is so important to our Province and to our people. It is so important, in fact, that to have a piece of legislation that governs it makes all the sense in the world. Again, I fail to understand the rationale behind taking a piece of legislation which gives the government the authority to tell the company what they can and cannot do, and has been the case with FPI. So should the case be with whatever other company comes behind them to purchase the assets.

There is a moral responsibility that comes with being responsible for the fishery in our Province. Where is the social conscience? We do not know at this point whether or not any of the companies involved will do what they have said they will do. Of course, I have a personal interest in OCI, in the fact that I am well aware of the principles of that company. I know that one individual in particular, Mr. Ches Penney, has done an admirable job with the plant that we have in St. Lawrence, which is in my district.

So, I am not questioning whether or not the commitment is there to do what they are saying they are going to do, but when I look at the plan itself, there are so many ifs there. There are so many conditions that they could easily opt out if the business case is not there. That is what is so concerning here in terms of people being able to find employment and that being permanent employment. What people are looking for in the fishery is access to jobs which will ensure that they can provide for their families. We all know what is happening with the groundfish stocks. We have seen the latest research, and this is an issue for concern, obviously, for anyone involved in the groundfish fishery.

When you look at palagics and you look at other species of fish and you look at marketing, the marketing arm of the FPI, you have to question why we would do something today - why we would agree to do something that would not seem to be in the best interest of the Province, and certainly in the best interest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we find the fish plants. That is where we find the fishermen and women. That is where we find the secondary processing plant.

Now, the marketing arm, of course, is in Danvers, Massachusetts. That has been a very valuable asset for FPI, and so it will be a very valuable asset for whatever other company buys it. In this case, I am told it is High Liner. I am also of the understanding that it is High Liner that is going to buy the secondary processing plant in Burin, but it is a company from Nova Scotia.

When I look at the fishery and look at how important it is to our Province, I would like to think there are companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that would be anxious, eager, to purchase that marketing arm. I would think there would be companies in Newfoundland, when you look at the secondary processing plant in Burin, that would be anxious and eager to purchase that particular asset of FPI. It raises questions about why it is that today we are going down the path of dismantling a company that really means so much to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and so much in terms of employment opportunities for people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are seeing so much today in terms of out-migration from our rural communities, I would hate to think that this move by the government today would, if things do not pan out in the way that they are envisioning, based on the case being made by OCI and by High Liner, I would hate to think that this move would only contribute to further out-migration down the road. That is not what we need to happen in this Province.

We need to have companies who are going to be responsible, who are going to take this on and recognize they have a moral obligation to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well as, of course, making a profit as a business.

I am not questioning that will not be the case, certainly with OCI. Again, I have a great deal of respect for that company and for the principals involved. I guess I question why, when they looked at all of the assets, they did not see how it was possible, or why they did not want, to purchase the entire company, all of the assets of FPI.

I am also concerned about what is going to happen to 330 people who are, in fact, working in management in FPI. Right now, what they are being told is that you should be able to pick up a job with someone else. There should be enough jobs in this area that, with your particular skills, you should be able to pick up a job with someone else.

Now, some of these individuals have given a lot of time, a lot of years, to FPI. Now they are kind of being set adrift because there is no room for them with either of the new companies that are coming on the scene in terms of purchasing the assets of FPI.

There are so many questions around this whole deal, and I do think it is a travesty. I think it is a travesty that the company is being dismantled. As I said at the outset, I would have much preferred to have seen a company, whatever company, but a company, preferably a Newfoundland company, actually purchase the assets of FPI, and I would like to have seen a piece of legislation continue. Instead of standing here today and repealing the FPI Act, I would like to think that in the mix, in with whatever we are doing here, that we would, in fact, be strengthening the FPI Act, as this government did on several occasions since they have been here as the government. They chose to strengthen the FPI Act on a number of occasions, but why? Why, when what we are doing now is dismantling the company which the legislation covered, dismantling the company and repealing the act?

Those are questions that not only do I have but a lot of people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador have. I am getting e-mails, I am getting phone calls, and not just from my constituents but throughout this Province, of people asking questions that I do not have answers to and cannot seem to get the answers to, even in the House of Assembly.

I know that in my own district - you know, jobs, I guess, that is a big deal, and I appreciate that, and the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday that we are willing to give away the jobs, we were not fighting for the jobs.

Well, I can tell you, as the MHA for the District of Grand Bank, I am fighting for the jobs. I am fighting for the jobs in Marystown, I am fighting for the jobs in Burin, because a lot of my constituents work in those plants, but jobs are really important everywhere in this Province, and particularly so in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where they are scarce right now.

So, the question I have again, and what we need to know is: Why are we not making sure that what we have here is an entity in itself, that will look at where FPI was, why it was successful, why it was able to accomplish what it did in terms of being able to ensure there was employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

Yes, there were problems. No one will deny there were problems with FPI. I am not holding FPI up as somehow a saviour. We all know there were problems. We all know that people were not able to get the number of weeks they would liked to have gotten in the fishery, but there has to be a way, because if OCI are coming in now and saying: We can do more. We can process more quota. We will have more quota to process, and more people will be employed. - it begs the question: How can OCI do it if FPI could not do it? Maybe they can. I am not saying they cannot. Maybe they can, and more power to them.

Then you have the secondary processing plant in Burin, and I have to tell you that my fears are real when it comes to that facility in particular; because, looking at the penalties that, even though they are there in writing, if, in fact, High Liner determines that the business case is not there for them, that they can walk away from this, then that is a serious issue, because what company cannot make the business case if they want to? What company cannot make the business case, if they want to, that they just cannot continue because it is not in the company's best interest?

Any company can do that. You know that, I know that. So, my fear is that the penalties that we are seeing and the time frame of five years that we are seeing do not give the people of this Province the guarantee that they need to ensure that FPI, in some manner, whether it is through OCI or High Liner, continues on in this Province to provide the type of employment that our people need and deserve.

So, repealing a piece of legislation is part of the issue here because we need this piece of legislation. We need the FPI Act and, if it is not the FPI Act, whatever act it is, to give the government the power, the authority it needs, to ensure that OCI cannot walk away after five years, that High Liner cannot walk away after one year, two years, three years, four years, or five years.

Those are concerns, and if we do not have a piece of legislation holding the fire to the feet of the people who are purchasing these assets, there are no guarantees. There are no concrete guarantees. That is what I am concerned about today, no matter where the plant is in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not want people ending up like the people in Harbour Breton, with the situation they are finding themselves in. Unfortunately, they are left in a dire predicament in Harbour Breton, and here we are today now looking at plants that are still assets of FPI at this point but may not very well be whenever the Board of Directors of FPI chooses to meet, which I understand is not until August, and who knows if they will even make the decision then.

No other plant, no other individuals, should have to find themselves in the situation that we are finding ourselves in Harbour Breton today. It is not fair, it should never have happened, and my fear is a real one. I will say again, the government should never, never, be agreeing to repeal a piece of legislation that will, in fact, make it possible for that to happen in some other part of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a serious issue. It is a travesty, what is happening here, dismantling a company that has been a flagship for this Province, a company that is recognized internationally, a company that will no longer exist, but a company that can exist in some other form if possible, if some other interested buyers would see fit. Right now, products coming out of Newfoundland, secondary processing products coming out of Newfoundland will carry the High Liner label. You will not be able to distinguish if it is made in Newfoundland and Labrador. High Liner is known throughout the world as a Nova Scotia brand. So we are losing that part of our identity. We are losing any reference to any kind of product that is processed in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is now going to be High Liner. I am afraid that we are losing any kind of reputation we have with respect to the fishery as being the place from which to buy products from because of the quality of the products here. We have a great reputation in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the products that are processed here, but we are going to lose that identity with respect to what is happening here today with the sale of these assets.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time for speaking has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity here in committee to have a few words on FPI. I had hoped to do so actually last evening when we were dealing with it in committee stage. Of course, in committee stage you have a much broader range of how you can deal with a certain piece of legislation. You are not so stuck on the relevance issues and so on. I had this conversation with the Government House Leader last evening. I think we were here until about 11:20 p.m. It was getting kind of late in the night, in any case. So, I think we decided to clue up second reading and get on with it, but I would like to have an opportunity. I guess relevance is a tough call, in this case anyway.

We have a very small bill here today that we are dealing with. There are three clauses. Number one says we are going to call this the Fishery Products International Limited Act Repeal Act. It looks like a typo there. Fishery Products International Limited Act Repeal Act. That sounds very verbose in and of itself. Secondly, the Fishery Products International Limited Act is repealed. Thirdly, this act shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

So, it is a pretty specific type of bill that we have here. We have heard the conversations and the debates, speeches by the members on this side and opposite as well in the last couple of days about this issue. A lot of good points have been made here. I would like to allude as well that there is an issue - there are a lot of problems in our fishery and this may not be strictly irrelevant, but we have all kinds of issues besides the dismantling of FPI on the go.

A very good friend of mine actually, in Isle aux Morts, Elizabeth Harvey, who I am sure is well known to anyone who has listened to the Open Line shows in the Province. She has been tackling another serious problem in the Province of late, and that concerns when fishermen sold out their licences years ago. Her husband was one of those individuals affected. Some turned their licences in, sold it. Then, of course, it came time to do your income tax. Some of them put it on their income taxes and some said income, some said capital gains. Anyway, there was a big shemozzle. Many of them, at least 150-plus, acted upon the advice and guidance at that time of the fisheries officials, DFO officials, and filed the money as capital gains.

There was a big shemozzle about tax consequences of that to those fishermen, of course, and it led to serious and many appeals in the federal appeals courts with Revenue Canada. I am sure everybody has heard of their lawyer who has being out as well dealing with the case, Eli Baker. What happened in that case was tax fairness, that the tax department of Canada actually settled with 150-plus, and did not and still have not settled with the rest of the people. That is a case, of course, that Ms Harvey has been a strong and staunch advocate of for many, many years and she has written to the Government House Leader, in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as well. I spoke with him as well again on this last evening, and he assures me that he is well aware of who Ms Harvey is and he has spoken with her. In fact, he has written letters to the federal Minister of Fisheries in support of Ms Harvey, and I appreciate the fact that he did that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And national revenue.

MR. PARSONS: And national revenue, as well.

It is good to see that, as a Province, we are onside with these people. We have over 800 fisherpersons in this Province who find themselves getting treated differently. The tax department nationally said: Yes, 150 of you, it is okay. We will settle with you. To the other 800-plus they are saying: Sorry, we cannot do the same for you.

All Mr. Baker and Ms Harvey are looking for, and all these 800-plus fishermen are looking for, is tax fairness and tax equality. You cannot treat people differently. So, I would like to say as a highlight to one of the other types of problems we have in this industry today, besides FPI, that is another one that is a lingering sore. It is a wound in the side of these 800-plus fishermen here, and it needs to be fixed because it is absolutely unfair.

So, on behalf of Ms Harvey and those fishermen, and Mr. Baker, I would certainly put forward their cause as well again to the minister, if it is necessary, to keep plugging away with Revenue Canada and plugging away with Mr. Hearn, the Minister of Fisheries nationally, and our regional representative, to do the right thing and get on with this and give the same treatment to these 800-plus fishermen, as well, who have been treated unfairly as a result of having sold their enterprises after the demise of our fishery here in this Province.

Now, of course, we have other problems as well. We have the retirement programs that we are trying to get going for people who want to leave the industry, whether it is the people who work in the boats or people who work in the plants. We do not have any resolution on that between our Province and the federal government. That is another one that is outstanding, and of course, we have Fishery Products International, which we come to today.

I might have to speak a couple of times today because I find there are things missing, particularly when it comes to the Premier. I have been in this House now with the Premier of this Province since, I believe, it is the fall sitting of 2001. He was elected in the summer, June or July of 2001 in Humber West. In 2002 we started out - and we have all kinds of legislation that goes through this House. We have had something like thirty-odd pieces in this sitting and every sitting, depending on how busy we get and how productive we are, we can have ten, twenty, sometimes I have seen forty, fifty pieces of legislation. There are only certain pieces that are what we all would consider monumental significant pieces of legislation, and one of them is this FPI Act. We had a couple in the past.

We had the Voisey's Bay debate. In fact, in 2002 we decided, as a group of MHAs, government and Opposition, to have a specially designed debate. We came into this House in 2002. We said this is of severe, extreme importance to the people of this Province. It is the right thing to do. We are talking about resources. Some people were saying you are giving them away. That is where all these phrases came from, of course, when people talked about Mack trucks and more off-ramps than the 401. It was none other than the Premier who got up and spoke that, over here, right next to where I am here now, with his podium, on the morning of June 20, 2002 and gave us his thoughts on the Voisey's Bay deal and the Mack trucks and the 401s. He did it and he ought to have done it, which he did, because it was of importance. As the Leader of the Opposition, of course, I believe it was his responsibility to say what he thought about that deal and he did it. I disagree with a lot of things he said. History, so far, has proven me right and proven him wrong about how he felt about Voisey's Bay. As we move on, in time, and down the road he will be proven even more wrong on the history and the matter of the Voisey's Bay deal. Absolutely.

MR. BYRNE: Who?

MR. PARSONS: The Premier I am referring to here, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will be proven absolutely wrong at the end fo the day about his comments on Voisey's Bay.

Then we had another significant, monumental occasion in this House in the last few years when we had a debate, and that was in 2005. We came here June 9 and June 10, the House had been closed in May month, and we came here and said: we need to make some changes to the FPI Act because FPI wants to do an Income Trust deal. They are telling us that they need this Income Trust in order to grow the company. We all sat here. We all had our opportunities again, and again the Premier came to his feet after, I believe it was the second day again. He listened to everybody the first day, and on the second day, June 24, 2005, he stands up and he gives his pronouncements on what we were doing in this House regarding FPI.

A couple of comments he made, I will refer to some of them in his speech. One here, I am referring to page 34 of the transcript, and this is from him. I am certainly not taking anything out of context, but this is one of the paragraphs he used on page 34. He talked about, "As well, as the Minister of Finance indicated when he was on his feet, there is a seven-year marketing commitment which has been given from FPI, because they are very good marketers. That is what this Income Trust is all about, the asset they are selling. Let us not lose sight of this. The Members of the House of Assembly should not. The marketing arm..."- this is a very important phrase, folks, and all of you MHAs over there who like to listen to your leader and follow him, you should take note of what he said on this deal back in June 2005, not two years ago. Yes, it was two years ago, almost exactly. "The marketing arm is the one that has value here. The domestic Newfoundland and Labrador arm of FPI does not have the value. They are trying to sell off the crown jewel which is the marketing arm. If they are going to do that and they were going to place it into an Income Trust, then we have asked the company to get a commitment, a seven-year commitment, so that Newfoundland and Labrador products can be marketed through the seven year period."

Those were his comments on what he thought of the marketing arm at that time. Then, of course, a little further over on page 35, second paragraph from the bottom, he says, "Now, to get down to the crux of it." - I am quoting again - "From day one I have had some difficulty with this because I see us all in the situation where we are damned if we do and we are damned if we do not. If we decide to vote yes and let the company go ahead and the company does some of the things that it can legally do by manoeuvring around the various clauses and the various corporate structures - because they have a very complex structure set up. If they decide that they are not going to act in good faith and they move around some of these structures then it is quite possible that the horse will get well out of the barn and we will never, ever get that horse back."

I think that is a very telling statement by our Premier back in 2005. He is talking, of course, at that time about whether or not amending the act so as to allow the income trust might be opening up problems. That is what all of these comments were made in the context of, and whether we should do it or not, because you will remember that the board, at the time, of FPI were coming to us and saying that they needed to do this in order to unleash the value of the company, to grow the value of the company.

Then a little further over, on page thirty-six, second paragraph from the bottom, the Premier says, "What I tried to do here today was lay it all out, as best I could, to let you know what the options are, what the concession are, what the advantages are. If this is defeated today, my job will get a lot tougher Monday morning, but I am not prepared to stand here, myself personally in this House today and vote - and it might be a little bit of a legal background - for a document that I am not comfortable is tight enough to give us the assurance that this may not be a giveaway. Now if, in fact, everything pans out, everything is done in good faith, all the commitments are honoured - this is a huge win for Newfoundland and Labrador if there was a yes vote and if the Income Trust is successful. However, having seen the legal opinions, having worked through the legal opinions, I am not satisfied that it is tight enough. So I will be voting no."

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just to finish off on that, I want to put that into context because here is the Premier of this Province, who had these comments in 2005, talking about the same company, FPI, in the context of allowing them and giving them the right to do the income trust.

Now, we gave notice of this FPI bill, I do remember, the first day that this session started. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done an admirable job in making his comments as to what he thought about it, and it is his responsibility - he is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and he should - but I wonder where the Premier is on this issue?

I think this is one of these bills of such monumental importance and significance to the people of this Province, and we are talking about the flagship of our fishing industry, and I have not seen the Premier of this Province, in second reading or so far in Committee, utter one word about what he feels about the FPI Act, and that is to take nothing from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because I listened to him. I disagree with a lot of what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said. I disagree with how they are going about dismantling this. I disagree with that, but I cannot believe that the Premier of this Province, who - some members in Opposition over here have always said he did not like fish and did not want anything to do with it, the fishing industry.

He can come to his feet when it comes to Voisey's Bay, in Opposition, and talk about loopholes, ramp ways and 401's. He can come to his feet in 2005 and talk about why he was not going to vote for the income trust, because he did not trust the legal opinions. The horse might get out of the barn. He did not feel comfortable about it.

We have an identical situation here in that sense. We are being asked by this government to vote to repeal the FPI Act and they say thank you very much. All I have seen, other than what the Minister of Fisheries has told me, is a pretty blue tinted and yellow briefing note that they passed out.

Folks, as the Premier said, maybe it is my legal background, but that does not do much to qualm the fears in my gut about what is going to happen with FPI. I have the same type of qualms in there now as the Premier had back in 2005 on the income trust.

I am not affected directly in my district by FPI and by this act, but that does not remove and absolve me of responsibility to speak how I feel as a member of this House, and that is why I feel obligated to do it.

I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I would expect this Premier, if he was concerned about the income trust and the loopholes, and Voisey's Bay, I would expect when it comes time to vote on this he is going to be in the House and vote no for the same reasons, because it has been said here by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: We do not know the deal. We know the parameters of the deal, but we have not seen the legal binding agreements.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture again, if that is the case, why are we here now being asked to give this government the authority to repeal the Fishery Products International Act, take it, put it up in your cupboard and decide when and if we, as a government, decide that we are satisfied with the legal binding agreements, will take it out of the cupboard, run down to the Lieutenant-Governor and say: Proclaim it.

That is not fair. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is also a lawyer. He knows in his heart and soul that is not fair. That is not a fair process to ask any reasonable thinking person. You have negotiated what you feel are going to be the parameters of the deal. I am sure, in your heart and soul, you negotiated them in good faith, and to the best of your ability, and with whatever advice you could get, but that does not make the process fair, to say: Trust us. We are going to go off now, we are going to dot the I's, cross the T's, and make sure that everything they told us in their various letters, and what they told us across a board table, and what their lawyers might have told us, we are going to take all of that now and put it into a deal, a serious deal. We are going to put it into a deal, but meanwhile we are not coming back and showing you the final deal. We are not going to do that. Now that is a little bit different.

I will use the Voisey's Bay thing as a comparison again, folks, what somebody calls openness and transparency and the level of detail. This is a document that was used and given to every Member of the House of the Assembly called the Statement of Principles on Voisey's Bay. Pretty detailed, folks, for anybody who read it at the time. That was their little news briefing clip that we would have gotten, comparing to what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was handing out. That is about comparable. That is what the former government gave on Voisey's Bay, a sort of handout and that is what the government gave now on a handout.

The government of the day on Voisey's Bay gave another little document, a little bit more detailed, called the Statement of Principles. In fact, the Statement of Principles there became, virtually word-for-word, the legal agreements. There is no comparison between the level of detail that was given on the Voisey's Bay deal to this House for consideration than what we are being asked to vote on today, none. No comparison in terms of the level of detail. That is what we are saying over here. We are not saying that at the end of the day you might not even agree with it. Folks, when you ask somebody to vote for something, or vote against something even, and you are not telling me what the final deal is, now that is a bit much. That is a little bit much.

I understand the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to have a few words right now - excuse me, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi. So I will take my leave right now, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly like an opportunity to consider this again further in committee stage.

Thank you.

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

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

I am happy to have some time to speak further to this bill. I did get my twenty minutes last night and there are some points I would like to reiterate, some things I would like to make clear.

Last night, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture commented on the fact that I said I did not know what I was going to be voting on when I was going to be voting on Bill 1, and actually Bill 31 as well. He said I had this wonderful briefing and I had all this information that was out in the media, et cetera. I have in my hand the briefing notes. We have been waving them around a bit, the notes that were used in a power point presentation during an hour long briefing that I was given, along with the Official Opposition, and these notes give me some background information. They tell me what FPI wants to do. They give me a framework for the Memorandum of Understanding that is going on between the government and FPI. It gives a general idea of an agreement, but we all know that the real agreements are being negotiated both between FPI and Ocean Choice, and FPI and High Liner. We know that no negotiations are finalized yet. The minister, as a lawyer, and I, as a person with a lot of experience by this stage of my life, we both know that what comes out in final agreements is in much, much more detail than this framework document that was presented to us in a power point presentation.

So, when I say that I do not know what it is that I am voting on, I mean I do not know all those details that are going to be in the agreements between FPI and OCI and FPI and High Liner, and I do not know what those details are. Any framework can paint a lovely picture, but you know the old saying is that the devil is in the details, and we just have too much experience of that to ignore it. The devil is in the details.

I can say safely that when this vote is presented to me, I am being asked to vote on a framework document which, in itself, had some loopholes. Some questions were asked about it and we did not get answers to those questions. I am being asked also to vote on something that I do not know. So when I say I do not know what I am voting on, I mean I do not know the details of the negotiated agreements that are still being worked on and yet I am being asked to vote on them.

I know that the minister said that this bill will not come into force immediately. It will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So, I have to assume that I have to trust the minister when he says: If there is no agreement between FPI and OCI, and FPI and High Liner, the bill will not be enacted, that it will not happen. He did say that last night, that if those agreements fell apart then this act will not come into force, but the clause does not say the act will not come into force unless those agreements are signed. That is not what it says. I have to trust that the minister means it when he says: If FPI does not come into agreement with those two companies, this act will not come into force. I will be very happy if I hear the minister saying that again and saying it on record, because I do agree with the comment that I heard last night. It makes one very uneasy to say yes to this act, to repeal the legislation for a company that is still in existence. That really makes me nervous. The whole spirit of this legislation is to legislate for that company. I do not feel any easier about that. Before, what I heard the minister say, and after what he said, I still feel uneasy and I still feel I will not be able to vote for this bill.

The minister, last night, also made comment on the fact that I was sort of standing alone in my position. That I was not representing the union, I was not representing workers, I was representing nobody. I was just representing myself. I would like to make a point about that. I think the workers are in a very, very difficult position. We have workers, as in Marystown for example, who have been months and months and months - what, a year-and-a-half, eighteen months or so? - without working. We have workers who need to get back to a plant. We have workers - I am not saying, they are saying give us anything. They are saying, what we are being offered, at least for five years, is going to mean - we hope that we have work, just like the people in Harbour Breton who were desperate for their plant to open.

I will always remember hearing a worker who said when the plant opened, even though when it first opened some of them were only getting a couple of hours a day, some were getting an hour a day, and I heard one of the plant workers on the news one morning, on CBC, make the comment: Even if the plant were officially open and I got up and went to the door but I could not work that day, I would still feel better because the plant was open. Now, that is absolute desperation. That is desperation. When I hear people saying that they are ready to accept what is happening it is because they are desperate, and I understand that desperation. I also believe that as an individual politician in an elected position, even though my own district is not in the fishery - we have two communities that used to be fishing communities in my district. I am leader of the party in this Province and I think I have an obligation to bring concerns into this House that I don't think the individual worker has the freedom to do, that they are in a situation where they just don't have any other options but to say: Okay, we finally have something, we are going to have work.

Voting for this Act to be repealed just goes against everything that I believe in. As I said last night and I want to repeat, the repeal of this Act to me means a repeal of some very, very important principles that Act was based on, important principles that were in place when that company was formed in 1983 and when it was privatized in 1987 with the current Minister of Fisheries being the Minister of Fisheries then. With the discussions that happened in 2002, with the discussions that happened in 2005, there still were some basic principles that were at the base of the formation of FPI and the legislation that was put in place, to manage, control, monitor, whatever words we want to use, the private company that was formed. There were still basic principles. With the repeal of this legislation, I don't see anywhere a formal statement of those principles, those concerns that we have, the purposes of the Act.

The purpose, to recognize the fundamental importance of the role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador, that was a purpose stated in the Act. It is still there, we haven't repealed it yet. To continue FPI as a widely held company that can act as a flagship - we no longer have a flagship and I don't think we can say that too much. Our flagship is gone. That is what this government is allowing to happen, because we have to remember that whatever is going to happen to FPI is only happening with the permission of the government. The government has to give the permission under the Act being repealed. Under that act, the government has to give the permission for what is happening.

I have to continue to say, as I said last night, I think it is a really sad moment. I really find it a very, very sad moment in this Province. I remember how I felt back in 1983. I remember how I felt when FPI was formed. I hope we all do. I had hope. At different moments along the life of that company I had hope, and now I feel very sad.

We have to take responsibility for what is happening. I will talk more about that, maybe, in Committee, when we talk to Bill 31, taking the responsibility for what we are doing, because down the road we are going to have to be accountable.

This House passed a bill on sustainable development during this session, and one of the whole features of sustainable development is development that makes sure that there is a future, that there is a resource, and a resource to be developed by those who will come after us.

My concern is - and this is a concern, and I will not know until down the road whether I was right or wrong - that we may be affecting, for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the resource in this Province, in the fishery, by the changing of hands that is going on here right now with FPI, with FPI being bought by OCI and High Liner. It is, as I said, a sad moment, Mr. Chairperson.

I will leave my comments at that for the moment. I think I have used my time, actually, and I will speak later at another time.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair wants to have a word or two on the bill. Maybe I will wait until she speaks and then I can probably answer it all together.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to have a couple of words with regard to Bill 1, that we are presently debating in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I did not have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of this bill, but I have certainly had an opportunity to be able to follow the transactions that are taking place as it relates to Fishery Products International.

I have to say that, like my colleague who spoke earlier, just before me, it is a very sad event that is taking place in the Province today. When you see a company that has grown to the magnitude that Fishery Products International has, and has taken their place not only in the fishing industry in the Province but on the national stage when it comes to the fishing industry itself, whether it be in export, production, or whether it be in harvesting or whatever the case, Mr. Chairman, they have grown to be a company of influence in the fishing industry throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Canada.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I remember when I was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, attending the Boston Seafood Show and representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as many people have had the opportunity to do, or a number of people, those who were fortunate to hold that office. I remember going into the Boston Seafood Show and looking around at the companies that were there from Newfoundland and Labrador, and looking particularly at companies like FPI who had such a huge presence in a forum like that in terms of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Not only, Mr. Chairman, would they occupy large spaces on the floor of the trade show, but they would have the people there to be able to talk about the fishing industry in this Province, to talk about the products that we were producing, to talk about the jobs that they were creating, to talk about the wonderful product that they were putting out there into the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, it made you feel very proud. Proud, number one, to know that this company was a Newfoundland and Labrador company that had come from those particular roots, but proud as well because you know that it was a company that was built from the bottom up. It was built by the people of the Province, it was managed by the people of the Province through the House of Assembly, through the legislative act. Mr. Chairman, it was those things that made you take a second look and have a certain sense of pride in terms of what this company was all about.

Mr. Chairman, what is happening, I guess, today in our Province is really unfortunate. I cannot find the words to describe what impact this is having on the fishing industry in general, because what you have to take into consideration here is that this was a company that not only grew itself to the magnitude of a national established fish merchant company in the country, but it did become the flagship for the fishing industry for Newfoundland and Labrador, and it certainly opened the doors for a lot of other processing companies over the years to become established in that industry.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate today that, through what I feel has been inadequate management by the board of directors, inadequate investment of returns back into the communities in this Province, that we find ourselves in the situation where the company claims to be no longer profitable and, in my opinion, no longer interested in carrying forward with the business in this particular Province, left to what options, I say? What options?

That was, I guess, the situation that the government obviously found themselves in, and Bill 1, I guess, is the option that the government preferred to move forward with, and that was to repeal the Fishery Products International Act, to do away with that all together, and to sell off the various sections of the company to other bidders. I will not say highest bidders because we do not know what the context of the deals were that were being negotiated between the two particular companies that were interested, but they decided that the route to go would be to sell off the assets and the various divisions of Fishery Products International.

Mr. Chairman, this is a company that operates in our Province six particular processing plants: in Marystown, in Fortune, in Bonavista, in Triton, in Port au Choix, and, of course, they have a secondary plant in Burin and they also have a storage and off-loading facility in South Dildo.

Mr. Chairman, it is those particular operations - everybody knows this - that have contributed to the mainstay of those particular communities in our Province. It is this company that has created the jobs and provided for the families in those communities probably since its inception, in some cases, in 1987.

We have had a long history of this company providing for these communities in terms of jobs, in terms of business spinoffs, in terms of being able to allow the communities to grow in various capacities. When, all of a sudden, all of that becomes threatened, like it did in the past year in places like Fortune where we did not see the plant opening at all, obviously you have to call into question where this company is practically going.

Mr. Chairman, what is happening now is that, because the company is being broken down and dismantled and being sold off in different sections to different operators, it causes you to have some concern. I am sure other members over there must have concerns as well, and they probably know the details whereas we do not, but, in the absence of knowing all the details that are associated with this, you really have to be concerned; because, how long are the commitments going to be for? How long are they going to be able to continue to operate in those particular communities and in those plants?

In particular, when you get companies like High Liner, out of New Brunswick, buying a company in Burin that other people are saying is difficult to operate at a profitable rate and so on, and you get these companies coming into our Province and buying out that particular operation, it has to cause concern in terms of what will happen down the road, what will happen over the long term for many of those particular communities.

So, Mr. Chairman, there are legitimate concerns that are being expressed. I know that the government do not necessarily want to hear in terms of the Opposition talking about a lot of these particular issues or pieces but they are a legitimate concern for us. As you know, we have seen a number of changes to the FPI Act over the years. We have seen a number of changes to the Fish Inspection Act, changes that the government figured was going to be the solution to correcting problems in the fishing industry; like the Raw Material Sharing that did not pan out and was not the panacea that they all thought it was going to be. In fact, it was a miserable failure. If anything, it almost corrupted the industry for a short period of time but the one thing that it did do, it drove down the price of fish in some cases instead of doing something which was intended, and that was to stabilize the industry to a certain degree. In fact, that year I think our export value dropped from over $1 million down to almost $300,000 that year in export value in the fishing industry. A lot of it could have been attributed to the fact that what was seen by government as a solution to the problem and amendments that were brought into the Fish Inspection Act on Raw Material Sharing did not work out as they planned and indeed was not a solution at all.

So, when I hear things like the repealing of the FPI Act and what is happening here, and that government's decision to break up the company and sell it off piecemeal is now being seen as a solution for the saving of all of these plants and all of these jobs in these communities, I am not entirely convinced that is the case.

Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague talked about it earlier, that in light of the fact that we do not have all the information that goes along with this deal, it is really difficult to make a decision on the merits of it. We went for a briefing with the officials in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In fact, one of their senior policy people briefed us, a person who I am sure knows this file very well. He certainly articulated to us in a great fashion the way that this deal was going to be put together, but what he articulated to us, on behalf of the department, was really just a framework agreement. Mr. Chairman, it was a framework for a deal that was being negotiated between FPI and a number of private companies that would be buying off parts of that operation. It did not contain the essential pieces that we need to have outlined, and that is, we need to know what the undertakings, the real undertakings of this deal is, what the time frames are that are attached to it, how this is going to be rolled out. Although they talk about penalties and they talk about some time frames here, it is all very broad and very sketchy. It does not get into the real fine print of any particular deal that is being negotiated company to company.

We do not know what the out clauses may be in some of these contracts. We do not know if there is going to be out clauses that will allow them, based on the market value of fish, based on the quota allocations, based on all of these factors that will allow them to, somehow or another, dive through some loopholes in these particular negotiated deals. Those are the things we do not know. In the absence of having all of the information, all of the fine print and the full context of this deal, it is very difficult for us to say that will not be the case.

What we have, right now, is a government saying: Well, you know, you have to trust us to do this and to do it appropriately. Well, government asked us to trust them on raw material sharing as well. When they were going to fix the problem in the fishing industry, when it came to what was happening with the bidding of fish and the prices at the wharf and the competition factor, and the collaboration between companies, their solution to fixing that problem in the fishing industry was raw material sharing. We were told, you have to trust us on this. This is going to work. You have to give us time to get this implemented, to get people familiar with the system. Well, where is that system today? It did not survive a full season in the fishing industry. It did not survive a full season. The reason it did not survive is because it was not the solution to the problem that was existing. In fact, what it was, was a dictated solution by government that was supposed to have fixed this problem.

Mr. Chairman, when we are asked to trust the government in terms of this particular deal that is being done, and say: Okay, let's go in and approve Bill 1, which eliminates the FPI Act as we know it today, but we are not going to proclaim that act until we have all the details worked out, until all the deal is done, until the shareholders meet, until everything is approved, accepted, signed, sealed and delivered. Even when that is all done, we still do not know what the context of that deal is. We still do not know that. It would be a real leap of faith, I say, on our part to go out there and say we are ready to endorse this, because I certainly am not. I am not a member that has FPI operating in my district. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am nowhere near an FPI plant. Well, I suppose I am. Port au Choix is across the Strait of Belle Isle. I can see the lights over there in the night time when I look across.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I will take my leave, but we are in Committee so I will have other opportunities to speak to the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, no. I will speak after. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There may be other members who want to speak, but I don't want to let the debate in Committee get too far ahead of me without responding to some of the matters that have been raised by colleagues on the other side.

First of all, let me address, again, Mr. Chairman, this issue of detail. The fact of the matter is, that the media, the Opposition caucus, the third party in the House, as well as our caucus, were briefed on the terms of the agreements that had been reached between the Province and OCI, between the Province and High Liner, and between the Province and FPI in terms of the disposition of the company.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition has the details. For example, they are given to them in one-liners in broad language, but that detail they are given forms the detail in the term sheets that will become the contracts between the Province and say OCI. For example, the Opposition knows that one of the pieces of an agreement between OCI and the Province is that there will not be any permanent closures of plants that OCI is going to purchase from FPI. That is in the understandings that were made public. That is reflected in the term sheet that OCI and the Province have signed onto. It is just putting it in legal language, that is all: OCI shall operate and shall not permanently close any plant or processing facility listed in Schedule D.

What is Schedule D, Mr. Chairman? Schedule D is very simply FPI's primary processing plants, including all operations and associated assets located in Bonavista, Marystown, Port au Choix, Port Union, Triton and South Dildo.

I have to say, what more detail can I give you? That is the detail that was contained in the briefings that were presented to the media, to the Opposition caucuses and to our caucus. That is the detail that is reflected in the legal agreements here.

All we are saying, Mr. Chairman, in this piece of legislation, is that when this detail is approved - well, it is already approved by OCI, so in the terms of OCI that can be parked - by High Liner, the detail that we have already given you, that has been converted into legal language and into a Memorandum of Understanding and a term sheet between the Province and High Liner, when that work is completed and the High Liner board signs off on it - and they are a publicly traded company. Ches Penney and his partners can sign off pretty quickly, and they have, and they have told us that the term sheets that we have agreed to and that we have told you the detail on, like the example I just quoted in terms of the permanent closure of plants, they have signed that, they have said we are fine with that, this will become our legally binding contact agreement when everything else is ready to move on.

High Liner cannot do that. They are a publicly traded company. They have to go through a process, but the process is exactly the same in terms of the agreement between them and us. The detail that we have on their operation of Burin is exactly what we have told you, that they have committed to have a throughput of 17.5 million pounds minimum every year through Burin, and that if they do not do that then there is a penalty to be paid. We have told you what the penalty is. That is what is in the legally binding documents that will eventually be executed between ourselves and High Liner. I do not know what the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, either one of the Opposition parties for that matter, is talking about in terms of detail.

In terms of the detail of FPI, FPI has to agree to this, too. FPI is a publicly traded company. They have passed a unanimous resolution by their board of directors, signed off on by the majority shareholders of the company, the large shareholders of the company, Mr. Risley - well, Armoyan, I guess, not any more, but whoever purchased the Armoyan shares - the Icelandic Group, the Sanford Group in New Zealand, all of those people who control more than sixty-six-and-two-thirds of the company have signed a unanimous shareholders agreement saying that if we reach those agreement with High Liner and OCI then FPI, once its legally binding process takes place, because it is publicly traded company, once that is done their board of directors is committed to signing off on those documents.

So, all we are saying, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the legislation here is that when all of that is in place then we have to be in a position - we have given this our blessing. We have told OCI and the world that we would be prepared to repeal the FPI Act, because that is a precondition of their proceeding on this. All we are saying is that when that happens, when you come to us and you have all of your legal documents in place and they reflect every T and every I in the documents that we have shared with the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, when that happens we will cause the repeal of the FPI Act to become law. That is all we are saying, Mr. Chairman. The detail is in front of you. When all of the documents have been completed we will cause the proclamation of the FPI Act.

Why is that part of it? Well, Mr. Chairman, everybody has told us, OCI have told us, OCI could not buy FPI unless the Province changed, for example, the 15 per cent rule. I mean, right now the law of the land is that no one individual or company can own any more than 15 per cent of FPI. OCI wants to own all of FPI's Newfoundland based assets and the scallop and the offshore shrimp. They cannot do that without this House lifting the restriction on the 15 per cent ownership. High Liner cannot purchase the marketing arm without lifting the 15 per cent ownership. It cannot happen. There has to be a change, at least, to the FPI Act before those things can become final.

So, what we are saying is that to facilitate - we have analyzed those agreements. We believe in them. We believe that they are good for the Province and good for the communities where FPI operates, and on the basis that you request to make this happen we are prepared to repeal the FPI Act when all of the legal binding documents are in place.

Now, if there is a glitch and this does not happen, the law never gets changed. The repeal of the FPI Act never happens until there is a proclamation saying that it happens and that it becomes law. If there is a problem here, if somebody gets into a bit of a snit with the term sheets and the contractual arrangements that we are entering into, then it is just not going to happen. We are not going to proclaim the repeal of the FPI Act until all of the legally binding documents are in place and it is all ratified and certified by all of the people involved here. Then, and only then, will this piece of legislation become law. In terms of the detail, you have the detail. The detail is not huge, it is not large. The detail is not a pile of documents a foot high. The detail is based on what is in front of you.

As I said, just to quote one example, the commitment from OCI on plant closures, it is written into their agreement that they will not permanently close plants that they purchased from FPI as identified in Schedule B. Schedule B, I just named the plants for you. There is not much detail. It does not take much paper.

The same goes with the employment, the historic levels of employment. The same goes with the MOU between the Government of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador and this new holding company. All of that does not form a lot of paper, but it forms a lot of consent and a lot of principles and a lot of agreement, and that is what has been put in place here.

On the issue, an extraneous issue, I suppose, but an important issue, of certain harvesters in the Province that was raised by the Opposition House Leader, yes, I have been part of the lobby group on behalf of Ms Harvey, talking on behalf of a lot of fishers and harvesters in a lot of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been discriminated against, in my opinion, by Revenue Canada. You have one set of people out there who are treated one way and another set of people who are treated another.

It is over a year ago, almost two years ago, that I was very firm in making representation to the Government of Canada asking that this inequality and this inequity be corrected, and I stand by that. I will stand by the representation that I made on behalf of those individuals to the Government of Canada. I believe the Government of Canada, through the Canada Revenue Agency, have treated them improperly. They have treated them poorly. They have not been treated adequately. They have not been treated fairly, and they should be. There is no excuse for the Government of Canada treating one set of taxpayers that are in the same situation exactly, treating them differently. There is no justification for it. They should not have to follow class action suits or anything else to achieve equality. They should not have to do it. It is improper. It is not appropriate. Therefore, it is not something that we should condone in this country. That is why I have supported Ms Harvey and her group, and have done it vociferously. I have done it on the broadcast. I have done it publicly. I have done it in terms of writing letters. I have done it in terms of talking to our regional minister. I have done it in terms of talking to Members of Parliament who are in the best position to lobby this with their colleagues in Ottawa. So, we will continue to do that.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, the decision to make changes to the Revenue Canada way of doing things is not a decision for me or the Minister of Finance, or even the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a decision for the Government of Canada and they have to stand by and take the responsibility for their decisions and the political consequences of them. All we can do is lobby and, hopefully, as a result of our lobbying, they will see the good sense in it and the common sense in it and do something about it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that is about where I wanted to go now on this matter, and if there are further questions I will try to deal with them at a later date.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity for another few comments on this FPI piece.

Again, I do not want to get caught up in the process here but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. What I was trying to point out the last time I was on my feet was that the process used by this government to dismantle FPI is not correct. It is not right for a couple of ways. It is not right from a leadership perspective and an explanation point of view from the Premier of this Province. This is a seminal issue in this Province. It affects the Chairman's district. It affects thousands of people in this district.

No disrespect to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but the process ought to be and the Premier of this Province ought to be here telling us why he will speak for or against this bill. He ought to be here. I have not seen that, and I think it is incumbent upon him to be here. He likes to be out front and center if we are talking Hebron-Ben Nevis. He likes to be out front and center on anything else - fibre optics or Voisey's Bay or anything else. Why is he not here speaking in this House about FPI? I think that is part of the process that the people of this Province can expect their Premier to be talking about. Now, that is not too much to ask, number one.

Number two in the process piece is - and again, the minister says there is not a lot of detail. Don't worry about it. There is not a lot of detail. With all due respect, folks, in the government, that is not good enough. That is not good enough to stand up here and say: Well, because there is not a lot of detail and I have told you what we have told you, behave yourselves. You do not need anymore and we will let you know the rest later. That is not how the world works, certainly not when it comes to dismantling one of our most cherished institutions almost, FPI.

I stand to be corrected - and I was not at the briefing, by the way. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stood here a few minutes ago and talked about the briefing that they gave to the media, and I am sure he is listening. Now, I was not there. Maybe he did pass out a term sheet. He talked a lot this afternoon about what was in the term sheet and he read some pretty detailed sentences. Now, I was not there, so I cannot say myself. I stand to be corrected and I look to be corrected, but I have talked to my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who was there. I have talked to the Leader of the NDP who was there, and both have confirmed to me that they were there and they did not get such a term sheet.

Now, all I say to the minister again, in fairness to everybody in this House, if you want to have an open, full, complete debate based upon information that you have, why are you not circulating the term sheet that you have or the Memorandum of Understanding that you have? Now if it has been done, fine. But it is my understanding that it was not passed out. All I had was this here, I was told. I was given this pretty blue sheet, tic-tac-toe, saying that is what the deal is all about. Well, folks, that is not good enough for me. Maybe the Member for Bonavista North is satisfied to sit back and take this pretty blue little sheet and decide how he is going vote, but I am not. I would like to see what else is in there in writing.

I say to the minister, if you have it, you should produce it and give us all an opportunity to read it. That is not much to ask in a way of process and openness. That is not being demanding. That is not being unfair. That is not even saying we are going to vote against it. That is saying I would like to be informed. I have been called a fool many times before but I would have to acknowledge that I am fool if I stand up here and vote for something that I am already told I do not have the information on, and stand up and vote for it. Yes, I am sure the people of Burgeo & LaPoile will be quite proud of me to stand up here and vote on something that a man across the House, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has already admitted to me that I have not seen. That is pretty good. Well I am sorry, folks, I do not operate that way. So, that is a problem I have with the process.

Another piece of the process; we seem to have a government here who governments by cupboard - I call it - cupboard legislation. We saw it here last night with the SCAN document, Safe Communities And Neighbourhoods. Let's take the authority to do it, because we can do it and we have the numbers. Let's take it and put it up in the cupboard. We will decide when we are going to be ready to implement it. That flies in the face of openness and transparency as well. We are told by the minister: We are going to take the authority right here now to do it. Cancel the FPI Act whenever we wish. We do not know if we are going to do it in July. We do not know if it is going to be August. We do not know if it is September. We do not know if it is going to be next year. We do not know if it is going to be ever, but we are going to take that authority to repeal FPI, put it up in the cupboard and when we feel that we are ready to do it, we are going to do it. Well, folks, that is not how the system is intended to work.

There is a presumption, when you come into this House, that you know what you want to do, and you can explain to people why you want to do it, how you are going to do it, and when you are going to do it. Now, there are a few things missing here. We have been told what you want to do, but you don't know when you want to do it and you don't know how you want to do it. Now, I think it is pretty important when two-thirds of those questions aren't answered. To look over here and accuse somebody of being obstinate - you people are just troublemakers because you ask these questions! - that seems a bit far-fetched to me.

What if the deal never comes to be, and you are sitting up in your cupboard with the right to cancel FPI whenever you want? You don't like the OCI deal and you decide in August that you don't like it - I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, you are a lawyer, just put your thinking hat on and walk that one through your head. Come August you decide as a government, we don't like the OCI deal, so you sit back, and all of a sudden next January somebody pops out of the blue - and nobody in the Province has a clue what it is all about - and you decide, well, we are going to take that deal, and you do. You don't have to come back to the House anymore. You don't have to talk to anybody then, you don't have to explain anything, you don't even have to do a press briefing with your pretty blue papers anymore. You just go to the cupboard, yank down your bill and say: Bang! Done! That is not right. That is not what this is all about and that is not how the process is supposed to work.

That is three pieces I pointed out why the process is not right here. I haven't even gotten into the logistics yet and the legitimacies as to why this is or is not a good deal. We don't even have the basis of a proper process being followed here.

I mentioned the scan thing; the same thing. The Minister of Justice stood up here last night - the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, stood up here last night based on very valid information and said, there are people in this Province, folks, who haven't been consulted; seven women's groups around the Province. The critic, the Member for Humber Valley, stands up today and tells us that a group called Turnings have not been consulted, we are told that Municipal Affairs have not been consulted, and the minister says, don't worry about it. We will pass it and we will put it up in the cupboard. When we get the consultations done, when we work out the details and the protocols, we will get back to you and we will do it then; thank you very much.

Well, there is something missing in that. I don't believe that is how the parliamentary system was designed to work, by cupboard legislation. You folks want to fill up your cupboard. We will not even need a House if we keep this up. We will just come here and give you a lot of cupboard documents, cupboard authority, and we will all go home. We will not have any more debates in the future if you have it all up in the cupboard.

I do not understand, either, we talk about - just to get into some of the premises here, basic questions I would like to have asked and I would like to ask them of the Leader of the Province because there just seem to be conflicting messages that we are getting from this government. If we are going to develop the Lower Churchill, we want an equity position. If we are going to develop our resources any more offshore, we want an equity position. Isn't our fishery a resource? I have not heard anybody asking the question. I would like to ask the Premier: What do you think about that? How does your position on equity and no more giveaways, how does that fit in with FPI, or does it fit?

I think it is a very valuable resource. We have certainly controlled it since 1987 or had a good say into it. Nobody did anything without this government's approval. All of a sudden, hands off. The government of the day, I believe, have adopted a defeatist attitude when it comes to FPI. This government has reached the conclusion, right or wrong, we can't, we won't, or we do not want to do anything else about FPI. Our hands are tied. We throw up our hands in frustration. We are going to walk away and we are going to give them the right to dismantle this thing. Sorry, folks, it is over. It is over. The quicker the better, it is over.

I think that is pretty defeatist. I do not think there is much leadership shown in that. I have not seen any options come across anybody's desk, other than some fishing interest telling you what is right for us and what is best for all the people in our communities. I would like to know what other options the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Cabinet of this Province and the Premier have considered, what the options were. I have not heard anybody saying we have sized up our options. I would like to hear that piece of the argument. What were the options? Did we have any? Were equity positions in FPI a factor? Was that considered? Was it ruled out? If so, why?

I hear people up touting. Whomever agrees with government goes a long ways these days. I saw that today. We got a letter from Marco, so everything is right now about our public tendering system. Don't worry any more. We are okay as a government now when it comes to public tendering because Marco gave us a letter, one of the bidders on the long-term care.

Well, folks, that does not answer it for fibre optics with me, and that does not answer it for why you can exempt certain projects and not others. It does not help me any, and give me any level of comfort because Mr. Earle McCurdy says it is all right. It does not give me any level of comfort - no disrespect to Mr. McCurdy - but I have seen Mr. McCurdy fly his flag whichever way he wanted to, sometimes contrary to the way the wind was blowing if it suited his purposes. I am not about to buckle over and say, oh, my God, this must be good because Earle McCurdy says it is right.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure there are other members who would like to speak, and if I get an opportunity I will be back again.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just spend a few minutes on this important issue in the FPI debate, and the dismantling of FPI throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, I was one of the people on the committee, I think, back in 2002 when we travelled the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when, Mr. Chairman, you were on the committee and your government asked that we strengthen the FPI Act to ensure that there would be no job losses, no plant closures, and people could not take control.

I just find it kind of ironic now that there are people opposite who changed their view on FPI on numerous occasions, and so many of them so quick.

Mr. Chairman, I just heard the Deputy Premier make some statements that I made a little note of. I just find it kind of startling, actually, that the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries, stand in this House and say that we have the details, that there is not that much to it, what is the big problem? We were given the details.

Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Premier of this Province, the Minister of Fisheries, asking us to sign an agreement to sell off FPI which, back two years or three years ago, they thought was a great flagship for Newfoundland and Labrador, take it, sell it, get rid of it, without even the details of the agreement for us to vote on? Can you imagine that the people in this House of Assembly are going to vote on something that we have not even seen the details on?

You want to talk about irresponsibility and neglect of your duty. I just cannot believe the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Fisheries out making those statements, public statements, that the agreement is not that big, the details are not that many. Go down and ask the people in Marystown how important it is to see the details. How many times were they yanked by the chain, by FPI and this government, and told that they were going to have so many jobs, that the plant is going up, going to start.

Go down in your own district, Mr. Chairman. How many times were the people in your own district yanked by the chain? Where is the plant that was supposed to start, the new plant that was supposed to start in 2007 down in your own district? Where is the new plant? There is the letter. My colleague just passed me the letter. "Operations in Bonavista. FPI will maintain its processing facility in Bonavista, and formally commit to build a new state of the art processing facility in the community. The new facility is to be completed for the 2008 processing season..." - will be subject to resource availability.

Mr. Chairman, here is the commitment that was made by FPI -

AN HON. MEMBER: And we proposed an amendment to make sure of that, and they turned it down.

MR. JOYCE: And we proposed an amendment to that, to make sure it was done, to hold their feet to the fire, to guarantee that it will be done, and it was turned down.

Here is the commitment that was made by FPI back on June 8, 2005, and never, ever fulfilled. Mr. Chairman, you are well aware that commitment was never fulfilled, and here we are now asked to go ahead and give blind, blank, carte blanche approval.

Mr. Chairman, I heard you last night talking about the Sullivans. I do not know the Sullivans. I understand they are good business people. I do not know them. I would not know them one bit if I walked over them. I would not want to cast any aspersions on them whatsoever. I do not know the people. I just know Ches Penney is a great businessman in the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not about Ches Penny or the Sullivan boys. This is about doing due diligence in the House of Assembly.

I was so worried, because when I went across the Province with members opposite and yourself, Mr. Chairman, and others opposite, we heard all the pains, we heard all the anguish down in Marystown. We heard it down in Harbour Breton. We heard it down in Triton. We heard it all over.

It is our duty, as elected people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to ensure that the deal that we have in front of us is the best possible deal and is a way that there are no off-ramps in this deal.

I ask the Member for Windsor-Springdale - here is a good example, and I can go across to every member opposite - if we take this deal, if we take this FPI today and we dismantle it, and the government comes back, the Cabinet comes back, with a deal with OCI, I ask the members in the back benches: How many of you are going to see that deal before it is actually approved? How many? Just as I expected, not one. Not one.

MR. DENINE: And the survey says. (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Mount Pearl again has his big mouth going.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Yet, it does not affect him. He would not say that if he was down in Marystown somewhere, or if he was down in Triton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice, now.

MR. JOYCE: I will not be nice. If this guy wants to stand up there all the time -

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member, not this guy.

MR. JOYCE: Okay, the hon. member.

Now, listen, Minister of Industry and Trade, you go and write your $40,000 cheque to Joan Cleary and leave me alone. You just go ahead and write your cheques and just leave me alone. I am just speaking about FPI. You just go write the cheques. You just go ahead. You just stay out of it.

If the hon. Member for Mount Pearl wants to stand over there and yap and everything, and the people down in Marystown still tying to get to work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Why don't you go down there and look at their pain and anguish?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Why didn't you go down to Triton when I was down there with their pain and anguish?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member while he is duly recognized by the Chair, and I ask members to my left to not engage in conversation back and forth, but I also ask the hon. member to be a little sensitive in some of the words that he is using in casting aspersions in referring to other members of the House.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Just ask them to stay quiet and let me finish my speech, Mr. Chairman, and there will not be a problem, because I travelled the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador during the FPI hearings. I have seen the anguish and I have seen the pains. I have heard what was said by members opposite and I have seen how they are taking a complete flip-flop now, and it bothers me.

I will go through some comments that were made back in 2002 and 2003 by the members opposite and we will see how much they actually flip-flopped on it. We have the minister down there for the Marystown area and he did not even know two trawlers were being sold. We are asked now to give a carte blanche, go ahead, scrap it, and we will worry about the deal later.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I can say that I am one person who is not going to vote for that, just to scrap the FPI Act because it is a great way to get rid of it, give it away to governments here. All of a sudden it is the right thing to do.

The Minister of Fisheries stands up last night and says he is a capitalist now and not a socialist. All of a sudden he is not representing all the socialists, all the plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is a capitalist. The Premier is saying it is not his job.

Well, Mr. Deputy Premier, you are the one who stood up in this House saying: I will declare war on FPI. What did you do? You declared war on the workers because you are selling them down the drain. That is what you are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: You stood up and said: I will declare war on FPI

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: He declared war, all right, Mr. Chairman, but it was on the workers, not John Risley and the FPI ownership. That is why now he is trying to wash his hands because he knows when he stood up and talked about declaring war, it was not for the workers and their best interests, it was for John Risley. He stood in the House of Assembly last night and talked about what a capitalist he is. He is not a socialist anymore, he is a capitalist all of a sudden. How about the war the man declared on John Risley and the executive board that was raping the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery? How about that? That is why the Deputy Premier now wants to get rid of FPI, because of the statements that were made, Mr. Chairman. That is why.

Here we are again, and I will go back again. I just cannot believe this, that all of a sudden we are being asked to scrap the FPI Act, dismantle it without any agreement in place whatsoever. The Minister of Fisheries is saying: Oh, you have the details. But don't the details change? When you are in negotiations do the details change? What is the possibility of coming back and saying: Well, we only have a five year agreement, it may be only three or may be only four?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, that is the problem that we have. We need a commitment in writing. We need to sit down and analyze it. We need it. Like I said, they changed the plans when you had a deal to build the fish plant. Where is the fish plant in Bonavista? Where is the fish plant in Bonavista, Mr. Chairman? I ask you, where is the plant in Bonavista? It is not being built is it? Not being built. I do not think it is being built.

I know the Deputy Premier all of a sudden is declaring war. He is standing up with his ranting and raving, and going to beat his heart and beat his chest, and everybody else who wants to hear it. I seen him out in the media that he just declared war on FPI. Guess what? They took a wage cut. When they came back and John Risley said that he wanted a $2 cut and the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries who is supposed to be this great socialist, said: I declare war. They just declared war on FPI. They took a wage cut, and here he was stood up last night, now all of a sudden he is not a socialist. So, to the workers down in Marystown, down in Burin, down in Fortune, sorry about that. That was all a show.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I am sure I shall be back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to have a few more words as it relates to Bill 1.

When I finished up in my last debate in committee, Mr. Chairman, I was talking about commitments that had been made before, I guess, or changes in legislation in which we were asked to trust the government in how those were going to be implemented. I talked about the raw material sharing and the fact that it certainly did not pan out as being a solution to the problems that was existing in the fishing industry at that time.

Well, Mr. Chairman, what I am seeing with the FPI Act is in a lot of ways similar to that, because what we are being asked to do in repealing the FPI Act is in fact trust the government in terms of negotiating a deal to sell off piecemeal pieces of Fishery Products International and to ensure that the employment levels, that the operations of those plants will be maintained over an extended period of time. Mr. Chairman, it is really hard to have that kind of confidence in this deal when you do not have all of the details that go along with it.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about OCI. It is not OCI that we are calling into question here, because Ocean Choice International is a company that has operated successful fish processing facilities in our Province over the last number of years. They have established themselves, as well, as a reputable company in the fishing industry. In fact, Mr. Chairman, many of the people who work in the senior management positions with that company I have dealt with on a number of occasions in various capacities. I have found them to be knowledgeable in the industry and I have found them to be, Mr. Chairman, certainly very proactive in terms of developing the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not calling into question in any way the capability of Ocean Choice International.

Mr. Chairman, what I am questioning is the option that the government has chosen and the fact that they are asking us to support this particular option and not providing us with other options that they may have explored. For example, did they look at nationalization of this company and what the feasability of doing that would be, what the cost would be to the government, what the long-term commitment would be to those plants in the Province? Did they weigh out the merits of other proposals that were submitted, and if they did, did they cost those, and did they look at what the job opportunities would be and what the employment levels would be and be maintained?

Mr. Chairman, we do not know if they did any of those things. The only thing we know is that they were prepared to allow an agreement between FPI and OCI. That is the only thing that we do know, Mr. Chairman. We would like to know what the other options were that government considered, how they weighed out those options, what the returns would have been, what the employment gains would have been, what the long-term benefits would have been. We did not see any of that information.

Mr. Chairman, we talk about investing in our resources. This was an opportunity for the government to take an equity position, if they want equity positions in resource development sectors like they do in the oil and gas industry, they could have easily taken an equity position in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador through acquisition of the assets of Fishery Products International. That would have been the logical step for government in terms of protecting that particular resource. They failed to do that. I would like to know the answer as to why they did not take that opportunity and develop that opportunity in terms of a solution to this problem.

The way I feel right now, every time I look at what is happening with Fishery Products International, I feel like it has become such a huge problem for the government that they are out there scrambling to take whatever option they can get to wash their hands of this entire fiasco and to get rid of it, to offload it on someone else, with whatever commitments that they can get to do that in the meantime. That is just how I feel watching this process unfold, and it is not a good feeling.

Mr. Chair, we have seen many commitments before. My colleague for the Bay of Islands just talked about commitments that were made by FPI, in fact, in June of 2005, that they were going to build a new plant in Bonavista; never saw the light of day. They were going to increase their operations in Burin. We never saw it happen. They never made the investments that they were going to make. They were going to review their operations in Fortune. We know what happened there. They closed down the entire operation under that particular review and never opened those plants again. Instead, they said what they would do is expand their operations at Marystown to allow for the people in Fortune to go to work there. Well, what happened in Marystown? A little over a year later their plant doors were not even open.

These are the kinds of commitments that we have seen in the fishing industry to those communities in the past. When that bill was being amended in the House of Assembly, we proposed alternative amendments that would strengthen these commitments, that would ensure that these particular communities and government were able to hold FPI accountable to the commitments they were making and that they would be done. Well, a year later, none of these commitments were fulfilled. A year after that, this year, a number of those plants were closed and their doors did not even open.

Mr. Chair, that was the kind of control that the government actually had at the end of the day, in keeping FPI's feet to the fire to honour those commitments that they were making to the government. Today, they are asking us to trust them again to hold the feet of OCI to the fire to meet the commitments that they are negotiating in this particular deal. It is really hard to have that kind of comfort.

Mr. Chairman, when I stand in this Legislature and debate bills like this, I cannot help but think how very fortunate I am to have a company in my district like the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company whose only goal is to develop the fishing industry for the benefit of the people who live there. How fortunate am I to have a company that is not only willing to invest in developing the product, in enhancing processing facilities, in employing people, but also, Mr. Chairman, the money they make is being invested back into the community and into the welfare of these individuals. Over the years it hasn't been easy up there either as this company watched the turbot fishery change, reductions in crab allocations and the cod fishery come under seize. All of these things happened, Mr. Chairman, that impacted the production of those plants and the profitability of that company, but they didn't turn their back on the people in that area. They didn't turn their back and start closing down plants in Cartwright or in Mary's Harbour or in Pinsent Arm or in Charlottetown or L'Anse-au-Loup or anywhere else. No, Mr. Chairman. They worked to diversify the activity that was going on in those plants. They worked even harder to bring more raw material in there, so that they could increase the production. They worked harder than ever before to maintain the employment levels at their plants so that people would not have to move out of the area. That is a company with a social conscience. That is the company that takes its moral responsibilities to their citizens seriously, something that Fishery Products International failed to do.

As soon as the bottom line started to slip, as soon as it didn't reflect the tremendous profit margins that they wanted to gain for their company, what did they do? They started to turn their back on the people, starting with Harbour Breton when they closed that down, then to Fortune where they didn't open their doors, then to stall tactics in production in places like Port aux Choix and Marystown; all of those things. Then failing to meet their commitments, Mr. Chairman, to build a new plant in Bonavista, to upgrade the plant in Marystown, to expand their secondary processing in Burin; all things they failed to do, Mr. Chairman, because the bottom line did not reflect the amount of profit that they wanted; not that it was not profitable but the amount of profit they wanted was not there.

I am lucky to have a company, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't measure their activity and their commitment to people based on the range of profit that they gain. Obviously, it has an impact. All companies have to be able to earn enough money to keep their doors open and to keep themselves functioning, but because their profit margin slips from 40 per cent to 10 per cent doesn't mean that they are going to go out and close up their operation.

Mr. Chairman, I realize how fortunate I am and the people in my district are, to not have to experience the wrath of companies like FPI and other companies out there that are prepared to forsake the communities, the people and the industry just for the sake of what their bottom line is going to be.

That is exactly what I see happening here. FPI was anxious to move on, to wash their hands of all of this. Government did not want to deal with it, Mr. Chairman. They looked for the most optimal route of this, to be able to get this put to bed, let sleeping dogs lie, and be able to carry on in the industry as best they can; but, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sellout to the people of this Province. I think the fact that government is washing its hands of the fishing industry by not assuming the assets and the equity of this particular company is, in fact, Mr. Chairman, a resource sellout in a major way, that you could ever look at it.

Mr Chairman, we look at resources in all contexts in this Province, and oftentimes when we are negotiating big oil deals or big mineral deals or big power deals it is all about royalties, it is all about equity, it is all about, what am I getting out of it in terms of the Province? But, when you start negotiating on the fishery resource, it is not about, can I assume a part of the equity? It is, how fast can I off-load this so that it becomes someone else's problem?

That is really unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because I still believe, in the absence of the oil industry development, in the absence of the mining development, that the fishing industry is still the main industry for rural communities in this Province, and taking an equity share in this particular company and obtaining the assets of FPI by the government would have been a real show of their concern and of investment in Newfoundland and Labrador's rural communities, in my opinion, and they failed to use that opportunity to do just that.

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. member, I remind her that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I spoke last night regarding this FPI deal and after I sat down the Minister of Fisheries, the Deputy Premier, stood to correct me and wondered what I was concerned about, that this deal had no impact whatsoever on the plant in Carbonear.

Well, just to clarify that whole issue, last year there was 2 million pounds of crab processed at the Carbonear plant by Seacrest, which was and is, I guess, still a branch of OCI, Ocean Choice International. So, somewhere along the way, Mr. Chairman, facts have to be straightened out regarding that.

There is a processing licence in Carbonear that was put there by the former government, the Liberal government, and it was put there not for Earle fishery or Earle Brothers, or whatever the company was called at the time, Earle Freighting. It was put there for the benefit of the people of the Carbonear-Harbour Grace district so that people could find gainful employment there to help support and feed their families.

So, Mr. Chairman, this year - and the deal is not even signed, the arrangement is not even made, until August, I think, the FPI Board of Directors are supposed to meet - that deal is not even inked yet, and already 2 million pounds of crab has gone somewhere else: a million pounds to Bonavista and another million pounds to St. Lawrence. Instead, in the wake of that, there is going to be a hide processing plant there for sealskins. There are going to be sealskins processed -

[Baby crying]

MR. SWEENEY: I see that I am being pre-empted here by a younger person aspiring to be in politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Nevertheless, it is probably competition for the next election.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the facts are evident. There are 130 people out there in my district right now today and my phone has not stopped, and they are concerned about what their future is going to be. There is no package being offered by government to tie them over for the next few months, so that they could look after their families for the winter. That plant always did that. There was always that little bit of hope there that some people would get work to look after their families.

Carbonear has been a hub for the fishery in this Province. It was part of the process of the Labrador fishery when the stationers left the area and went to Labrador to pursue the fishery, the small inshore fishery that occurred there. There was always some work there. A fishery was always pursued.

What I am hearing now, and what I am seeing, and what I have to tell the people of my district, is that the last fish has been processed in Carbonear, the last crab has been processed in Carbonear; because, over Easter, very quietly and quickly, the crab processing equipment was taken out and, to my understanding, was moved by tractor trailer to the mainland. It has gone either to New Brunswick or P.E.I. I am not certain where it has gone.

Mr. Chairman, that has a devastating impact on a community like Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Salmon Cove, Perry's Cove and Freshwater. All the people who derived a living from the fishery in that area are fighting there now to try and keep the public wharf from falling into the harbour, Mr. Chairman. We are struggling there to keep that vestige of our heritage intact. Instead, I think this year we have 60,000 seal pelts and there are twenty-five or thirty people waiting for a call, out of that 130, waiting for a call as to whether or not they are going to find employment. That, to me, is not satisfactory.

You can stand here and argue until you are blue in the face that this deal has no impact on that. Well, it does because last year there was no crab processed from Carbonear to Bonavista. The crab was processed in Carbonear, at the plant, and a lot of people from the area gained employment from that.

I just want to clarify that and let the people out there know what is happening out there. It is fine and dandy to have a deal put in front of us with no details. There are no details. There is a big difference with getting a group of printed transparencies, I guess, from some overhead with bare sketches on there, but there is a lot of detail missing in all of that.

One of the things that was never mentioned is, what about compensation packages for those people? It is fine to say, as the Deputy Premier put in his letter to me, it is also anticipated that displaced workers may have an opportunity to work in other crab processing plants in the area which are experiencing labour shortages.

Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there is not a lot of labour shortage in my area, I will tell you that. There is very little. We are talking about people who have work experience in the fishery all of their lives, people now in their fifties and sixties who are experts in what they do, but they do not have skills to transfer somewhere else, if there was somewhere else to go. Many of these people have reached a point where it is of no benefit for them to go to Alberta, like their sons and daughters have done.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why we are being asked right now to support a bill to offer this kind of a package without any detail, without the sale being made. I do not know, for the life of me, why this urgency, why this sense of urgency that we have to pass this bill today just to put it on a shelf to gather dust until if and when the shareholders of FPI find that it is the right time to divest themselves of that company. It is a stabbing blow to the people of this Province. Many people will not realize the repercussions of this until some time in the future. FPI has made promises themselves which they have not honoured. They promised a new plant in Bonavista and there is no new plant in Bonavista.

In Carbonear alone, we have had three to four tanneries in my lifetime, and in the lifetime of a lot of these people who I am trying to represent here this evening. It offers little consolation that twenty-five or thirty of them will be called upon to go to work; waiting by the phone, being assured that, yes, we are going to hire some people. There is another little factor with that, that there is no equipment there yet to start the processing.

I just had a call from a lady a few minutes ago concerned that the equipment was not there, and she voiced another concern with me: I do not know how many women they will be hiring because of the heavy work that is involved. I do not know if my seniority is going to be good enough to bring me up so I can qualify as being one of the few women who will be hired.

Working in a tannery, Mr. Chair, is hard work, hard labour. I am not so sure that 60,000 pelts, at this point in time, are going to give them forty weeks work. The Deputy Premier says to me: The Carbonear facility will now concentrate on the full processing of seal pelts which should extend the operating period to over forty weeks. While the number of employees involved in this process may be reduced, this change will create greater stability for these workers. Well, I do not know how reducing a workforce creates stability for workers. I do not know how that creates stability when you reduce a workforce. You remove the last bit of historical attachment in that area to the fishery when you take that away. It astounds me that people should be out there living under that kind of fear.

Mr. Chair, I do not know, as I said earlier, what has brought about this move.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: As I said earlier, that crab processing license was not given to that company in Carbonear. It was given to the people out there so they could have meaningful work.

I am asking the minister, as part of this deal, if he could see that that license could stay attached to that area, even transfer it to Harbour Grace where I understand now there is small processing facility established. I think it is only fair that in the wake of this the area be assured of some sort of future with regard to the fishery.

Mr. Chairman, I end on those comments. I understand there may be some other people who will have a few words to say.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just have a few more words on the FPI dismantling. It always rings in my ear how the Premier of this Province always says the devil is in the details. That is what the Premier said on many occasions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we will just go through a few comments. The Premier is always the one who we hear. We have not heard him speak yet on this bill, I don't think, in this House. I am not sure if he did.

MR. SWEENEY: No. He was just up in the gallery a minute ago.

MR. JOYCE: Up in the gallery. He is up in the gallery apparently.

We have not heard him speak yet on this bill and his ideas, but back in 2002, Mr. Chairman, through Hansard, with the FPI, the Premier made some comments on the Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, we do not even have a deal in front of us. Here is what the Premier said in 2002: In fact, there should be an all party committee that should go around the Province, put out the terms of the deal before it is signed, before it is agreed to. Let the people of the Province have some input into a particular agreement. That is what the Premier said.

He went on to say: The Lower Churchill, if there is any tentative agreement or any framework of an agreement, not a tentative agreement, the framework of an agreement, struck on the Lower Churchill before anything is signed and before anything is agreed to the Minister of Mines and Energy, as chairperson of that particular panel, should go around. In the event of the Voisey's Bay deal, or in the event of a deal on the Lower Churchill, there should be an all party, non-partisan committee of the House stuck to go around and listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to hear what they want, hear what their interests are and to hear what they think before a deal should be. That is what should be done.

That is the Premier of this Province. I understand the Premier is out today saying how people should stand up and stand to their word and to their commitments that they made to the people of the Province. Here is the commitment that he made in 2002: before we get a deal struck, before we are asked here now to dismantle the FPI Act, we as a group should at least have something in front of us that we can go down to the communities affected, to the towns, to the people affected because we went through this whole process before.

I will ask you, Mr. Chair: When this deal is done, once the dismantling of the FPI Act is done today and there is a deal done with OCI and we are trying to figure out where all the money has gone for the marketing arm, for the plant that they have over in (inaudible), do you think you are going to see the final details of that agreement that you are going to vote for today? Of course not. You are not going to see it. A few of the Cabinet ministers may see it as it comes through. How many of the backbenchers over there - the Member for St. John's North, he is going to sit down and say here is the agreement that you voted for, by the way? Of course not.

Here we are with our duties, that we are supposed to, before we sign any agreement, according to the Premier's commitment, see the details and bring it across the Province to the people affected. Of course, that does not really work.

Here is also what the Premier said, Mr. Chairperson, during the same debate. Here is what the Premier said. The Premier of this Province, the same person now who is asking us to give him a blank cheque to go on with it before there is a deal even struck - even with the Minister of Fisheries now, the same person who declared war on John Risley all of a sudden now stands up and professes he is not a capitalist. He is a capitalist, not a socialist. Yet, all the time he is pounding his chest, how he is standing up for the workers and last night he finally admitted it. All of that was just a charade, nothing but a charade.

MR. SWEENEY: Back of the pickup.

MR. JOYCE: Back of the pickup, against FPI - nothing but a charade.

This is what the Premier said: In a speech in Corner Brook during the summer, I said to the people in Corner Brook, if I were the Premier - which is he now - I would have said to John Risley: How are you going to improve the bottom line, how are you going to get the profits, how are you going to get the dividends out, how are you going to get the company to be more profitable, how are you going to know what you are going to do? You are going to cut jobs. That is what you are going to do. This is what happened.

Here is the same Premier asking back then all of the questions that should be asked about a deal. We are asking the same questions before the deal is ever signed, can we see it, and we are being told, no. We are actually being told, no, that we are actually not even going to see it. We are not even going to see it. Can you imagine that, Mr. Chair? We are asked here now to go off and sign the deal to give them carte blanche to walk away with this whole - take the FPI Act, put it away somewhere, toss it on some shelf somewhere for when they need it and we will let you know what the deal is in the long-run. How responsible is that? I just do not think it is very responsible.

Mr. Chairman, we see the privative clause here that is being brought forward, one to protect the government when they scrap FPI, because they are going to scrap it so that no one can sue the government. Back in 2002, when we brought one in, it was to protect us because we ensured that the Act was in such a way that what we did was force companies to live up to their commitments. It is a situation where no one can sue the government for their actions. We put that in back in 2002 because we wanted to strengthen the FPI Act for the workers all across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Here we see the government now dismantling the FPI Act. They are putting in a clause so they can't be sued for dismantling the FPI Act if anybody comes back to them.

Here is a telling statement now - we are seeing it today and we will see it again, the Premier out today talking about how a man has to stand by his word. Here is what the Premier said in 2002. Research is amazing on what a person says one day and backs up. Here is what the Premier said: People do not like heavy-handed intervention. This is what has happened in the business community. The national media are looking at it now as our intervention is heavy-handed. If it happened back in April of last year, back in May of last year, there would have been no problem. There should be no need for a privative clause. There should be no need to hide behind your mistakes, so that people who have the right to sue you can rightfully sue you. We have it done. It is not out there. You have this unique legislation that talks about privative. You cannot be sued because you make mistakes. That is wrong.

Can you imagine! The Premier of the Province made that statement back when we put a clause in, Mr. Chairman, to protect ourselves because we forced FPI, we forced John Risley and the Board of Directors, to live up to their agreement, to live up to employment levels, to make sure that plants would remain open. I was a part of the committee and there are people opposite who were also a part of the committee. We forced FPI and the board - we put a clause in there that they can't come back and sue us, because we made them do it.

Now, the Premier, who disagreed at that time about the privative clause - he said, there is no need, you should stand up to your mistakes as a government. Now, because he is allowing FPI to go roughshod over everybody in the Province, because they are going to walk away with huge - George Armoyan walked away with $5 million or $6 million already. The Minister of Fisheries is already saying the assets over in Britain are double, up to $80 million; no idea where the assets are going to go, which shareholders are going to get all the profits from that. Here we have a Premier saying, there is no need of it because you should stand up for your actions. Yet today we see a privative clause in this here.

We are not allowed to ask questions about it and we are not allowed to see the final agreement, but back in 2002 - the man who said you should stand up to your word is here saying the complete opposite in this House of Assembly. Well, he has not spoken in the House of Assembly, I am sorry. He is just going through the Minister of Fisheries because the Premier has not spoken on this. The Premier has not spoken, in this House, on FPI in a speech since I have been in this House. In 2002, he made a prepared speech.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The minister of trust over there; the Minister of Health is over there. Let's talk to the Minister of Health, when there were people up in my office that you did not think people like that should not be around. You know who I am talking about. We had a staff member up there that you did not think - ask the Member for Carbonear, you went out and spoke to him about it, too - you did not think should be around the office. Do you want to talk? Do you want me to tell you who the person was?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, you do not because it was a handicapped person who was in our office, and you came to me and the Member for Carbonear and said: People like that should not be here. That is what you said. So, don't you go talking to me about what I should say and not say. Don't you go talking to me about what I should not say and be able to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: You ask the Member for Carbonear.

MR. WISEMAN: How big a liar are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, do you hear that?

MR. JOYCE: You ask the Member for Carbonear if you never went to him also. So don't you go trying to condone me about what I am allowed to say in this House, let me tell you. You are not the person. Anybody else can, but not you. I can assure you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure I will be back.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I spoke earlier on this particular bill and I did so because of the issues that are being raised throughout my district and throughout the Province about what is happening here with the sale of FPI, and the manner in which it is being sold. I guess, more importantly, what has really come to the forefront is the fact that we have a flagship company in this Province that is being dismantled. That is really a serious issue for the people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador because they think it is the beginning of the end for the fishery in our Province. They think what we are seeing here, even though there are like five year commitments, or supposedly five year commitments, and there are penalties, they really do not have any comfort at all that this will, in fact, become a reality.

There are fears out there that even though the five year commitment is there and the penalties are there, that for most companies the penalties are not severe enough that will prevent the companies from just packing up their bags and leaving the Province, at least in the situation with respect to High Liner. Of course, we know that OCI is a local company. I think there is probably a little more faith when it comes to OCI but there are questions being raised with respect to High Liner. I guess one that has been brought to my attention which was a concern that has been expressed by a constituent of mine with respect to any kind of commitment that the government got out of the company with respect to the sale of assets, should they want to sell the assets.

I guess what was pointed out to me was an article that appeared in the local paper which referenced that the government had somehow gotten a commitment from OCI that the government would have the right of first refusal with the sale of OCI assets. If the government should want to buy them and OCI should want to sell them, that in fact the government would have the right of first refusal. He questioned the word assets. I went through the briefing that we got, of course, and the only reference I can find here with respect to that particular aspect of the deal would be with respect to shrimp and scallop, those quotas. In the negotiated points it says that they would keep for five years with government holding right of first refusal to purchase thereafter.

So, I would just ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture if he could make note of this question, whether or not assets referred to in that particular newspaper article does in fact refer to the shrimp and scallop quotas and not to the fish plants themselves? Because, obviously, the way it was written, and for anyone out there who is not close enough to this file and who has not been given the briefing and just sees the words assets, or the words that sale of assets or right refusal of assets then they would assume - and rightly so, if you do not know the difference - that you are probably talking about the fish plants themselves, whether it is in Marystown, Catalina, Bonavista, Dildo, Anchor Point or Triton.

I will just make that point so that the minister, when he does stand to speak, could clarify that. As I said, my understanding, having gone through the negotiated points, was that the governments were holding right of first refusal when it came to negotiated points with OCI, actually refers to the shrimp and scallop quotas and not to the plants themselves. I would ask the minister just to clarify that when he stands to speak, in the interest of those out there who are reading something like this, and really not having had the briefing that we have had, would obviously have questions about it. Clearly, when they read that, then they wondered why that would not apply to High Liner. If High Liner should decide to sell the plant in Burin, why then the government would not have written in there that in fact the government would have right of first refusal to buy that plant? As I say, it is not my understanding that it means the plants but in the case of OCI, that it references the shrimp and scallop quotas.

These are the types of questions that are being raised, because unless you had the briefing, as I said, that we have had or unless you had the technical briefing that the media had, then there are so many questions around the sale of FPI and all of its assets. People who are very close to this - and they do not necessarily have to work in the plant and they do not necessarily have to be a fisherperson or they do not necessarily have to work in management at FPI. People who are, I guess, somewhat removed from the whole negotiations themselves or somewhat removed from the fishery themselves have all of these questions and more. More questions than what I am raising here because of course the sale of these assets - what is happening here with FPI, everybody in rural Newfoundland, in particular, is going to feel the impact. Whether that impact is negative or positive, of course, we do not know at this point. Our fear is that the government is going down the path of wanting to, I guess, put this legislation to bed without really having the deal completed.

Those are concerns that are being expressed, why would government be so anxious to put this to bed, to clue up this legislation and expect the rest of us in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to just take it in stride and think: that's okay, the government will make the best decision that it can. There are so many questions being asked that I think it would be only right and proper to put this aside, to wait until there is an agreement concluded and then bring it back to the Legislature and have us debate whether or not the agreement that has been struck is in fact a good agreement.

The other question that I have, which I raised of course yesterday when I spoke, is with respect to Fortune. I am concerned there because I do know that in what was given to us as a briefing when referenced to OCI, it mentioned that, with respect to Fortune, the agreement would be to transfer the FPI plant in Fortune to Cooke. I remember asking the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the House of Assembly if we could take that to the bank? If, in fact, this was a done deal? He stood in this House and he assured me, it was a done deal.

Well, there are those who are now receiving a copy of - it just came to our office, in fact, yesterday - Cooke Aquaculture. It is their spring newsletter, spring 2007 newsletter, and Mr. Ross Butler, who is the newly appointed Vice-President of Operations for Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly does not say in this article that it is a done deal.

I will quote Mr. Butler who is, in fact, quoted in their own newsletter here. He says: As has been reported publicly, we have focused our processing plant search on the Fishery Products International Fortune processing facility which remains closed. As we go to press, we have engaged in discussions with Ocean Choice International, the company that has struck a non-binding agreement with FPI, to purchase their East Coast Canadian assets. Once this deal gets completed - we do not even know when that is going to be at this point in time. We know that the Board of Directors of FPI is meeting again in August, but they are meeting. We do not know whether that is to conclude, make decisions and conclude an agreement on this, or whether it is just to consider it and decide at a later date. Ross Butler says, once this deal gets completed we are hopeful of concluding an arrangement with the new owners to acquire the Fortune facility.

According to Mr. Butler, and I do not know when the interview was done, or where that was in terms of the negotiations that took place, or where it was in terms of the minister's comment to me that it was a done deal, but I can tell you that I will be writing Mr. Butler and I will be asking him for the same assurances that I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Is this, in fact, a done deal? Do they have an agreement with OCI that they are, in fact, going to purchase the plant in Fortune if the deal is struck?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. (Inaudible) agreed on.

MS FOOTE: The minister tells me, yes.

With all due respect to the minister, and not that I do not accept his word, but I think when I listen to what Mr. Butler is saying that is cause for concern.

MR. RIDEOUT: He said hopefully. He said, hopefully there will be a deal.

MS FOOTE: He said, hopefully there will be a deal.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that is exactly what I read. He said, hopefully there will be a deal - but, in your response to me when I asked you the question if I could take it to the bank, you said it is a done deal.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MS FOOTE: That, to me, is two different interpretations of what is going on. One, that I can take it to the bank - so it has nothing to do with hopefully. On the other hand we have Mr. Butler saying, hopefully there will be a deal.

I am sure the minister must understand, the minister has to understand, that there are people out in Fortune, and people who worked at the plant in Fortune, who are waiting, are hanging on every word, because they want to know that there is a future for them.

I am sure he can appreciate that, when things like that get said, or issues get raised, they want the answers. It is only right to understand and appreciate where they are coming from. It is based on that, that while I have the minister's response that yes, it is a done deal -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up, please?

MR. RIDEOUT: Sure.

MS FOOTE: While the minister says it is a done deal, I will write Mr. Butler just to get it in writing from him, as well, so that they can have that level of comfort that whenever this deal is struck between OCI and FPI that it will, in fact, be a concrete commitment here that they can take to the bank, that Cooke Aquaculture will indeed be purchasing the FPI plant in Fortune and that there will be something that they really can look forward to in terms of long-term employment.

Thank you.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting FPI Limited.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 1 passed without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited, is carried without amendments.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to call Order 2, Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited.

CHAIR: Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited.

A bill, "An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited." (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: I am sorry, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, yesterday, or last night, at some point, I indicated to the leaders of the parties opposite that I wanted, for greater clarity, to amend the title of this bill.

The title of the bill as it appears on the Order Paper today, and for the last number of days, reads, "An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of FPI Limited." (Bill 31) That is how it went on the Order Paper, and that is fine, but we wanted to amend the long title so that there is no question about what the long title is and what it means.

I gave a copy of the proposed amendments to the leaders of the other parties yesterday. In terms of the long title, Mr. Chairman, I propose that we delete the long title in the bill and we substitute the following....

I do not know if Your Honour has it in front of you or not, and also a copy for the Table.

We would substitute the following so that the long title would read, "An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited", because there are two separate corporations here, Mr. Chairman.

That is the first amendment that I would propose.

Also, in clause 2, the bill would be amended by adding immediately after clause 3 the following, "This Act comes into force on the day the Fishery Products International Act Repeal Act comes into force." - which, as I said last night when I introduced the bill, since these are two companion pieces of legislation, we would propose to have both of them come into effect at the same time when we are ready to proceed.

These were the amendments, Mr. Chairman, that I propose we deal with as we are dealing with Committee on Bill 31.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I take it you are ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman?

You have called one of the clauses, have you not?

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I wasn't sure if you had called it yet.

I would like to have a few words, if I could, just so there is no confusion out there. I guess, for posterity and historical purposes, I believe whatever has to be said from the point of view of the Opposition over here has already been said with regard to the FPI issue in regard to Bill 1 that we have been dealing with here for the past two days. I certainly would not want anybody to think that, because we are not going to have any long protracted comments with respect to Bill 31, that we might feel any differently about Bill 1.

The two are interrelated, but I think most members on this side in Opposition have clearly and vociferously voiced their opinion as to what they think of Bill 1. This, of course, is an adjunct in a way to Bill 1, and it is what I call again another piece of cupboard legislation, and this government is getting more and more famous for that the longer we sit.

For example, Bill 31 that we had was three clauses long and, I do not know if it reflects the lack of preparation by this government or what, but we have an amendment now three clauses long, so it either shows lack of preparation or, as we say stuff to enlighten them, they realize that they never had their homework done in the first place or something, and they have to be a bit more sure. That is one possibility. Then the other possibility, of course, is that it is a piece of cupboard legislation again. Let us get it passed, we will stick it up in the cupboard and when we do Bill 1, we have Bill 31 up in the cupboard as well. We will take out both and use them as we see fit.

Anyway, we have had our comments on Bill 1. Nothing is changed with respect to Bill 31. We realize that it is a coincidental piece to Bill 1, and the opinions that certainly this member has cast with regard to Bill 1 will remain the same, and for that reason I, personally, will also be voting against Bill 31, for the same rationale that I already expressed and explained in regard to Bill 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2

CHAIR: Clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: As I proposed earlier, and just for the sake of the record, I think the bill is amended - no, clause 3, I guess. Clause 2 is okay. Just let me know when you get to it.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3

Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, we propose that the bill be amended by adding immediately after clause 3 the following:

MR. PARSONS: Cupboard clause.

MR. RIDEOUT: Cupboard clause. This act comes into force on the same day as the Fishery Products International Act Repeal Act comes into force.

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that clause 3 as amended be carried.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 3 as amended carried.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. Government House Leader carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is that the bill be amended by adding immediately after clause 3 the following: This act comes into force on the day the Fishery Products International Act Repeal Act comes into force.

The Chair rules that this amendment is in order.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition of FPI Limited.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: The amendment to the long title now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, I thought I had moved the amendment to the long title earlier, but now I move the amendment to the long title again and that is that it reads as follows:-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, just to be sure.

The amendment to the long title is as follows: that the long title will now read, An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business, And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited.

CHAIR: It is moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the long title be amended and the Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

The amendment is that the long title will now read: An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business, And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to the long title?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the long title as amended?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, long title as amended carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business, And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited, carried with amendments?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 31 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried without amendment, and Bill 31 carried with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 1 without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

Leave has been granted.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 1 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Division has been called on third reading.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 1 be now read a third time?

All those in favour please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Denine, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Cornect.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-seven ayes and eight nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk should now read the motion.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1, An Act Respecting FPI Limited has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting FPI Limited," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 31 passed with some amendments.

When shall the report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 31 be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

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

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 31 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31, An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited, has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Hold The Crown Harmless In The Disposition Of The Assets, Business And Other Undertakings Of FPI Limited And Fishery Products International Limited," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their participation and co-operation today and I now move that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.