MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome some student visitors. They are from the school by the name of Solutions Canada in the Port de Grave district. There are twenty students, with their teacher, Darren Butt, and group leaders, Connie Ryan and Lorie Ralph. I am sure members would like to extend a warm welcome to these young people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have the following members' statements for this afternoon: the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, the hon. the Member for Bellevue; the hon. the Member for Trinity North; and the hon. the Member for Exploits, and Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a tremendous Newfoundlander and Labradorian who passed away recently. Mayor Claude Garland of Carbonear passed away last month just days shy of his fifty-sixth birthday.

Mr. Speaker, service to the community and love for his family will be how Mayor Garland will be remembered. Claude Garland was first elected to the Carbonear town council in 1985. During his nineteen years of unbroken municipal service, he won five consecutive municipal general elections, serving twelve years as councillor and deputy mayor and the past seven years as mayor. Mayor Garland was the longest serving member of the council in its fifty-six year history of the municipality, and was the first to die in office.

Mr. Speaker, tributes have been written from leaders province wide. Archdeacon Iliffe Sheppard sums it up best when he described Mayor Garland as a "people person and a sacrificial leader in all areas of political, civil, civic and social life. He had a heart for the people and their needs." One Carbonear citizen paid tribute to Mayor Garland by saying, "When I needed his help and support Mr. Garland was there for me."

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with Claude Garland for over a decade during my career in politics. He has always been an individual who represented his town and indeed himself with dignity, strengthen, professionalism, and the grace that is necessary to be a successful leader.

Mr. Speaker, Claude Garland will be missed and never forgotten. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in expressing my condolences to his wife Cairine and the Garland family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine who has been recognized for years of volunteer service. St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine Mayor Calvin Smith has been awarded a provincial government long-term service award recognizing twenty-five years of municipal service.

Mr. Smith received the award during the annual provincial Federation of Municipalities Convention in St. John's this past month. The award reflects Mr. Smith's quarter of a century as a councillor, deputy mayor and mayor of the community.

The mayor was the recipient last year of the Queen's Jubilee Medal for his contribution to his community, his province and his country. The town, on behalf of its residents, acknowledged and congratulated Mr. Smith recently at a local ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, service to one's community should never be disregarded and I am very happy that Mayor Smith's twenty-five years of volunteer work has been officially recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mayor Calvin Smith on his twenty-five years of volunteer service to the Town of St. Bernard's-Jacques Fonatine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am very pleased to be able to comment about and acknowledge a great celebration I participated in on Monday past. A lady, Mrs. Fanny Short from Old Bonaventure, celebrated her 100^th birthday on Monday past.

Mr. Speaker, Monday's celebration was a very joyous occasion for Mrs. Short and the many family members and friends who were so happy to be there with her.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Short originally came from British Harbour and moved to Catalina under the Centralization Program in 1968, but from there moved to Old Bonaventure in the late 1980s. She currently resides in Blundon's Personal Care Home in Hickman's Harbour and still has a very keen memory of a very rich history and is able to talk very vividly about her early years in British Harbour and Bonaventure.

Mr. Speaker, Fanny, as she is known to her many friends, was blessed with having eight children, twenty-three grandchildren, forty great-grandchildren and several great-great-grandchildren, in fact. Many of those people were with her on Monday to celebrate her 100^th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all the hon. members in this House to join with me in celebrating 100 glorious years as a very strong contributor to the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits and Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a national champion from the District of Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, Paul Andrews, a native of Point Leamington, competed in the lightweight division of the Canadian National Arm Wresting Championship in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba on September 12.

This year, Mr. Andrews accomplished something truly, truly remarkable in the arm wrestling community. After winning the national championship with his left arm in years past, Mr. Andrews won this year's national championship with his right arm - an accomplishment never before achieved in his weight class in Canadian history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Paul went on to compete in the World Championships in Durban, and while he did not finish first he performed extremely well.

Paul is the son of Ed and Paulette Andrews and has certainly made his parents and the community of Point Leamington extremely proud of his accomplishments to date.

I ask all members of the House in joining with me in sending our congratulations to our ambidextrous two-armed champion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House and all citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador of a new volunteer-based recycling initiative that has been started recently. This initiative is called Freecycle. Freecycle provides a network that connects people who have stuff to throw away with people who need stuff. It works along the adage of: one man's garbage is another man's treasure.

This initiative helps people who have stuff that is too good to throw away, but no longer of any use to them, to find a home for it with someone who has a need for this type of material. It helps reduce the amount of trash being deposited in our limited landfill space, it helps charities, schools, and volunteer-based organizations and individuals by allowing them to exchange goods between people who want to dispose of a commodity and people who need that commodity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my pleasure that the 5 Wing Goose Bay Military Base has been cleared by an environmental assessment to engage in chaff and flare activities. Chaff measures are meant to simulate an aircraft. Chaff packages are released, burst open, and act as a decoy to radar seeking missiles. Flare measures create an intense heat that is used to confuse missiles with infrared tracking. This environmental clearance means that practicing aircraft can now use these defensive countermeasures.

I would like to recognize especially the support of the Upper Lake Melville area of Labrador for this project. Concerned citizens have promoted the use of chaff and flares as another aircrew training option in air defense countermeasures.

Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador Affairs, MHA John Hickey, is a strong advocate for increased foreign military training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. He, too, should be acknowledged for his dedication to the interests of his constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: So he should. Right on.

Chaff and flares training measures will present increased opportunities and will make the base more appealing in attracting potential clients. These measures will meaningfully contribute to further activity in foreign military flight training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. It is anticipated that half of the sorties flown at 5 Wing will deploy chaff and flares once the opportunity is provided.

Updated services and military training opportunities will encourage ongoing allied training at 5 Wing Goose Bay. This will have a positive impact on the socio-economic environment of the Labrador region, ensuring continued employment at the military base. Moreover, military flight training has been, and will continue to be, carried out in an environmentally responsible manner.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Premier Williams has indicated that 5 Wing Goose Bay is one of his top priorities and has worked very hard to ensure the sustainability of the base. As a government, we are working diligently to ensure the base's longevity for the future prosperity of Labrador and for the Province as a whole.

As Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, I am proud of the recent outcomes with respect to 5 Wing, and look forward to continued success on the long-term sustainability of this military base.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I certainly won't make any remarks as to who should have a job or who shouldn't, but this is a good news story for the Upper Lake Melville area.

I have lived in the Upper Lake Melville area since 1974, and certainly 5 Wing Goose Bay means to the Upper Lake Melville area and other parts of Labrador as what the fish plant means to Harbour Breton. So, I say to the minister that anything that is done with 5 Wing Goose Bay, we on this side, and certainly I, as a member for Labrador, will fully support.

This is a good news story, and for a lot of people, the coalition and the people in Labrador who have worked so hard, along with the MHA for Lake Melville. It is a good story and one that we fully support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, too, support the initiative that has been taken and are glad to see that things are in place that will add to the security of 5 Wing Goose Bay. What happens at 5 Wing Goose Bay very much is what will happen to the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and it is very important that the base that is there today continue for many, many years to come.

The previous speaker mentioned about the plant in Harbour Breton being similar to the base in Goose Bay. It is, Mr. Speaker, in many respects. I am glad to say that myself, along with the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Lake Melville and the concerned citizens group, sat - the three of us, as MHAs in Labrador - on a tri-party committee to help and facilitate whatever can take place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to make sure that the long-term future is secure.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to provide hon. ministers with an outline of government's plan for funding of municipal capital works for 2005 and beyond.

Development and maintenance of municipal infrastructure continues to be a high priority for this government. It is our objective to assist local governments with costs relating to water treatment, sewage treatment, waste management, roads, fire protection, recreation facilities and other needs. Mr. Speaker, expenditures on municipal infrastructure are good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for municipalities and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Infrastructure investments require sound financial and engineering plans. Cities and towns need time to plan ahead to ensure that projects are undertaken in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that we will not be waiting until the 2005 Budget Speech to announce our municipal infrastructure strategy. Cities and towns want to know now how much funding will be available, and I have had a number of discussions with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, with the engineering firms and with the construction industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Early announcements mean better prices and more effective spending of taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make the following announcements:

The Multi-Year Capital Works Program is targeted primarily at infrastructure needs in larger centers. Capital Works project are cost-shared on a 50-50 basis between provincial and municipal governments. The total provincial-municipal expenditure under this program during the next three years is estimated at $85 million.

The Municipal Capital Works Program funds projects such as water and sewer, municipal buildings, recreation facilities, fire trucks and roads. Expenditures are cost-shared between provincial and municipal governments. Expenditure under this program in 2005 is estimated at $25 million.

The Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program focuses primarily on water and sewer projects in small to medium size communities. Expenditures are cost-shared between federal, provincial and municipal governments. 2005 will be the final year of this federal-provincial agreement. Total expenditure in 2005 is estimated at $30 million.

Mr. Speaker, these three programs will combine to invest a total of approximately $140 million in municipal infrastructure, and create approximately 90,000 person weeks of employment throughout the Province. In addition, we will be proceeding with negotiations with the federal government towards concluding a new Municipal Rural Infrastructure Agreement. This new five-year agreement should provide for a further investment of about $85 million in municipal infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, we are achieving a balance in our municipal infrastructure investments. Funding is available to larger centres to help meet the challenges which come with continued economic growth. Funding on favourable terms is also provided to small and medium size communities to enhance their long-term sustainability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I am pleased to see that the minister has carried on with the three programs that were there when I was minister just over a year ago.

The first one, in particular, the Multi-Year Capital Works Program is a good program. Towns like Torbay, in the minister's district, already participated in that - the City of Mount Pearl; the Town of Gander; Grand Falls; CBS; Paradise, all participated. What it does, it gives those towns the ability to be able to plan ahead instead of not really knowing what they are going to get from one year to the next. So that is a great program.

Capital Works, of course, is for the other programs for many of the smaller communities, amounts are allocated. The Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program is a good program. I look forward to seeing the minister be able to bring that to fruition with his federal counterparts as well.

The statement is also good because many of the smaller communities - I see the minister is still recognizing the need that many of the smaller communities cannot afford 50-50, whether it is 80-20, 85-15 or whatever. That is a great program. I am glad to see the minister has proceeded with that.

The only thing that I will be looking forward to in the Budget after we sign the Atlantic Accord is that the minister might come in with a supplementary plan where we might be able to double or triple it for the municipalities over the next number of years.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the things in the announcement by the minister are certainly good news and allow communities to provide their planning for the year to come. Mr. Speaker, there are many communities in this Province that do not have the ability to make improvements. There are towns around this Province, from one end to the other, Mr. Speaker, that have to continue to mortgage their future as a community in order to provide the basic needs of their citizens today. Mr. Speaker, that is hardly fair to them.

One of the other problems that I have been hearing about in recent days as well, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that some small communities are unable to get loan guarantees from the Province in order to provide such basic things as water and recreation facilities to their citizens. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister needs to address, and the government needs to address as well, because a lot of the smaller communities in this Province in the rural areas are not able to provide for their citizens, because of their smaller population, what larger centers are able to offer in the basic things that we need in life.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Before I call Oral Questions, I wanted to note that my usual practice in welcoming students is that I mention the name of the community that they came from and their district. I do believe I forgot to mention these students are from Harbour Grace and the beautiful and historic district of Port De Grave. Again, we welcome them to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all media reports indicate that significant progress was made during yesterday's detailed negotiations and hopefully a new deal may be signed in the not too distant future, and I congratulate the Premier and his team in making progress.

Now that the Premier has publicly discussed some of the major aspects of the meetings that took place with federal officials, I would like to ask him to clarify a question that I raised in this Legislature on Monday. I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he could advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if there will be a retroactive date for the new benefits, because I did not hear that as being an outstanding issue, and, if so, when will these new benefits start to flow? What would be the effective date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and his congratulations.

If I can, one issue that was raised in Question Period the last time I was here, which was two days ago, was the issue of something being put to writing, and I just want to clarify it for you. There is an excerpt from what I said at VOCM, and I made reference in my answer to note takers. What I said in that particular interview was - you know, what was interesting today was myself, Premier Hamm and Prime Minister Martin were in the room but there were also two note takers, people who actually took detailed notes on the discussions from our perspective and from the federal government's perspective. So, just to clarify that, there wasn't actually a written agreement or anything in writing. I just want to get that on the record.

With regard to retroactivity, basically I stayed away from the answer as such leading into negotiations yesterday because this is a chip that could be played, obviously, in the negotiations. Retroactivity is not something that was agreed to in the proposal of June 5; so, in all fairness to the federal government and to the Prime Minister, retroactivity is not on the table. It was discussed subsequently. It was something that we put to the federal government both before and after, but, in all fairness to the Prime Minister, the agreement that was entered into on June 5 did not include retroactivity and I would not be in a position to hold him to that; nor would I attempt to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, so we will probably assume that the affective date would be June 5, but I am sure it will be clarified a little later.

Mr. Speaker, one of the two outstanding issues described by the Premier publicly is the notion that a review of the equalization formula in two years' time could impact on any new deal with the Atlantic Accord. Could the Premier explain further to the House, and to the people of the Province, what the nature of this concern is, if we already have an agreement that, regardless of how equalization is calculated in the country, our equalization will not be diminished in any way, shape or form in any event?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is a point with which we took issue yesterday during the negotiations. Our position is quite clear, and it always has been, that this agreement was entered into, it was concluded, it was finalized on June 5 when the discussion took place between myself and the Prime Minister. As a result, our argument, of course, quite clearly is that if anything happens ex post facto after that particular point in time certainly is not binding on us. It is a transaction that the federal government decided to enter into with the provinces and that we would not be prejudiced by it.

This was an issue that has been on the table for some time. Our position is very, very clear, that we want to be made whole coming into any equalization reform if there is anything or if there are any recommendations coming out of a panel. So, as we go in we should come at a 100 per cent basis and be indemnified, is the term that we have been using. Whether it is in fact an indemnification at the end of the day or some other document or some other term, the same principle applies. But, it is an important point, because technically if we agreed to that we would be agreeing to a two-year agreement, because this agreement would only go on until the panel actually reported. So, if we had a commitment on 100 per cent of our revenues, which we do, if the Ontario cap was gone; however, if this was up for review in two years then really we have been on a fool's errand; it has been a waste of time because in twenty-four months or thirty-six months, whenever that panel reported, then it could all be turned upside down, so that is a point which we have stuck on and we are firm on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We appreciate the clarification.

Mr. Speaker, the other outstanding issue described publicly by the Premier is the review of the time limit, eight years from now, I understand. I would ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If the right deal is presented to Newfoundland and Labrador, even though it does not meet all of the requirements that Nova Scotia might have, because we are in this together at this point, would the Premier be willing to sign on our own if it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we will always do - this government will always do, and myself and the minister and our negotiating team will always do - what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I made it even very clear to Premier Hamm, when he came in here for the first time, I guess about two weeks ago, I sat down with him and said: John, look, we are in this together, but if at some point you feel that you need to get off the train or you need to go and do something that is in the best interest of your province and do it on a stand-alone basis, then I respect you for that and I respect that you have to honour the best interests of your province.

That is certainly a reciprocal arrangement, but we are standing together, we are standing united, we are standing strong. We also realize if at some point during this negotiation - because they have a different Accord than us; they are in a very different financial situation than us, a better financial situation, although it is still not one of the better situations in the country - then at that particular point if we had to do some diversity in the conclusion of this matter we have certainly agreed to do so. But, we are strong, we are united, we have stood together and we continue to stand together.

I must say, just so that the Legislature knows and the members of the House know, the bond here has been marvelous. We have supported each other. When we needed support, Premier Hamm was there and Nova Scotia was there. When they needed support, we were there, and that actually occurred yesterday as well. So, it is a good mutual arrangement and it keeps a good strong united front in order to deal with the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I speak on behalf of certainly everyone on this side, and I believe all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in saying congratulations to date and we wish you speedy success with the conclusion of the discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on and ask the Premier a couple of questions with respect to another very important issue in the Province today, which is the FPI situation and the pending closure of the Harbour Breton fish plant.

Mr. Speaker, last spring the Premier told the House of Assembly that he was all over this particular issue. It was raised by our Fisheries critic. He said it is in good hands, we are on top of it, we are all over the issues with FPI.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier, could he please update the House of Assembly and the people of the Province as to when the last time he was in a meeting personally with representatives of FPI prior to the announced closing - the unexpected, apparently, announced closing - last Friday? When was the last time before that, that the Premier himself was involved in meetings with FPI officials?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated to the House over the past couple of days, and certainly the Premier has indicated publicly also, we, as a government, have been intensely engaged in this situation as it relates to Harbour Breton, as it relates to FPI, and as it relates to the groundfish operations on the South Coast.

Meetings on behalf of the government with FPI happen, at the very least, on a weekly basis, and certainly there have been, over the past week or so, I would say there have been discussions on this matter on a daily basis and sometimes on several occasions in the run of a day. The Premier is kept fully apprized of what is going on. Sometimes I am engaged in the meetings, sometimes the Premier is engaged in the meetings, and sometimes our senior officials are engaged in the meetings, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say at this point is that negotiations are ongoing and we hope that we can find a satisfactory conclusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little bit surprised as to why the Premier is hesitant to speak about FPI and the Harbour Breton plant for himself. He usually has no trouble speaking for himself with respect to these issues. Yesterday in this House - and I would suggest he should get more involved. There was quite a bit of confusion between the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Justice yesterday on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we highlighted the significance of section 2.1 of the FPI Act in this Legislature, which states that a company - that company, because it is very different - cannot make decisions which create - and this is the phrase that is in the act - undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province.

It is right in the law. I didn't make it up myself.

By sitting quietly by, Mr. Speaker, and allowing the Harbour Breton plant to close, is the Premier agreeing that investments in fish plants are a thing of the past and investments in factory-freezer trawlers are the right way to go and that he agrees with FPI and that change in direction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, there is still a resource problem as it relates to groundfish in this Province and in this country. Now it is impossible to escape that fact, for anybody who has observed the Atlantic Canadian fishery. That is the single, biggest challenge in groundfish in Atlantic Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not subscribe to any views that would support the move towards factory-freezer trawlers for our groundfish industry around this Province. We certainly support the development of our processing sector on shore. We have remained strong to that. We have remained committed to that over the past twelve months (inaudible) since we formed the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as a further case in point, just to reinforce that, I think our investment in Arnold's Cove, the $3.5 million to secure the quotas there to ensure that it did not go somewhere where it would not end up being caught by a factory-freezer trawlers speaks volumes about our commitment to that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the resource problem is a constant problem. The announcement by the company, which the minister keeps apologizing for and explaining, did not say they closed because of resource problems. It said: because the plant was unsafe and it needs an investment.

Mr. Speaker, last spring in the Legislature the Premier stated he could not talk about FPI because it was a private company. I would like to ask the Premier, does he really believe, does he personally, really believe that FPI is just like any other private company, or is he finally going to stand up, get involved, and let them know that they are a creation of this Legislature and they must operate by the rules that he effectively sets as the chairman of the board by virtue of being Premier of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record on FPI, and this government's involvement in FPI, is very clear. Last spring when the Premier made the comments that he did on our public statements on FPI was in the context of a proposed income trust transaction that had not been divulged publicly by FPI at the time. There were security commission concerns at that time, and we could not speak publicly on it until after the company had made a public statement, Mr. Speaker.

Since then there have been some public statements and we have made some public statements. The discussions with FPI are continuing. FPI certainly knows this government's resolve as it relates to upholding the FPI Act. That is why there has not been a move to this date by FPI to move with their income trust transaction because we have said that we have differing opinions on how that respects the FPI Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we are still in discussions with FPI on that matter and on Harbour Breton and we hope that we will find a satisfactory resolution to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Yesterday, the minister was asked by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he would assure the people of Harbour Breton that FPI's quota would remain in the community if FPI ceased operations permanently in the community. I know that it is not his responsibility, as the minister said, but we all know the minister has some influence in these matters if he chooses to exercise it.

Would the minister recommend to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that FPI's historical quota for Harbour Breton remain with the town?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said yesterday, the matter of quota allocations and movement of quotas is a federal responsibility. However, I can assure the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and the people of Harbour Breton that we will do what is in our power and what is within our moral suasion - in our abilities in the context of moral suasion, I suppose - to influence the outcome in Harbour Breton. We will have no problem supporting the people of Harbour Breton in trying to secure quota for that community.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it is really too early to prejudge what is going to happen there. We are still working with the company, we are still working with the town, we are still working with the union. There will be a working group committee meeting tomorrow. We will see what comes out of that. As I had indicated yesterday, we are going to have an occupational health and safety inspector go into the facility and review the situation. Then, Mr. Speaker, we will see where we go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to ask the minister then, after making that statement - it has already been asked him - that while he was in Opposition this is what he said: The only way we would accept layoffs is if the union and employer mutually agreed to them through negotiations and the collective bargaining process. It is a straightforward, clear and simple question. Is the minister now saying that he will keep his commitment to the people of Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the people of Harbour Breton is the same as my commitment was to the people of Arnold's Cove last year this time, the same as my commitment to the people of Englee, and the same as it is to the people of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will do what I can in my capacity as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province, and this government will do what it can in its capacity, to try and find sensible, logical, practical solutions, long-term, not short stop-gap measures like we have seen in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We will, Mr. Speaker, work with everybody involved in trying to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. In that we will leave no avenue unexplored and no stone unturned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Within a few weeks more than 200 of FPI's workers in Harbour Breton will have no income, and there has already been a ripple affect in the community on that. Have you or your colleagues initiated a plan to deal with this immediate crisis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation that the plant workers may find themselves in early in the new year. At this point, no, we don't have a plan to deal with that, but, Mr. Speaker, last spring I can say that we were confronted with a similar situation and we responded. All I can say at this point is, if that situation unfortunately develops, which it looks like it may, then we will work with the people involved to try to find a solution to the short-term situation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the big issue here is the long- term situation and that is what we are focusing on in the short term right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible). The short term comes first. You are going run out of money first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The public are very concerned about the continued confusion surrounding the significant oil spill over this past weekend at the Terra Nova floating production platform. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

Currently, Hibernia and Terra Nova are producing, White Rose is expected to come on stream soon, and others to follow. In light of the fact that we have a spill that is at least four times larger than originally reported and the slick continues to grow, do you feel that the response, recovery and cleanup procedures are adequate to protect our precious marine ecosystems?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

This morning we learned that the companies have all but given up on recovering any significant amount of the oil. They say it is virtually impossible to recover oil and do a cleanup in three metre waves, which is the average in the winter months. In essence, we learned this morning that for eight months of the year there is no ability to clean up oil spills, that the oil companies have no plan. What is this minister doing to ensure that this deficiency is addressed, or is he just praying that spills only occur in the summer months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

The weather conditions in Atlantic Canada is something that I do not control, unfortunately. If we have a spill, we have to have the capabilities to respond to that spill. I have been looking to the federal minister to provide additional resources for those capabilities. Whether the wave conditions are three metres or two metres or one metre, we have to be ready. If, unfortunately, because of our weather conditions, we are not able to respond, unfortunately that is Mother Nature. If you have an ability to control Mother Nature, I would like to hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: The minister just mentioned that he made a lot of noise when he was over here and sat on this side of the House, about ensuring there was an effective mechanism in place for immediate cleanup response if there was a significant oil spill in Placentia Bay.

As the minister is aware, with both transhipment facilities in the Come By Chance refinery located at the head of Placentia Bay, is he satisfied that the resource as a response plan for a tanker related oil spill in Placentia Bay is adequate, or do we have to wait for another ecological disaster to learn that we are not prepared?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I thanked the minister when I first got up for his line of questions. I have been waiting a full year for him to ask me a question. I will give the same answer to this one that I gave to the last one.

I have been asking for this oil spill capability for Placentia Bay for our offshore oil production. It is hopefully going to grow. We do need that oil spill capability. As you know, when I was on that side of the House, I fought for this for five years. It was your government that told me, time and time again, 10,000 tons of capability to respond to an oil spill within seventy-two hours is good enough, when the oil tankers that are out there carry in excess of 100,000 tons. It was your government that said we were fine. I fought for it. I am still fighting for it. I hope that we get it. I would ask that you co-operate with us while we fight for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Campaign 2000, a national organization fighting child poverty, disclosed that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate in the country of child poverty, with nearly 22 per cent of children living in poverty, representing 24,000 children in this Province. Even more shocking is the report that almost half of these children have at least one parent working all year long.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The number one recommendation of Campaign 2000 is to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Will he and his government respond by taking a first step towards this and raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour immediately, on the road to developing a minimum wage that is actually a living wage for people in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the rate of poverty in this Province is frankly unacceptable. There are a number of measures that can address poverty, but all of these measures have to be taken together. We have to be able to progress with our economic and our social policies together. The minimum wage is one aspect. It will not solve the poverty issue here in this Province.

As we are required every two years - and this month we are reviewing the minimum wage. We do not have the minimum wage review completed at this time. We do have a number of submissions that have been made through various means regarding the minimum wage. Once we are able make that decision and review the minimum wage, we will be making an announcement at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government is committed to reducing the rate of poverty in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is to the Premier.

We do know that the minimum wage is something that this Province does have control over, and that not all of the expenses go to government. Children are poor because their parents are poor, and an increase in the minimum wage can change that. Even people working in this building, doing the cleaning in this building, some working for sixteen to eighteen years, are making the minimum wage. Does the Premier not think that it is important for this government to take a substantial, immediate, step to increase the minimum wage to $8 an hour, on the road to having a living wage for anybody working in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question.

The minimum wage is presently under review. We have conducted a review in a very different way this year. We have opened it up through various sources. People have been able to phone in with their comments, write in, fax and e-mail, but we have opened it up to everyone in this Province so they could have equal access to participate in such a forum.

Mr. Speaker, we went that way because I had received some feedback from some groups, particularly within the women's community, who felt to have a big public forum where people who were living in poverty had to come in and stand before a microphone and identify themselves and talk about the issues that they face because they were living in poverty, they felt that it would be a better means if we opened it up to the public in a private, confidential way, but yet we could get everyone's opinion.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are continuing to put together the results that have come in through that means of collecting information. We have one group that has asked for an extension. We have given that extension. Once all the information is in, we will be doing an immediate review and we will be making an announcement on the minimum wage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, with a very quick question.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very quick.

My question is for the Minister of Finance who, when he was the Opposition Finance critic, stated that he would put 2 per cent of gambling revenues immediately into the treating of addictions for people with gambling problems. I want to ask the minister, now that he is the Minister of Finance, when you said that without qualification, are you prepared now to put 2 per cent of gambling monies that you take in as a government back into addiction treatments with the view of raising it to 5 per cent, as you indicated when you were in Opposition?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said, when I was in Opposition, that I feel we should start where we are now and work up to achieving 5 per cent overall to deal with addictions. I said up to 5 per cent, not 2 per cent, and at the time, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they want me to answer the question I will answer it; if they don't, I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and we have to provide ample opportunity for the minister to answer.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make a couple of facts clear. Number one, roughly 6 per cent of what is taken in, in VLT revenues now, is used to deal with addictions; not all of which are to deal with addictions from gambling. It is difficult to break down exactly the total amount which is allocated for that, but I will say the previous government agreed several years ago that 1 per cent of revenues that come from those lotteries are going into it, put in by the users, by the people with the machines, that was $150,000 at the time. Government agreed to match that. The previous government, they matched that to $150,000. That 1 per cent is now going to $300,000. The previous government did not put in one extra penney. This government, this past year, put in $100,000 on that amount, almost equivalent to what they are putting in. We are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, with gambling addictions, and we are working closely with people in the field to be able to address those concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Premier.

Premier, the Twenty-ninth Annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just been completed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with schools from all across Labrador attending. A major setback to the children in Labrador again this year was not having an auditorium in which to perform their skills. Talks or indications are that because of no commitment from your government to build such a facility, that the Creative Arts Festival may be in jeopardy of continuing on next year.

Premier, will you commit today to the people of Labrador, and it is far more important to the children of Labrador, funding to build this facility?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that last year in the budget, with the financial situation we found ourselves in, that the facility was deferred. We understand the importance to the people of the area and the need for it. All options are being looked at, at this point in time. The whole situation, from our perspective, will be reconsidered in the upcoming budget review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountain. You have time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is almost like in Kindergarten - button, button, who got the button? - because we do not know who is going to answer the question.

Minister, you and your government, and your Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period is rapidly expiring. I ask the member to get to his question very quickly.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you, your government and your Premier talked of supporting rural Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the children of Labrador, who live in poverty in most rural parts of this Province, are being denied by your government what students on the Island portion take for granted, and rightfully so.

Minister, yesterday and today students from all across Labrador are leaving the Upper Lake Melville area wondering if they have attended their last Labrador Creative Arts Festival. What a shame, Mr. Minister! What a shame to you and your government. What a disappointment to the children of Labrador.

Minister, will you and your government, in the spirit of doing the right thing - with the festive season rapidly approaching - today commit to the students in Labrador funding for their gift, their auditorium?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Affairs. Time for just a brief answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to his commentary leading into the question, the Minister of Education could not be in the House today. He is off on Her Majesty's business, so I am the first alternate.

With respect to the question itself, Mr. Speaker, we understand the situation in Labrador. We are committed to rural Newfoundland and we have shown this over the past year, more so than the previous Administration. And, with respect to a commitment for funds for that, with respect to a commitment on that, we will commit to reconsidering our stance in last year's budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for question period has expired.

Presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees?

Notices of Motion?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am standing to give a Private Member's Motion on the revised budget, which I would like to read into the record.

Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS government revised the 2003-2004 Budget so that they could describe the financial situation in a manner that served their political purposes; and

WHEREAS government has received new revenues based on new health care funding, equalization adjustments, higher than expected revenues from gasoline taxes and higher than expected royalties due to high oil prices; and

WHEREAS budget estimates are inaccurate due to the public sector strike and departmental, health and education restructuring;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the tabling of a revised budget to provide a more accurate measurement of the present financial situation of the Province and to lay out new spending initiatives in health care, education and provision of public services to the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice of a motion.

WHEREAS second-hand smoke is a health hazard that has caused serious health problems, death and a strain on the health care system; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities have called upon government to enact a provincial ban to see 100 per cent smoke-free environment in public buildings, including bars and bingos; and

WHEREAS community groups such as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Music Industry Association, the Federation of Labour and other organizations have been calling upon government to implement a ban; and

WHEREAS government has already banned smoking in schools, hospitals, daycare centres, public buildings and restaurants;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support a ban to provide 100 per cent protection from second-hand smoke in all public places, including bars and bingo halls.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice had been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on behalf of the most important people in Labrador, our youth, to present a petition on their behalf asking this government to give them an auditorium.

In the response to the question that the Minister of Municipal Affairs gave, I can only say to him that I was the Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs who went to my government and got a commitment for $2.4 million. We were told time and time again by the minister over there that the money is still there in the account.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is not true.

MR. ANDERSEN: You did. You told us time and time again that the money was in the account. You told that to the Town Council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and other people.

Mr. Speaker, before they get all excited again and start laughing, the way they did yesterday, I think it is only fair that this government give the children in Labrador the auditorium they so rightfully deserve.

As I mentioned in Question Period yesterday and today, students are returning home from the Upper Lake Melville area, and again, for the first time, there is doubt as to whether the Creative Arts Festival will go ahead next year.

Mr. Speaker, after twenty-nine years of Labrador taking pride in its students, and giving them the chance to show their skills and their talent, I think it is totally unfitting that the money that was allotted by the previous government was put on hold.

Mr. Speaker, the government can talk of restraints, and maybe in many cases they are right, but when it comes down to providing the basic needs, especially to our children, then certainly the auditorium is due to the children in Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, again tomorrow and all next week, every day, I will rise again to speak on behalf of the children in Labrador, because someone needs to speak for them and for their concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the communities in my district, with regard to government's decision not to clear snow from the road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay.

Mr. Speaker, people in my district are absolutely appalled with government's decision to not do that. This is a very vital transportation link between communities in my district. It covers approximately ninety kilometres of road access, and people in the northern end of the district depend upon many of the services that are provided from the southern end of the district.

Mr. Speaker, people are very upset by the fact that government made the decision, but even more upset by the fact that there is money in the Labrador Transportation Fund, a fund which earned an interest of $2.9 million in the past fiscal year, and they know that the ability is there to be able to clear the snow on this section of road.

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such a situation implemented in any other part of our Province. In the past year, despite the fiscal realities that the government claimed they were being faced with, they didn't choose to close roads in any other parts of the Province that were vital transportation links for the people in that region.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the right place.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Lake Melville, who fully supports, from his comments, government's decision to close that section of road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay, but the Member for Lake Melville, who spent a good many years in Labrador - most of his life, if not of all of it - should know the dependency that people have on that road connection. They lobbied for twenty-five years to have this road. That is what they did. Now that they have it, they have become accustomed to using that access, and now that has been taken away from them because the Minister of Transportation and Works and the government opposite decide that they do not need it any more. As a government, we cannot afford to pay for it. We are not going to provide a service to people in this part of the Province.

That is shameful! That is what it is; it is absolutely shameful! - and to have any member on that side of the House looking over here at me, laughing and making fun, and supporting such an option. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, any member in this House, I am sure, would not want to have a vital transportation link in their district closed down, not having transportation access for the people of their district.

I see the Member for Gander over there laughing. I am going to tell you, the Member for Gander laughed all yesterday when we talked about the closure and the layoffs of people in Harbour Breton -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and he is laughing again today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: It being three of the clock on Private Members' Day, in accordance with Standing Order 63.(7), the Speaker will now call the Orders of the Day.

I believe we are debating a motion of which notice was given, and we have the motion by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

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

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

This is a day, as I said on Monday, that I never thought I would be doing in the House of Assembly: calling on FPI to reopen its fish plant in Harbour Breton and restore confidence and trust in the community.

I will read the motion that we are putting forth today, and then get into some comments. I am sure there will be other people here in the House who will make comments on it as well.

WHEREAS Fishery Products International (FPI) is a critical part of the fishing industry, provides economic and social well-being and contributes to stability and prosperity in many communities of this Province; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador refused to lift the 15 per cent share restriction that is forcing an end to the NEOS Seafood bid to buy all outstanding shares of FPI; and

WHEREAS in correspondence with government and reports in the media, John Risley said in May 2001 that "None of FPI employees have anything to fear" and " We are going to do this..." - and this is what it said - "...(expand the company) by investing in the company, not laying people off"; and

WHEREAS in a Proxy Circular to Holders of Common Shares of FPI in April 2001, Mr. Risley stated, "(We) do not intend to close any of FPI's processing facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere."; and

WHEREAS in 2002 when FPI was preparing to implement an investment strategy which would have resulted in more than 600 job losses in the three groundfish plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, government undertook to ensure that FPI lived up to previous commitments on employment related issues, resulting in legislative amendments to the FPI Act to protect processing workers; and

WHEREAS in January of 2003, FPI and its unions reached a tentative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the company's groundfish operations in the Province's South Coast, which promised significant capital investment while protecting workers and enhancing plant productivity; and

WHEREAS FPI is a creature of the Fisheries Restructuring Act and later the FPI Act; and

WHEREAS FPI announced that it will not be reopening the Harbour Breton Fish Plant, rocking the entire Province, shaking the industry and devastating FPI workers, families and communities along the South Coast;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call on the Provincial Government to demand that FPI make the necessary investments to save the Harbour Breton fish plant and restore confidence and trust in the community.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that the people in Harbour Breton, the Town of Harbour Breton, the community of Harbour Breton, is reeling these days. Never in their wildest dreams did they think they would find themselves in a position where their plant would be closed down and FPI indicating that it would not re-open. Nobody but nobody ever thought that would happen.

What that has done, Mr. Speaker, is put a blanket of gloom, if you wish, over the whole community. Last night the Principal of the school, Terry Baker, whom I know very well, says that he can feel the effects of it in the school, and I can imagine. You have students there who are high school - Level I, Level II, Level III, and even in Junior High - who understand the complexity of what is happening here, knowing that both parents, as we said earlier in Question Period today, within the next month or so will have no income. That has to play havoc with these young people. There are no two ways about that, and the whole community itself.

One of the young ladies whom I know very well, Tiffany, was interviewed and explained what it meant to her to be able to go to school, get a good education and further her education without knowing that the family would be in a financial situation as it is here. I want to say right at the beginning, there was no need for it. It should never have happened.

Now, we are not dealing with a company, Mr. Speaker, that needs any short-term assistance when it comes to, for example, make-work projects. Do you know what their gross sales were last year? Their gross sales, as a company, was $596.7 million. That is what the gross sales for FPI were last year, and did they make a loss? Absolutely not! Do you know what their profits were? Twenty-two point four million. Now, we are not looking at a company here that is a mom-and-pop operation. This is an international company.

We can all remember in this House here a couple of years ago - I was here as a part of government and when the government people were here in Opposition they recognized it too - that the FPI Board of Directors was changed and one, Mr. Risley, through a group call NEOS, wanted to change the whole operation of FPI. It really sent a shockwave through people in Harbour Breton, Marystown, Fortune and Bonavista. Obviously, what it meant to these people that for the first time - they never, ever thought that this would happen. But, the CEO of the NEOS Group says: You don't have to worry - as it says here and I have already mentioned it - we are not in the process of closing plants. We are not in the process of laying people off. We are going to reinvest in plants. We are going to be hiring people.

Do you know what, because Newfoundland people like us, we are ordinary individuals, believed them and believed the company and believed that was what was going to happen to them. Today, what do we find? That the word that these people gave they did not honour, and they also had it written down. They signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the workers of those communities and said: We will reinvest. We will not lay you off. We will grow the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. But I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that they did the talk but they did not do the walk. I am telling you, it is about choices. FPI has made choices and I will tell you what, they have made choices of money versus people. They have no social conscience, and I am telling you that their dollar line and the dollar for the people who have invested in FPI have come before the social concerns of the communities of Harbour Breton today, probably Fortune tomorrow, Bonavista the next day and who knows about Marystown. They have made a conscious choice.

Now, I recognize, as a minister has said, that there is a shortage of resource for these plants but let me say this to you, shortage of resource, they did not invest in Harbour Breton, they did not invest in Fortune, they did not invest in Bonavista. What did they do? They went out and bought two factory-freezer trawlers, and one was only questioned a little while ago. The two of them cost $40 million. Why would you invest $40 million into a company if there was no resource? I can tell you why, and before this particular speech is up I will let you know why they did it. I have already said it in the House, and we will go through that and see what happens.

They have really insisted, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want to do what FPI has done over the years. When Vic Young was president of the company, and we have seen it, and I am sure the Member for Bonavista North, Roger Fitzgerald - and I am not supposed to name him by name but I did - he understands, too, with FPI. When the groundfish operations, like you have in Harbour Breton and you have in Fortune and you had in Marystown, when times were hard and they needed some dollars to sustain or to prop up these particular primary industries, where did they get the money from? They got it from the other arm of the company, the marketing arm. That is where it came from. One subsidized the other. It was a matter of conscience because they recognized that these particular people, these plants in these communities, they had a commitment to them but not anymore.

It is not a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, that seven months ago they decided to ask the provincial government if they would allow them to try and diversify and to, in a sense, take a portion of their company called the marketing arm, create a separate entity down in the United States called Ocean Cuisine. That is the marketing part of it, not FPI, Ocean Cuisine. And where did they do it? In Delaware. I said here one day - I think it was on Monday - that in Delaware they have some of the laxes corporation laws that you could find. Why do you think they wanted to go to Delaware? They wanted to get under the FPI Act. That is what they wanted to do so that they would not have any commitment to Harbour Breton and no commitment to Fortune or Bonavista or to Marystown. Just think about it. That is the part of the company that makes a profit. That is a part of the company that sustains these communities and they want to sell it off. What do you think happens then when you sell off the profitable arm of your company and the primary processing part of it in Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown need some extra dollars to be able to cash over until the times improve? Where do they get it from? They get it from the marketing arm. What about if it is sold? Who is going to profit up then? It is a conscious effort on their part to do so.

I will make a prediction, I said it on Monday, ten years from now, if the provincial government decides to do that for them, I will venture to say that you will have no plant in Marystown, you will have neither plant in Bonavista, you will have neither plant in Fortune, you will have neither plant in Harbour Breton because FPI will then not be able to maintain it. It will then go under because there is nothing to sustain it.

I wrote the Premier, and he recognized that I did. I said to him: If for some reason you decide to allow FPI to go through with it, would you make one commitment for me? Make sure that we have a new plant in Harbour Breton. He wrote back and said: We will take that under consideration. Because it is important. If you sell off the profiting part of your company where are you then going to get the money to invest into the plants? It is not going to happen. It is just not going to happen.

So, Mr. Speaker, I recognize - and, by the way, when I talked about the gross sales that they had and the profit they had, it is not a figmentation of my imagination, it was part of a press release from FPI, a news release earlier this year. I am not sure what the date - October 26, 2004. Anybody can look at it. Anybody can look at it and can see it. They are not my figures. So, what are we saying then? A company that has had gross sales of just about $600 million, a profit of $22 million, and then want to close down a plant in Harbour Breton.

I will tell, you can never trust these people, and I will tell you why. Up until a number of meetings that we had, they recognized, of course, that the plant in Harbour Breton needed some major renovations - and I am glad that the minister yesterday decided to send in the people from Occupational Health and Safety to take a look a second look at it.

I am telling you, just imagine if you were the mayor of the town, if you were Don Steward, and you said to FPI: Show me the engineering copy, show me the engineering plan that you have to say that our plant is not fit for people to work in. He said: Oh, no, you cannot have it. You cannot see it.

Then he says: Okay, that is fine, you do not have to show it. What about if we, then, as a town, contract an independent engineering company to go in and see for ourselves the condition of the plant, something to counteract. No, no, you are not allowed to do that either.

Now, just think about that. I am telling you, they used the plant as the condition, the structure of it, to close it down. If you then go in and show that the plant could be made up to standard and you could reinvest in it, guess what they would come back next to say? There is no resource.

You cannot win, because what it happening is that they are shifting the goal posts on you from day to day to day. It is very difficult to deal with, when you have that type of thing happening.

Like the minister said, I have been a part of the meetings with FPI. I remember one day in particular that we were at an FPI meeting and I was asked to leave because there were some confidential things to be talked about. I said: I have no problem with that. I am not here for Oliver Langdon's sake, for Oliver Langdon to get credit or to do something. This is above me; and, as the Premier said, it is above party politics.

You are talking about a town, you are talking about people's lives. Twenty-five hundred or 2,600 people live in the Town of Harbour Breton. It is a flagship for the Connaigre Peninsula. We had a subdivision, I think last year, where about twelve new houses were built. There was another new subdivision about to take place. I talked to one of the people in one of the stores, and people are coming in and saying: We had layaways on for Christmas. We are not taking them now. We cannot take them because we do not have the money.

Can you imagine the distress, the needless stress, the needless pressure, that a company without a social conscience can put on the people in a community like Harbour Breton? A company that had annual sales of $600 million, a company that made profit of over $23 million, and says: Oh, no, we cannot go there.

What is next? It is the tip of the iceberg, as I see it. If they are allowed to -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: It might be, I do not know - in reply to what the Government House Leader says - but I will tell you this: If they are allowed to get away with Harbour Breton, if they are allowed to close there, what do you think would happen next? If they can get away with this, is it Fortune? Is it Bonavista?

I am sure the Member for Bonavista South, when they come out and the company says that Bonavista plant is a fire trap and we cannot open it any more, then what? I am telling you, the government is in a position where they have to hold FPI's feet to the fire, and they can do it because this particular Legislature here created the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: They are not like the plant owner in Hermitage. They are not like the one in Gaultois. They are not like the one in Arnold's Cove. It is a creature that was created by this House of Assembly, and this House of Assembly has to make sure that FPI's feet are to the floor. Reopen, reinvest, so that the people of Harbour Breton can go back to work again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to stand today and say a few words to this resolution as put forward by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and I compliment the member. I compliment the member for putting forward such a resolution and for standing up for the people in Harbour Breton and standing up for the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure the hon. member, before I go any further, that he has lots of friends on this side of the House over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a little bit about my knowledge of Fishery Products International, and I am not going to stand here today and tar and feather them, I can guarantee you that. I worked with FPI myself for thirteen years. I worked for a year out of the head office over on O'Leary Avenue. I worked in Harbour Breton, I say to the member for Harbour Breton, for one year, or one winter, and worked five winters with them down in Gaultois. The rest of my time was taken up around other plants, so I know full well and I know some names to attach to the job losses and the positions that the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune refers.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was only the night before last I was listening to the Open Line Show. I went to bed with a bad back and put the telephone in my ear, the speaker in my ear, and I heard this lady come on and talk about her concern after now being threatened with a job loss there. She went on to say that she was fifty-five years old and that she went to work with Fishery Products in Harbour Breton when she was fifteen. Well, Mr. Speaker, by my calculation that would mean that she has forty years seniority with the fish plant in Harbour Breton. Now, tell me where somebody fifty-five years old, who went to work with an employer at fifteen years old, worked there for forty years, is going to find a job?

Mr. Speaker, this is not about a warehouse closing down in Donovans Industrial Park, or WAL-MART deciding that they are going to move from the Avalon Mall to another box store outside on another street in St. John's. In fact, this is not only about the 350 people who work at the Harbour Breton plant. This is about the whole Town of Harbour Breton, this is about survival for a town, this is about a way of life for every resident in the Town of Harbour Breton and many others who make a living from the spinoffs from those jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is probably nobody else in this Legislature who has spent more time in the boardroom of Fishery Products International than this member here. I was there as recently a two weeks ago, going up and talking about the problems that we have in my own district. We are fortunate enough to have two fish plants. I have had to fight to get them open. I refer to Port Union which is a shrimp plant closed just after the moratorium was announced, Mr. Speaker, stayed open until that year, 1,400 people laid off, didn't have a job. Over fifty-two businesses moved out of the communities of Port Union and Catalina. Bonavista once employed 700 people. Today there are 180 to 190 people who manage to get twelve or fourteen weeks work a year. Mr. Speaker, in Port Union where 1,400 people lived, today there are about 180 people who find enough work to get employment insurance. Charleston, another FPI plant, today is a sawmill operation. A local sawmill operator uses the facility there to store lumber. Over 2,000 jobs taken from the District of Bonavista South in processing alone.

Mr. Speaker, we know there is a problem with the resource. We all know that. We don't need to be told it. When this announcement was made it talked about the non-safety of the plant in Harbour Breton. Well, let me ask members present: If the plant is an old plant in dilapidated condition who allowed it to be in a dilapidated condition? What happened to the profits? Where did the profits go? Surely, if you are running a reputable company and if you are making profits you should invest them back to maintain your plants. It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow plants to disintegrate, to allow them to reach a stage and then announce that we are closing the plant because it is unsafe. We are closing the plant because it is old, it is dilapidated. That does not cut it, Mr. Speaker, not only with the people in Harbour Breton but with anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We are talking about a different company here as well. We are talking about a different company, not only Fishery Products International. We are talking about any company, any fish processing company, that has been fortunate enough to have had a licence to be able to go out and buy cod, crab, shrimp, or any other resource that comes from the sea, and process it and sell it at a profit.

We are talking about a common resource here, Mr. Speaker. It is not a resource that Fishery Products or the Barry Group or the Beothic Fish company down in Valleyfield had to go out and invest money to hatch or to grow or to feed. This is a common resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It belongs to the people in Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It belongs to the people in Bonavista. It belongs to the people in Wesleyville and Badger's Quay. It belongs to the people in Gaultois. It certainly does not belong to a company because they had the deep pockets to be able to go out and start up a processing industry to be able to go out now and dictate the life of a community or the closing down, or be the god and the Saviour Almighty to decide whether that community lives or whether it dies.

That is what we are faced with here today. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the death of a community. The questions that are asked - and I compliment the people, the members from the other side, in asking questions. They should ask them, but I say to them very cautiously: Let's not turn this into a political football.

I compliment the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Premier who has said that we will do whatever is humanly possible to have this plant reopened and provide the people in Harbour Breton an opportunity to be able to go to work and continue to work as they have in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: There is no lack of commitment on this side of the House over here.

I will recall, I say to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune, a few short years ago when our numbers were much smaller and when we sat on that side of the House, when we had meetings with the NEOS group. I remember meeting them in our caucus room, and we all asked the questions that needed to be asked, but there were no answers. It was almost like, trust me, trust me, and we will do what is right for you and what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, they were leaving our caucus room then and it was a big rush because they were going down to Port Union and they were going down to Bonavista. They didn't have any idea what they were going to do or what they were going to announce when we asked the questions in the caucus room.

I picked up the phone that night and called a friend of mine who works down in Bonavista. I said: Boys, how did the meeting go? Well, he said, boy, hold your tongue. One fellow went in there, and I will not mention any names, and he took out his wallet, big wallet that thick, and laid it on the table and said: Trust me. You want a new fish plant? You got it. In fact, if you allow us to take over this company, and if you support us, that old fish plant down on the waterfront in Bonavista, we are going to bull that out in the harbour. That is gone.

I can guarantee you, that was a true statement. That was a true statement. Not only did he make the statement, but he would have; he would have bulled the plant out in the harbour, no doubt about that, but I can guarantee you there would not be 180 people working there today. The plant would have never, ever, been built. Then they left Bonavista and went over, twelve miles away, to Port Union, and announced another big project there. They are going to build you a (inaudible) plant here. It is going to employ I do not know how many people, but here was a plant that was closed and they were telling the people what they wanted to hear. They were selling hope and expected people to fall for it. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker. It did not happen because they were not trusted.

For anybody here in this room today to think that those people are gone away, that they are not back, that they are not playing a part behind the scenes on what is happening here, then I am telling you we are dreaming in technicolour, because they are. They are. They are still the people who are trying to take over this company.

Now, we might want to compare Vic Young with the people who are there today. Well, I can tell you that I had lots of differences with Vic Young as well. I had lots of differences with the way things happened and how long it took to do things, and expressed them to him, but it was always a situation where, whenever you went into the office of Fishery Products International, you always heard the worst scenario. When you left that office that day, then you could expect to hear at the worst what you heard, but most of the time it was something better.

Having said all that, there are new people at the helm of FPI, and I cannot stand here today and condemn them. I am not going to do it. I am not going to do it. I have had many meetings with them. I do not agree with the decision that they have made here, but I am not going to stand here and lambaste them and say that they are bad people or their decisions are all wrong and they are not interested in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had some good meetings with Fishery Products International, and we have many challenges in the District of Bonavista South, I can assure you, but I believe that we have to work out a solution with the company, with the union, with the town, with the Minister of Fisheries, with the Premier, with the member, everybody involved. I think that it is the way to approach this problem that we have in Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker. We cannot allow the Town of Harbour Breton to die. We cannot allow the people in Harbour Breton to have to pack up and move out. Like I said, Mr. Speaker, many of those people find themselves now - because they had a job and they could go home for dinner every day - every day they could get aboard their car and go home for dinner - and they are all making decent money, I can assure you. There is decent money being paid at Fishery Products International, but how do you go and tell somebody fifty-five years old that they do not have a job any more, that there is work for them in St. John's or there is work for them in Toronto? Mr. Speaker, that is not an option. We cannot go there. It is not an option for some of those people. It is a terrible place to find yourself. I lost my job back in 1992. I was fortunate enough to land on my feet, but a lot of other people today are certainly not that fortune and are certainly struggling.

I have one community in my town - and that is why I can relate to what is happening in Harbour Breton - I have one community in my town today where there are approximately 150 people. Five people get up in the morning and go to work from that town. Those were people who always had a job, they always worked. Some years it was seasonal, but they always knew where they were going. They were dedicated workers, left school, a lot of them, at an early age because they had a job. They made good money and now find themselves without a job, without an education, and many of them have had to go and access government funds or government projects in order to survive. We are talking about proud people here. We are talking proud people.

Just a few short weeks ago we heard Fishery Products International wanting government to come onside and other people to support them in this income trust fund that they were going to create. It was selling off some of their arms that were profitable. The idea was - or as it was explained to me - to raise money to put back in plants like Harbour Breton. I heard Harbour Breton mentioned specifically. It was sad. Then I heard - even before this was allowed to be put out there to decide who was going to support it or who was not - all of a sudden the decision was made to close the very same plant that was being put forward as the plant that would receive benefits and would be upgraded to realize benefits from that income trust fund.

We do not know what is happening here. We do not know where FPI is taking us. We do not know, and you cannot trust the comments that you hear any more. That is why, I guess, we are so confused.

The member talks about Bonavista being next, or Marystown being next. I do not know who is going to be next but I will tell you what, whichever community is affected by decisions by Fishery Products International, especially communities where there is a resource, then I can tell you that each member here, including this member, will stand up and ask the questions and bring forward the concerns and do what we are doing here for Harbour Breton because this is the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We get all caught up, Mr. Speaker, and so we should, with what is happening offshore, important. It is going to make the difference of this Province being able to provide a good health care system, a good education system, a good roads network.

Mr. Speaker, the income from the offshore will never, ever generate the income that has been and will be achieved from the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why our communities have been established. That is the way they will survive and it is heartbreaking, it is heart wrenching to turn on your radio and listen to another community die.

It is something that we people over here on this side of the House will support this resolution, I can assure you. It is something that we believe in. I say to the people down in Harbour Breton and to the group that has been formed in order to look after bringing their case forward, that they have thirty-four friends on this side of the House of Assembly right here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We are not about to let Harbour Breton die without a fight. We are not about to allow somebody to go in and ride roughshod over the community. We will stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and fight for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, fight for Harbour Breton, and fight for every other community that we feel is not getting a fair shake or not realizing the full benefits from the resource that we call ours, a common resource that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Shame on anybody, whether it is FPI or any other company, that we allow to go in and take advantage of us by using what they should have done to be a whip as an excuse to close something down or to become more profitable. Certainly -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Just one second to clue up, I say to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to people opposite, while FPI is a public traded company, they are funded by shareholders. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the shareholders in Fishery Products International, for the most part, do not give a hoot about the people down in Harbour Breton. They do not give a hoot about the people in any other community. They are there and their money is invested to make money. Well, I will tell you what, most of the people in those communities do not give a hoot about shareholders either. While they go to work and while they are profitable, and they do an honest days work in order to make the company profitable - because what is good for the company is good for them - we should not allow the shareholders of FPI, or any other company, dictate what happens to the life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in this case, Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to take a few minutes to participate in this private member's motion today. I listened intently to the introduction to the motion given by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and also to the comments, which I am sure are very warm to the ears and the hearts of the people of Harbour Breton from the Member for Bonavista South, in knowing that there is an understanding of the broader implication of this closure.

I will make a few comments with respect to how and why Fishery Products International and Harbour Breton, Fortune and Bonavista is different than a place like Arnold's Cove, because it is different. They are all equally important in terms of devastation in Arnold's Cove, or devastation in Harbour Breton. It is devastation nonetheless, but there is a difference with respect to FPI.

I will mention this, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Bonavista South talked about being involved in meetings in Bonavista with FPI, recently in the last little while, because they are talking about the future of that particular operation as well, and describes it as being good meetings. I do not necessarily want to be too hard on FPI because there has been a lot of good work done over the years, but we are at a position now where a stand has to be taken. I understood that is the position taken by the member opposite, and is certainly the position taken by the mover of the motion and a position that we support, and I am glad to hear support for it.

The most disheartening part was that the working group in Harbour Breton has been in those meetings as well. They were driving home on Friday from what they thought was another good meeting - now that is the problem with it. They thought they were having good meetings too; constructive meetings, meetings about the future of the plant, meetings about the future of the community. They had left a particular meeting and did not even get back to the community before a press release comes out that they heard on the radio. I heard the mayor, I think, and the union rep., Mr. Day, in the media in the last couple of days saying they were driving back to Harbour Breton after a meeting and heard the announcement on the radio that their plant was closed due to structural problems.

Here was a group that in good faith were participating in good meetings, only to be shocked with the announcement, late on a Friday afternoon while they were going home to update the people of the community as to what might be going to happen next. Thinking much as the group were doing with the working group on 5 Wing Goose Bay - having good meetings, they were making progress, thinking they were going home to report some progress, to hear the announcement on the radio: the plant is closed.

Imagine the shock for the Member for Lake Melville, if the working group had come out of a constructive, good meeting on the way to brief the members of the community only to hear DND saying: 5 Wing Goose Bay is closed - despite your good meetings. So, that is the backdrop, Mr. Speaker, of this one which makes it very difficult.

I was glad to hear the Member for Bonavista South talk about the linkage to FPI's request for the establishment of the income trust; selling off the most profitable part of their company in the United States, the marketing arm, to establish an income trust. I can tell you what we have hear about it, Mr. Speaker. We have heard that the company was not at all pleased with the reception they were getting from the government, that the government was not being friendly enough to the notion, even though they were suggesting they were going to raise the money to put the investment back in these plants, but the government was not agreeing right away. It was not being done quickly enough.

What we are told, actually, is that they were trying to pressure the government to come onside and agree with it, rather than check and see whether it contravened the act. The government, to its credit, did not come onside quickly enough and that now closure of a plant in Harbour Breton is another pressure tactic to try to get this government to agree to the transaction that the board of directors want to increase their profitability, and then maybe they might even come back to the table and say: Well, if you agree to the establishment of the income trust fund then we will give you a commitment that will put some investments back in Harbour Breton and change the decision that we announced last Friday.

I do not know if these are the facts or not, but that is what our members are told, that there is a little bit of a pressure tactic here, high stakes poker and blackmail being played with the government. That is why it is important for any government that is put in that circumstance to take a very strong stand against it. You cannot be forced into circumstances. You cannot be blackmailed. It has to be done for the right reasons. If it is the right thing to do, examine it, do it and agree with it for the right reasons, but not be forced into it or blackmailed into it by a pressure tactic from a company that - by the way, in checking all the annual reports - we should never misunderstand - Fishery Products International is still reporting profits. They are still making money as a company and there is still government money involved in it, that was put there to help it get established and has never been recovered by a government on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is very different than a circumstance in Gaultois, which used to be an FPI plant, they walked away from some years ago. Now they have had private operators in there. The private operator, a truly private operator with its own money, walks away because they could not make any money. They have others who might be interested to go there, but Fishery Products International is making money. It might not be making money right in Fortune every single day, or right in Bonavista every single day, or right in Harbour Breton every single day or every single quarter, or every single year, but the whole operation of the company accessing the people's resource, the fish of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been making money for years and is still profitable.

The other part is this, a couple of things that the people of Harbour Breton are puzzled about. They have had all the commitments that their member listed in this motion. They have seen the representatives of FPI come to their town, been to meetings with them right in their home community, and say things like this: None of the FPI employees have anything to fear about a change in the board of directors and in Mr. Rowe taking over from Mr. Young. None of you have anything to fear. That was said right in a public meeting in Harbour Breton. It was said in a public meeting in Fortune. It was said in a public meeting in Bonavista. The people sat there, who had worked for the plant - the woman that the Member for Bonavista South describes for forty years - and said I believe these people, they just told me outright. You are an employee, you have nothing to fear from us. You have nothing to fear.

Just last year, in 2003, they signed an MOU. Fishery Products International signed an MOU with the union saying there would be no layoffs folks. There are not going to be any layoffs. There will not be. It is signed. They did not just say it in a public statement. They signed a Memorandum of Understanding saying there would not be any layoffs. Not only that, they also committed to some reinvestment in the plants. That is pretty recent stuff. That happened after the all-party committee changed the legislation to make it stronger. I can understand why the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would feel confident as the Opposition critic in saying: If we become the government we will not allow any layoffs unless they are negotiated between the company and the union. I can understand why he made that commitment as the critic because they had just signed an MOU saying that. So, all he was going to do was make them live to their written commitment.

The disappointing part for me and for the people of Harbour Breton, and for the people of the Province, that we can't quite understand, is why, when he is asked today and yesterday and on Monday in the Legislature to say that out loud again, just like he did a year ago, and just like he should have because there was a written memorandum from the company, why won't he say it today. Why won't he, as the minister today, stand up and say the same thing, that I am just not going to tolerate it? This is a company that is a creature of this Legislature, established with public money.

Let me again read the aims in the act. This is worth noting. Section 2 of the Fishery Products International Act. "The purpose of this act" - and this then guides everything else that is in the legislation - "(a) to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) to continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry..." That is what the purpose of the FPI Act is, so it can be a "...flagship for the industry whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the province;" - not the diminishing of it, the growth and strengthening - (d) to ensure maximum employment stability and productivity through employee participation..." We had employee participation through the union, with an MOU, and based on that, the then critic, the now minister, said: We will never allow any layoffs unless the union agrees because that was already signed. He was saying the right thing for the right reasons.

Then, of course, this one, the last of the purposes, (c) "to recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions...". Now, stop there for a minute, but that is not the end of the sentence. If that were the end of the sentence, then you could see where the company would say, well, if I can't make money in Harbour Breton I have to close it, because the law says I can close it. Let me read it again. Let me read the full sentence. The purpose of this act is "to recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province." They have the right to make sound business decisions as long as they don't disrupt the traditional pattern of harvesting and processing. What is the traditional pattern of processing? A plant in Harbour Breton that has been there for forty years. Do you think closure is a disruption? I would call it a disruption. I think everybody in this House would call it a disruption. I think everybody in the Province would call it a disruption.

Guess what the act says? They are allowed to make a decision but they are not allowed to make it if it is going to cause that kind of major disruption. The act says they are not allowed to do it, which is why we have been asking the questions for three days as to why the minister and the government is not taking a stronger stand. There was no choice but to have discussions in Arnold's Cove, because Arnold's Cove is not governed by an act of this Legislature. Arnold's Cove was not established by an act of this Legislature. Arnold's Cove did not make commitments to the people of the Province. Arnold's Cove does not have to answer in the same way at all to the minister and to the Premier and to the government, as Fishery Products International does. It is a very different kettle of fish in this particular case. What we have now is the minister unfortunately saying: Well, the best I can do is to do like Arnold's Cove, have a chat with them.

Well, the best you can do is a lot better than that. You can tell them, and the government can tell them quite clearly under section 2, that you are not allowed to do that kind of disruption because the act prohibits it. There is no bigger disruption than a closure, and it is not permitted under the law of the land.

So I am asking - and I think the member presenting the petition and others say - be stronger, be as strong on this issue as the Premier is being with respect to the Atlantic Accord. Take a firm stand. Don't just say we will have a chat to see what we can do. Let them know that what they have announced is not acceptable. The Premier let the Prime Minister of the country know that what was announced about the Atlantic Accord was not acceptable. He walked out of the meeting, and now they are negotiating, by the way, on the terms dictated by the Province. That is what should be happening in Harbour Breton. They should be coming to the minister and the Premier, dealing with the conditions being laid down by the Province, not us standing there as the government, through the minister, saying: Oh, let's see what we can do. Let's figure out if we can save the day here.

They need to be told that if they have $40 million to invest into a factory freezer trawler, which is not the traditional processing and harvesting method in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they should have $40 million to put into plants like Fortune, like Harbour Breton, like Bonavista, because the act says they are not allowed to do it if it is going to cause disruption to the traditional patterns, and factory freezer trawlers are not the tradition in Newfoundland and Labrador. The landing of groundfish and the processing of it in land-based plants, that is the tradition, and this government has the ability to tell them that, and so far they are like the reluctant bridesmaid; they do not want to get in there and really do the job.

I am just urging today that we be a little bit more definitive. The only other thing that I will say, not to be political at all, but I am personally and I think the people of Harbour Breton are personally somewhat surprised that the Premier himself does not want to seem to get involved in this. He does not seem to want to get involved. He has been asked direct questions: When did you last personally meet with FPI? He does not want to answer that question. Why not? Why not? He and members opposite, by the way, took great fun in commenting when I met with those groups.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

By leave, just for a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there would be a very strong message sent to Fishery Products International if the Premier, himself, made a few statements along the same lines but more forceful than what the minister is saying, saying that we have an act, you are a special creature of the Legislature, you are a different kind of company and we want you to make some investments in the traditional methods of processing in the Province and not destroy rural communities by thinking you are just any other private company.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am encouraged by the fact that members opposite have indicated that they plan to vote for the gist of this particular motion, and I would hope that the debate today helps, aids and assists, in getting the right decision made in Harbour Breton; because, if the wrong decision gets made in Harbour Breton, which is the one that has been announced, never mind the reason, it is Fortune or Bonavista next, one or the other after that, Marystown soon after that, and the rest of it for FPI will be a couple of factory freezer trawlers, no work onshore for anybody, and no traditional processing in Newfoundland and Labrador at all by the flagship company that was established by this Legislature to make sure that it stayed representative of what happens in the fishing communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you for the extra time, I say to the members opposite, and thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments this afternoon on the private member's resolution put forward by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, a member whom I have a great deal of respect for, and have had a number of conversations over recent days and recent weeks on this matter and on other matters prior to that as it related, certainly, to aquaculture and the situation down on the Connaigre Peninsula and Bay d'Espoir, St. Alban's area.

Mr. Speaker, the situation that has confronted us became more public, I suppose, and became more serious last Friday as it relates to FPI and its Harbour Breton operation. I am not going to go into any great detail. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows the situation that our industry has been through, our people have been through, and our communities have been through over the past twelve or fourteen years.

I hear comments from the other side of the House, and I do not know that it helps the situation at all to be accusing anybody, whether they are on this side of the House, in the general public, or wherever they come from. I certainly take offence to it from my own perspective, that you have no connection with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you forgot your roots, and all of this kind of stuff, especially from certain individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten what happened to me in 1992. I have not forgotten what happened when the Northern cod fishery closed down. I have not forgotten that in 1991 I started to build a house in Gunners Cove, and I completed it so I could move in the night after I got married, in September, 1992. In July, 1993, because the situation was looking so desperate in our area, I stuck a For Sale sign out in front of it and walked away from it. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this Province who has any ore experience than I - still living in the Province, that is. I grant you that there are many expatriate Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are living outside of this Province who have felt a lot more frustration as it relates to the situation that we have been exposed to and experienced since the late 1980s and early 1990s. There is nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker, who can lecture me and tell me about what it feels like to have to leave your house and your community with a young family and not sure where you are going to pitch; a house that you just cut your own logs for, built on your own, and owed nothing for. Quite frankly, the only thing I owed when I left Gunners Cove - or just before I left Gunners Cove - was for the carpet that I had on the floor in the house that I built myself. I owe a lot more money than that today, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the people of Harbour Breton are feeling today. I understand the uncertainty that they feel, and the concern they have about what their future holds. I do not need anybody - whether it is the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Fisheries critic - to tell me what it feels like, or that I do not know what it feels like, to be confronted with out-migration. I have been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and I have not forgotten what it feels like.

Back to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, Harbour Breton. I can only say this on this resolution: We will support the resolution and I support the resolution. We will do whatever is within our power to find a resolution for the people of Harbour Breton.

I have to say, that it is not as simple as the Leader of the Opposition says from time to time, to just jump up here in the House or run up to O'Leary Avenue because we have an FPI Act, and we do have an FPI Act, we do have substantial powers associated with the FPI Act, and we do have things that we can do. We can, as amazing as this sounds - and I still cannot believe it - that when the Newfoundland Lynx was tied on here in St. John's several weeks ago, if we wanted to we could go down and change the locks on her, take her ourselves, and because we have a privative clause in the FPI Act they cannot even sue us. Now that is bazaar as far as I am concerned, a $25 million piece of equipment and we can take it if we wanted to and they cannot even sue us. The shareholders have no recourse against us.

That is an extreme amount of power, an extremely powerful piece of legislation, but with extremely powerful pieces of legislation, like with extremely powerful weapons, you should use them guardedly and you should use them responsibly and you should use them in a way that serves the best interests of the people of the Province or wherever you happen to be. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are going to do. We understand the power that we have in the FPI Act, we understand that we can, probably, order FPI to spend $10 million in Harbour Breton, but we also understand that for every action there is a reaction. That is something that we all must never forget.

We all must never forget that, yes, we can say that the shareholders of FPI do not care about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all that kind of stuff. Maybe that is true, maybe it is not true. The fact of the matter is, the share price of FPI supports the investments that are made in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not want to send a company into a tailspin and a share price and jeopardize the future of all of its Newfoundland and Labrador operations and all of the companies in Newfoundland and Labrador who use FPI for the marketing of their products. Certainly, everybody knows that FPI markets a substantial volume of shrimp and crab and other groundfish for other processors here in this Province. We have to be careful what we do.

Having said that, does that mean that we have to sit back and do nothing? No, absolutely not. It does not mean that we are powerless. We are not paranoid, we are not scared to death of the share price, we are not scared to death of what might happen to FPI, but we are concerned about making sure that the company is strong so that it can make the appropriate investments in the fishing industry and the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a responsibility and an authority that we take very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago saying that, no, we did not have an act in Arnold's Cove. We did not have an act to hold over the heads of National Sea and National Sea High Liner and Bruce Wareham and anybody else, Henry Demone. No, we did not. Absolutely, we did not, but we have one here. We were forced, he said, to negotiate with National Sea. Well, we were not forced to negotiate with National Sea. He says we had to go and have a chat with them. Mr. Speaker, I suggest we did more than have a chat with them. We had a long chat; we had a chat for about ten or eleven months. We had a very serious conversation, and, at the end of the day, we found a solution. Madam Speaker, we will have a very serious conversation with FPI, and we have had some very serious conversations with FPI over the past six months, and we will have a few more over the next six days, I expect, and a few more over the next six weeks, if that is what is required, and over the next six months, if that is what is required.

I would have to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and to all involved, that if we were able to achieve success in Arnold's Cove in a viable, practical, reasonable, rational way, then maybe there is hope to find one here. I cannot come here today in all honesty and stand up in front of the people in this Legislature, the people of the Province, or the people of Harbour Breton, as much as I might like to and as much as they might like me to, to say that, yes, there is a solution for Harbour Breton, that I know exactly what it is, and I know that it is simple and all of that. If it was as simple as that, it would have been done. I would have had it done and we would not have been here talking about this now. The company and the union would have figured it out by now, I dare say. They would not have to wait for me to come up with the idea.

As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to suggest that a year-and-a-half ago the former government, who are now sitting in Opposition, who knew that the facility in Harbour Breton was in a mess - it was widely known. It was known when we were down there three years ago, I guess it is now, it will soon be three years ago, as part of the all-party committee. It was known then that the facility needed to be replaced.

I am not condemning anybody for doing anything or not doing anything. This is not what this is about today. We can play politics as much as we like. I am not trying to play politics with this today and I do not think that anybody else should. So the bottom line is, if there was a magic solution here, somebody would have found it before today. There is not a magic solution. Is there a solution? I hope there is and we will work towards it and we will put our shoulder to the wheel just as we have, just as we did in Arnold's Cove, just as we did with the aquaculture industry. All things are not easy in the aquaculture industry yet. It is not all sorted out in the aquaculture industry yet, but from a fin fish aquaculture perspective we did find a way of fixing the feed financing issue that they had, by the way, in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

I just want to say this also, that just because - and I hope that nobody thinks this, because there is certainly nobody in this government who thinks this way - people live in what we commonly refer to as districts by Party line, in a Liberal district, that we are going to treat it any less seriously, that we are going to dismiss it out of hand. That is certainly not the case, absolutely not the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Nobody is saying it is. I am just listening to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair making comments there.

I can tell you that we are taking this very seriously and this will be treated in the manner that it should with no consideration to Party lines, exactly like it should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Exactly like we did in Arnold's Cove and exactly like we did with the aquaculture industry. I can tell you, the work that I put into it, and our department and our government, put into aquaculture and into Arnold's Cove, I wish, I only wish, that over the past twelve months I could have dedicated 50 per cent of that time in Cabinet, in Economic Policy Committee and at Treasury Board to my own district. I only wish I could have been able to do it because there are significant initiatives in my district that I would like to be able to move forward, but because I was consumed with some of those issues I have not been able to.

Quite frankly, I have spoken more today on Harbour Breton than I have spoken in this House on Englee. We are in a desperate situation in Englee. We have a situation in Roddickton where we have a sawmill down. This problem is not unique to Harbour Breton. This is problem is unfortunately beyond a lot of our control, beyond a lot of our people's control. It was beyond the control of the previous administration and to some extent it is beyond our control. The problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador have come from the collapse of groundfish. They haunted us through the 90's and they continue to us haunt us now in 2004.

The fact of the matter is that we have lost 70,000 people. There are days when we get in here and get on with our political rhetoric and ask where the other crowd were at when the U-hauls were pulling away but, I mean, that is not entirely fair either. Because, if we were in government we probably still would have lost 70,000 people. The fact of the matter is, when the fishery collapsed, what were people to do? Not everybody could survive, for whatever reason, off the meager amount of money that the federal government provided at the time for income support.

Again, I will get back to the issue at hand, and that is in Harbour Breton. I can say to the people of Harbour Breton, and to the member, to FPI, to the Fishermens' Union, to all who want to hear, that this government takes this situation very seriously, and this government is going to do all that is in its power and all that it can reasonably and rationally do to find a solution there. The working group is back to the table tomorrow. No, I do not expect that there is going to be a solution to this by 5:00 tomorrow evening, but the people will be back to the table tomorrow. I hope that the racket of the past four or five days - whatever it is now, since last Friday - can be put behind the people who come to the table and they can truly and honestly sit down and deal in good faith - that is an important piece, and it is in this, I understand why it is there - with each other to find a resolution for the people of Harbour Breton.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot more you can say on this right now. We are going to get to it. We have been working at this. We have had significant conversations with FPI. We are going to stick to it. People should be under no illusion about the authority that we have. Yes, we have substantial authority, but we have to use it in a responsible way. We will try and use it to the benefit of the people of Harbour Breton and the people of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks, but before I sit down, we have had a discussion with the member who put forth the private member's resolution. We are going to make a slight amendment to the resolution. It does not take away -

AN HON. MEMBER: A friendly amendment.

MR. TAYLOR: A friendly amendment. It does not take away, in any way, from what is being put forward here today. It just adds to what is there. I will read it into the record:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly demand that Fishery Products International work with the provincial government, the federal government, the FFAW, community representatives and the local MHA to find a lasting solution for the community of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I could, in conclusion, just say this, that working together all of those parties could probably find a solution, but in the absence of a cooperative relationship, no solution will be found.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) any member standing, I would like to say that it is the Chair's understanding that this amendment has been vetted through the Clerk's Table and there has been consultation with all parties of the House of Assembly. The Chair rules that the amendment as read by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs is certainly accepted.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in this most important debate. We have had a lot of Private Members' Days, a lot of important issues, but in the short time I have been here I do not know any that I have seen that have been more important or any that has certainly been more current.

I say to the minister here, it is not our intent at all here today, or anybody's intent, to be belligerent or be political on this issue. As far as personal involvement, I represent the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. He talks about his personal involvements and experiences. I need only utter the word Burgeo and everybody in Newfoundland knows what that means: closures, plant closures, people moving out of town. I have a home in Port aux Basques. I see all of your U-Hauls going through. I have seen them go through, everyone of them since 1991 when they announced the moratorium. So you do not have to tell me either about destitute and despair in communities and closures.

Burgeo was different, the same as Arnold's Cove was different. Some say it was union problems, employer relationships. Some say it was resource issues. Numbers of options were tried over the years. Everything from cod, no; crab, no; sea urchins, no; seals, no. We got the garbage folks. We got the leftovers. The only thing produced in Burgeo today involving the fishing industry is the offal that gets shipped in from other plants and burnt in Burgeo. That is what we get in Burgeo. We get the garbage. So, we do not need to be told either about the despair and the destitute that closures of plants leave in communities, but that does not deter us from still trying. We will persevere before it is all over, make no mistake about it.

All of those things I said about Burgeo comes back to one word, it was private, which is very different and distinct from what we are dealing with here with FPI and the Harbour Breton situation. We are dealing with a creature, a child of this House. This government created it. We created it. We gave it life. We have a law that says what it is and what it cannot do.

The minister over there talked about how powerful the act was, but power brings responsibility. I say to the minister he is absolutely right, but he needs to remind the board of directors as well of FPI of their responsibility and they have to comply with what this law says. They are not above the law, no more than anyone else. Right now, as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, they are in direct violation of Section 2. It comes back to attitude. The point we are trying to make here is not that anybody in this House is offside as to where we all think we ought to go with this Harbour Breton issue in the future. I don't think anybody is offside at all. It is attitude and confidence that the people in Harbour Breton need to see, and the people in the Province need to see, as to how this issue will be dealt with. There is no shame in saying we don't have an answer, none whatsoever. If we all came in here and we had the right answers there would be no point of elections and votes or anything else. Unfortunately, we don't have the answers. That is not where the issue rests right now, I think. The issue is not so much in not having an answer, but the people of Harbour Breton and the people of the Province have to see that there is confidence in every one of us in here that we are going to find an answer.

We will not be told by FPI what the answer should be. If we, as men and women here in this Legislature, aren't satisfied with the decisions of FPI, there may be a lot of things we cannot do but one thing we surely can do is change the FPI Act to do whatever we would like it to do in the best interests of the people of this Province. Let nobody in FPI be mistaken about that. Don't give us any gibberish about structural defects, tell us that if you do this move on this hand you have to compensate us over here on this hand, we have structural problems that we cannot fix, we have resource problems that make us do all of this. That is not the bottom line of why you were created and had your fancy boardrooms anyway. You are here at the behest of this Legislature for the benefit of the people of this Province, and dare you not forget it.

I submit, ladies and gentlemen, that Harbour Breton is the tip of a new iceberg, and only the tip. FPI and this situation in Harbour Breton is going to force all of us in here, as legislators, to make a stand and to get a focus on where we want to go regarding rural Newfoundland and the fishing industry. It may seem like one issue but we cannot deal with Harbour Breton in isolation. We just have Harbour Breton today, that is all we have today, but the operators in the fishing industry in this Province must see, based upon their response to the Harbour Breton situation, how we, as a government, are going to be leading and focused in the future, and the standard that they are going to be held to. For example, someone hit the nail right on the head with the income trust situation. We take our most profitable arm, we make it into an income trust, we raise a huge amount of money, we take the money - and they are not going to put it into the plants, folks. They are going to put the money into offshore trawlers. A big celebration down here on the waterfront some weeks ago, a new $25 million machine that is going to go out, and the resource that was going to be processed in places like Harbour Breton are going to get done offshore. Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that is only one, the first, of several vessels to come. Where do we go from there? We do not need a Bonavista. We do not need a Fortune, if they are going to process offshore. What do you need plants for? What do you need to be tied up with on-land infrastructure for? People, pensions, CPP, EI, and restructuring costs? We don't need that.

That is where it is headed, and we have to make a decision, as legislators, is that where we want to go? Because I proposed - and this isn't rocket science either - I would submit that if we are going to save rural Newfoundland at all - and I don't think there is any Newfoundlander or Labradorian who feels less strong and less intent about making rural Newfoundland and Labrador survive and thrive than we felt about the Atlantic Accord issue. Not one iota in our moral fibre do we feel any less importance being attached to the survival of Newfoundland than we did the Atlantic Accord, but if we do not get our heads around this issue with Harbour Breton about what the fishing - and the flagship, FPI, written in here, is going to do in terms of processing, it is beginning of the road, the beginning of the end.

We can have all of our IT. We can have a magician, as the Minister of Innovation and Rural Development, but it is not going to work if we do not keep the cornerstone of the fishing industry in this Province, and this is the beginning. So we have to get our heads around that. We are not just dealing with a Harbour Breton situation.

Every person who can make a contribution - and that is why I say again, the politics has to come out of this. It is not a case of: Is the Minister of Fisheries going to make the right decision? Is the Premier going to make the right decision? The important piece at the end of this is: Are we going to have the right decision? Forget who makes it. Let whoever makes it get full credit for it, if we find the right solution, but the thing about it is, how do we know if we get the right answer and the right solution if we do not get everybody who possibly can, contributing to that solution? That is why we need every head, we need every idea, we need every possible contribution. We need every ounce of common sense that we can bring to this issue brought to the issue. We have to get focused on it. That is why I do not think the suggestion about a select committee is out of hand. What is wrong with having a select committee? If any of us here have any ideas that we can contribute to this, why shouldn't we all have some input into this? If it helps, who cares?

We need to get the necessary legal advice that I have been asking here in Question Period. That is not being political about it. I am asking the minister, in all sincerity, have we done everything we need to do to make sure that we have the teeth in this that we need? If not, and if someone tells us it is too weak and there are holes in this piece of legislation, tell us how we can plug them, because we want to plug them if we can. We might not even use it once we put it in there, but at least tell us what is missing here so that nobody can walk through this, no board of directors can walk through this if they have a plan that we disagree with. Let us have the authority and the power that the minister talks about so that at least if we want to make a decision we can do it. So, if it takes getting one, two, five, legal opinions to get that advice, I say to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier and the government, get it. It never hurts to ask.

Once you have the advice, we have to put the proper teeth into the legislation, and that is why I come back to attitude again. The people of Harbour Breton now aren't looking to the Minister of Fisheries to snap his fingers and have a decision by suppertime, but they are looking for some backbone and confidence to say: We are with you, we are going to solve it, and if it ain't in there now to fix it, we are prepared to put it in there to fix it.

I think that boost of confidence from the Premier and from the minister is what we need right now. It not only puts some hope - and that is a four-letter word that is a very good four-letter word, hope - it puts some hope in the people of Harbour Breton. It puts some hope in the people who live in the rest of Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who might be subject to this stuff. That is all that is being suggested over here. It is not being offered critically; it is being offered in a sense of unity with you. Let's get it done.

The other thing, my fourth suggestion, is the quota issue. Let's not duck the issue and say: Well, we don't control the quotas because the feds control the quotas. We can't do anything about that; we have no leverage there. Why can we not go to the federal government and say: We have a problem down here. This company that we created, for some reason or other, think they have the big stick over us because they think they can control the quotas and take them offshore in fancy new trawlers and process it. What can you do in a co-operative spirit with us to prevent that, if you control it?

We have asked them to do a new deal on the Atlantic Accord. We want your assurances, Mr. Efford, as the Minister of Natural Resources, and Mr. Martin, that you are not going to let them do anything with those quotas to the detriment of this Province.

When they left Gaultois - that was an FPI plant - they did not take their quotas. Why should they be allowed to run this shop? They only have a shop because this House here created it. They should not be allowed to run amok in something that we created for the people of this Province. If it comes a time to take a hard line, let's take a hard line.

This act was not created and nowhere in it does it say that we tried to create a profit-and-loss machine to the benefit of shareholders. FPI came about and was born because there were massive problems in the industry, there was a massive restructuring that both the provincial and federal governments got involved with, but at the same time that you were told you were going to have a good balance sheet to get started, they were given the parameters within which to work. Somewhere in there they said, despite this corporate machinery that we are creating, you have to have a social conscience.

Whether you read it in there or not, board of directors, there is a social conscience attached to your life as a result of this act. Maybe they have forgotten that. Maybe the people who sit on the Board of Directors of FPI are all business persons. I don't know, quite frankly, who they all are, and I don't care, but I do care that they run the company in the best interest of the people of this Province. When I see things like Harbour Breton happening, they are not doing what is in the best interest of the people of Harbour Breton, they are not doing what is in the best interest of any of us here, because it will lead to the destruction of rural Newfoundland. This is the first kilometre on this road, and it ain't a very long road.

We have to stand together. We have to say to the minister: Don't shy away. Take what you have here and use every one of us here to get where you need to go, where we must go, when it comes to telling FPI where they are going to go.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am very pleased to stand in this House today and speak to the motion on FPI. I want to commend the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune for bringing this motion forward, and I say to him from the outset that I am fully supportive of every clause that he has in that motion. I sympathize with the people in Harbour Breton and I fully understand completely what they are going through.

Mr. Speaker, I came from a community, the community of Greenspond, where the former Fishery Products - not the Fishery Products International that we know today, but the former Fishery Products - had a fish plant in the 1950s and early 1960s, and they closed that plant down and walked away from the community in the early 1960s. My father was an engineer there, and he was one of the workers who lost their jobs and had to leave to go to St. John's six and eight months a year to work after that. So I know it is a very difficult time for these people, and I certainly understand what they are going through. I also understand, Mr. Speaker, and I believe, that our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and this government will do everything humanly and legally possible to help the people of Harbour Breton through this crisis.

In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the impression in any way that I am siding with FPI, because I am certainly not, but I do want to say that I know a little bit about the fishing industry and I want to confirm that it is a very complex industry and there is no easy solution. However, I do believe that collectively and co-operatively the problem can be solved.

In one of the WHEREAS sections of the motion, Mr. Speaker, WHEREAS number five, there is reference made back to 2002 when FPI was talking about shutting down the three groundfish plants in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton. It was stated there that legislative amendments to the FPI Act resulted in protecting the jobs in these communities. Mr. Speaker, I was following this debate and the discussions very closely back then, three years or so ago, but I am not sure of the correct interpretation of that part of the Act. My recollection tells me that most of the jobs were saved, however, the workers themselves lost an awful lot of work time. It is my understanding that the company and the union at the time worked out an agreement to rotate the workers in the three plants, and the red fish and the other groundfish species would be shared among the workers in these plants.

I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is any legislation anywhere that gives any government the authority to tell FPI or any fish processing company or any other company, privately or publicly shared, that they must maintain a certain constant level of employment forever and a day. I don't think that is anywhere. You could probably see it in a communist country, but I don't think you will find it in a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, there were all kinds of plant closures and layoffs during the fifteen years of the past Liberal government rule, but I didn't see anytime where the past Premier or the two or three before him interceded and actually legislated those company owners to keep their doors open and maintain the employment levels for each of these respective plants. It didn't happen, I don't think, and I know it didn't happen three years ago in Valleyfield when 200 workers lost their jobs. That happened in many other communities as a direct result of the groundfish closure at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I do know, however, that the former government almost tripled the number of crab processing licenses in this Province a few years ago, from 1995 to 2002, going from seventeen to forty-three or forty-four. I cannot let this government forget that and I will never forgive them for it. This was done at a time when everyone knew there was a start of a decline in the crab stocks. This was the same government that did some kind of White Paper in the mid-1990s. I think it was Charting our Course, or something like that. This was a document whereby the government of the day said most of the people on the opposite side, who are sitting over there now, were a part of it. They said at the time that there would be a number of core plants regionally situated around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. To me, that was the time, when they began issuing those crab licences, to put a crab licence in Harbour Breton and keep it there and make that operation viable for the future. Instead, what did they do? The ministers of the day issued them to their buddies, to their supporters, and allowed most of them to be concentrated in Bonavista, Trinity and Conception Bays where there were already more than enough crab processing licences. That was a major mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I want to refer to the statement made by the Opposition House Leader when he just spoke a minute ago, when he said: this is just the tip of the iceberg, the new iceberg. I believe what he said 100 per cent because as the crab stocks decline, we are going to see more and more communities that appear to be stable now, will not be in the next three, four, five or six years, and it is a direct result of a decision made by that former government.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we are confronted with a very serious problem and it did not happen overnight. We have to be creative and we have to be constructive in our thinking in order to reach some kind of positive solution to this problem. I believe that part of the long-term solution of the problem in Harbour Breton, and not only Harbour Breton, but many other communities in this Province where there are fish plants, I think part of the problem is an early retirement package for the workers. A couple of years ago I initiated a petition at Valleyfield calling on the federal government then to implement an early retirement program. Since then I have written several letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; however, the reply has not been positive.

I believe that this Harbour Breton situation today should now pull everyone together and put major pressure on Ottawa to initiate an early retirement package because I believe and I assume that the people in Harbour Breton are no different from any plant workers in any other part of the Province. Most of them now are in their late forties and early to late fifties. I believe that this would be part of the solution to some of the problems that we have and I would kind of think too, that this is one of the options that our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will be considering in the longer term.

Mr. Speaker, I think one member yesterday made reference to the Province, to have FPI assign their fish quota to the community of Harbour Breton, similar to what was done in Arnold's Cove. It was also mentioned here today, as well. The minister, I think quite rightly, informed that member that the quota allocation is a responsibility of the federal government. That is a reality, but I agree with the Opposition House Leader, that it is something as well that we can address as we discuss this issue.

Mr. Speaker, in my understanding of these quotas, there was some difference between National Sea and FPI. While the quotas were assigned to the two companies as corporate quotas, National Sea had only one plant in this Province and that quota was assigned to the plant at Arnold's Cove, whereas the other quota for FPI was shared among the three groundfish plants.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a changing world and we have to change with the times. All fish processors out there in this Province have to face some stark realities. China is a major factor in terms of competition for Newfoundland product. That is a reality. Do you know that there are 100 fish processing plants in one city in China? Plants that are paying their workers $1 a day for every day of work. That means practically nothing. It registers nothing to the overhead costs of those plants, but, Mr. Speaker, that is what the processors in this Province have to compete with. We also have the fluctuating problem with the Canadian dollar, and right now that is a negative for our fishing industry. We have a reduced bio-mass of different raw material species and that is a reality. We also have a downturn in the market price for groundfish.

Mr. Speaker, these are real factors that FPI and every other Newfoundland and Labrador processor have to contend with today. But, I want to say that these factors are not new to the industries. They have been around for years, for the most part. The industry has contended with it and the industry has survived. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, nevertheless I have had problems right from the beginning with the takeover directorship of Fishery Products International. I had major problems with some of the dominant people, or players, with that company and I still have these problems today. We have to be very cautious about the underlying motives and manoeuvers of some of these people. I am sure our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is quite cognizant of that as well. We should always keep that in the back of our minds when dealing with a solution to the problem in Harbour Breton.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I believe that our government will do whatever it can to resolve this issue in the best interest of all the people of the Province, specifically the people in Harbour Breton.

I say to FPI and its board of directors, when some of them initiated their scheme to turf out the former CEO and other top executives to further their own personal interests they got the towns of Harbour Breton, Marystown and Fortune onside with their takeover bid by making the commitment to significantly invest in groundfish operations in these three plants in particular and to protect the worker's future. When they made those commitments they were quite aware of the realities in the fishing industry. They knew the ups and downs in the industry and if they did not, then they had no business being there.

My parting words, Mr. Speaker, to the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International are to put your money today where your mouth was three years ago or else remove yourselves from the board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am extremely pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this Private Member's Resolution put forth by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The people of Harbour Breton need significant and serious consideration by the House of Assembly today, and the member for the district has forcefully put forth the concerns of the people, has put it squarely before this House, and I believe deserves its full support.

Mr. Speaker, a number of us in this House today were in Harbour Breton about two years ago as part of the FPI Select Committee to look into and examine the FPI Act and to see what might need to be done with the Act to strengthen the place of FPI in this Province and to protect and ensure that the role that it had played historically in this Province, as a very special kind of corporation, would continue. When we went to Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker, you were there, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune was there, the current Minster of Fisheries was there in his role as Opposition Fisheries critic, and a number of others. I believe we had the most number of people of any of our meetings around the Province. I did not count them all up, but there were 1,200 to 1,400 people, at least, there. In fact, in addition to those who were there to attend the meeting, the plant workers who were on shift at that time, took an extra special break, came over en masse with their uniforms on, their work clothes on, and conducted a demonstration to let us know, as a committee, how important it was to them that our work be done in a way that was going to protect their interests as a community and the interests of rural Newfoundland in general. We heard an awful lot during that committee tour around the Province, including, Mr. Speaker, your own district in Bonavista, in Port Union, in Catalina, about the role that FPI had played in this Province, particularly after the moratorium.

During that very difficult time for the fishing industry FPI, in fact, kept its business alive and profitable by expanding its business in a way that generated income from marketing in the United States, from buying shrimp in the Asian markets, and developing a shrimp business when we did not have the shrimp business developed here to the extent that it is today. Through that process and through the leadership of that company, they managed to maintain the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador - not at 100 per cent, there were plants that closed. I agree with Mr. Speaker when you spoke on behalf of your constituents here this afternoon in debate, on behalf of the constituents of Bonavista South, that we did not agree with everything they did. You did not, nobody here in this House did. We did know one thing, that that company was acting, as they believed, in the best interests of keeping that company going, keeping it profitable, being able to maintain its role in this Province as a flagship fishing company.

That is why, at the end of the day, our committee made a series of recommendations that ended up in the Fishery Products International Limited Act. What we talked about at that time - and I remember using this phrase on a considerable number of occasions - that FPI was a very special and particular type of company, a private company, yes. I don't disagree with the Member for Bonavista North when he says it is a private company, a private company, yes, but a private company with a public purpose and that public purpose is spelled out in the act. Yes, there can be legislative control over the activities of the company.

While the Legislature and our committee, through its recommendations, recommended that the purpose of the FPI Act was to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador, we also spelled out in legislation one of the objectives and purposes of this company was to continue that company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province, and also to recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound, business and commercial decisions - and here is the kicker, Mr. Speaker - without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province, and to ensure maximum employment stability and productivity through employee participation in the company.

We spelled out the objectives of that company and the mandate of that company as a public purpose private corporation in this Province, and that legislation was unanimously recommended by our committee and unanimously accepted by this House, because we believe, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of spirit and intent that helped that company and this Province, to a certain extent, survive the cod moratorium and the other moratorium that took place, the groundfish moratorium in the 1990s, that was in danger of being lost. By setting forth these objectives, we have indeed made this company a creature of statute with a private investment but a public purpose. It is in that context that we responded to the needs expressed by the people of Harbour Breton to ensure that control and ownership and direction and the headquarters of this company were not let to go off to the highest bidder and to allow this part of the company to be merely an appendage that could be discarded if, for a period of time or some crisis developed, that the company decided they wanted to make a decision to leave a particular place or leave behind a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is very surprising, Mr. Speaker, when this company is seeking to change again their structure, to take that part of the company, the marketing arm, which played a role, which played a very strong role, in allowing them to keep their operations viable here in Newfoundland and Labrador during a very difficult period, to take that and say: We are going to sell that off, the cash flow that comes from that, the assets that go with that, and we are going to do that in a different way because we need to do that because it is good for our shareholders, it is good for our business.

What kind of confidence does this recent action in Harbour Breton give this Legislature when they are now coming - we are told they are; we have not seen any legislation, or I have not seen any formal request - when they are coming to ask that there be an approval of their significant changes in their structure? What confidence does this give this Legislature, or the people of Harbour Breton or any of the other places dependent upon the support, the investment, the encouragement and the commitment of FPI, that they are going to care about what happens to this part of their operation if they go ahead with the proposal to get rid of their marketing arm and create an income trust.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would be kind enough to take his seat.

This being Private Members' Day, and it now being 4:45 p.m., the member introducing the motion has the right now to conclude debate. I call on the Government House Leader to seek direction.

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

I think, when the member finishes his time - I would not want this small interruption to come out of the member's time. I think there is agreement that we have one more speaker on this side, and that may take us past a little past 5 o'clock. We can agree to stop the clock at 5:00 p.m. for those purposes, and then the member introducing the motion will have the appropriate amount of time allotted to him, according to the rules, to conclude the day. I think that is being done by agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that the clock will stop at 5 o'clock, and that is done by consensus of both sides of the House. We do not need a motion for that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank hon. members and the mover of the motion for accommodating my desire to have a few more minutes to conclude.

It is extremely important that this House take very seriously the decision that was made the other day by FPI Limited, and the way in which it was made, too, clearly indicated that it did not have the respect for the people of Harbour Breton and the workers' representatives, who they sat with, to even tell them, when they were discussing the future of the plant, what was about to be decided and laid upon them.

We really do, Mr. Speaker, expect that this company will behave in a more responsible way. We need to have confidence that this company is going to act in accordance with the spirit of the legislation that was passed in this Legislature two years ago. We need to know that the people of Harbour Breton - which is one of the number of communities, in fact, that were covered by the Fisheries Restructuring Act. I know the Member for Bonavista North has talked about it being a private company, but the history of this company is one that was born of a Fisheries Restructuring Act, support by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, eventually would become private in 1987, subject to certain restrictions and rules as modified in 2002, and we expect this company to behave in a much more responsible way.

We fully endorse the motion brought forward, calling upon this government to insist that FPI make the necessary investment to save the Harbour Breton fish plant, to restore confidence and trust in this company, not only by the people of Harbour Breton but the people of Marystown, the people of Catalina, the other places who depend on Fishery Products to continue their historic operations and to continue the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province as is set forth in the act.

We fully endorse that and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Fisheries, to include in these discussions representatives of the union, representatives of the town, and the member himself, as the Member of the House of Assembly for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, to try to come to some conclusion that is satisfactory to those people, and that requires and comes up with a further investment by FPI in the Harbour Breton plant.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. I know there are a couple of other speakers to continue before the motion is voted on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did, indeed, want to rise in this House for just a few minutes this afternoon to speak on this resolution and to commend the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune for bringing it forward.

I just want to take people back a few years. In October, 1968, I was part of a community that left Hermitage Bay. Half of the residents of that community resettled and moved to Marystown. One of the main reasons for the move was that the fish plant was operational there. As a result, a part of the Jackman clan moved to Marystown. The other half of that community moved right into the community that is so much in this debate today. Any of you who have been to Harbour Breton will know that the Jackman name is very predominant there as are the other names that moved there from that community. There is little doubt, and I can assure everyone in this House, that those residents who moved there some thirty-six years ago never expected that we would arrive at the day that we are at today. To say that communities would be devastated, I think, would be an understatement.

Secondly, this issue not only speaks to Harbour Breton, it speaks to, I think, every rural community in this Province. I live in a little community of 100 people where FPI, up until this past year, operated a small plant. They have since moved out. Fishermen in that community once dealt with that company but because of some of the dealings they opted to leave. My district, as has been mentioned here, Marystown and Burin, are very dependent on FPI. I find it very unusual today that I am here standing speaking about Harbour Breton in this light where they stand to lose so much, and probably two of the brighter plants, within the FPI operation in Newfoundland and Labrador, are in my district. The FPI plant in Marystown is no longer dependent on codfish, it is dependent on the flatfish. The secondary processing plant in Burin is doing exactly what so many people in this Province have said so many times; for so long we have seen our fish resources leaving unprocessed. It is the kind of operation we would like to see in Burin. The problem with Burin is that most of the fish that is being done there is imported.

It has already been mentioned here how we find a solution to this. One of the things that I have come across is the age of the workforce, whether it be the man in the fishing boat, particularly with the inshore, or the fish plant worker. The average age of the fish plant worker in Marystown right now is forty-nine. If that trend continues, without younger people coming into it, then we see what pattern has developed here. As have already been mentioned, we know the patterns of declining populations. We know now the average age of plants such as Marystown. There is one thing that I do really feel strongly about, and I have heard it mentioned by this Premier, and he said it strongly: We are not about to give up on rural Newfoundland.

I think what we have to do is to start to rethink rural Newfoundland. There is little doubt that rural Newfoundland is going to change. I think we have two choices here. We can either sit and hope that it will continue as was, or we make moves to set and shape our destiny and the future of this Province. There is one thing certain when we talk about the fish plants - and let's just talk about Marystown for a minute. Right now we can say that Marystown is kind of riding a high, the entire Burin Peninsula is booming because of the White Rose, but ask the local business people. As much as that is operational now, and the economy is doing well, ask them what happens when the fish plant slows down. These are the people, that business people will tell you, who spend the money in their towns. As I sit, and I have listened today, I think about what the possible future is for Marystown and for Burin.

I have also thought about what I have already spoke about: What about the future? Just a little while ago we were in Terra Nova lodge, Port Blandford. What is it that we are talking about? We are talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope it is the beginning of one of many of the chats. The social strategic plan has been in place, and I know how distant that must seem today to the people of Harbour Breton, but if rural Newfoundland is to survive it is where we have to go, because if not, then we sit and our destiny gets shaped for us and it does not look positive.

I feel very confident, and I am certain that many of those people who moved from that community in Hermitage Bay to Harbour Breton are listening so intently to this debate, yesterday, today, since the news has come out. They are placing faith and trust that politics will not be played in this situation, that we have both sides of this House working together collectively with unions, with the councils, with the people, with the federal government, that we find a solution here that not only benefits Harbour Breton, it benefits this entire Province. As the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune has already said and referred to, that so goes Marystown and the centralized area of the Burin Peninsula, so too, I think, goes Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula.

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to have just a few minutes to speak on this issue. I think it speaks to the heart of what has to come in this Province. I have heard so many times that the Northeast Avalon is doing so well, but outside this issue may well be the beginning point as to what establishes our future off the Northeast Avalon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

When the member speaks he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank all of the speakers who have spoken on the resolution today from both sides of the House and I want to concur with the Member for Burin-Placentia West - I think I said in the House on Monday when we talked about Harbour Breton, this is much bigger than Oliver Langdon, much bigger than the Liberal Party, much bigger than the Conservative Party. It is really, as the member just said, the very essence of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we have to keep it and we have to find a resolution.

I want to thank the members for the comments they have made. I just want to take a couple of them, and there is no doubt about it, that the H and G cod has become a factor, head and gutted. You know, a few months ago it cost $1,700 a ton and today it is $3,000. I had a call while I was here, and went outside this afternoon, from the CBC from John Murphy, the Fisherman's Broadcast and said that - I am not sure of the exact words: if the company in Fortune have bought their last pound of H and G cod or they have processed the last pound of H and G cod in Fortune, what does that mean for that plant? It means they are going to close. That is another plant, another 300 or 400 people. So, as I said, it really has a ripple effect and I think that we have to deal with it.

But there is one thing to keep in mind, and I would like to comment again on what the Member for Burin-Placentia West said, and I want to use this analogy. Remember a few years ago when there was a problem with the auto industry? It was known as the Big Three: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Chrysler was about to go under and they brought in a new manager and today it is a big corporation making lots of money but those Big Three had to deal with Toyota. They had to deal with Hyundai. They had to deal with Mitsubishi. They had to deal with other companies that were in Japan and putting their cars on the market. What did they do? Did they fold up the tent and go home? Absolutely not! Through education, through new technology they retooled their companies and today they are successful and they can compete. That is the challenge with us. We cannot roll over and die because of the H and G cod and China is an emerging market. We have to find a way around it and we will find a way around it. There is no doubt about it in my mind that we will.

I understand the people of Harbour Breton - and again, I refer back to the Member for Burin-Placentia West because I come from a little small community called Seal Cove which is only five miles from where the member grew up in Grole. I can remember, I can see the houses now in my mind that they were on the barge and they left Grole. Some of them went to Hermitage, by the way, and some of them went to Harbour Breton and some of them went to Marystown. For these people it was a new way of life, but today we are dealing with the community of Harbour Breton.

I am somewhat cautiously optimistic that - because everybody in the House and more people would have spoken. I think the forty-eight people would have spoken if time would have allowed it today but, obviously, of time restraint we could not do it - cautiously optimistic because everybody here who has spoken - I think they spoke on behalf of all of us - that everybody is prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel to find a solution for this problem that we have here. Because, as I said earlier, it is Harbour Breton today but Harbour Breton is not the only town that has a fishing industry that is dependent upon a company like FPI. No doubt about it, there is one thing that I have been encouraged about in the area that I live in and represent in Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune, because of the geography, because of the climate, we are ideally suited to aquaculture, and the government did put the money into the feed program. I remember when I was a member of government we put a lot of money into the aquaculture industry in the district, not because of the district that I represented, but because it was the right thing to do, and I am sure that there is a lot more we can do to improve that.

Again, I do not want to take up a lot more time. I think it all has been said, but I want to say to the people who have really supported this and to the people of Harbour Breton, we have to stick together. At the end of the day, we have to find a solution to it for the community. I believe that we will, if not, we will be back here in this House of course demanding of government that they again support the people of Harbour Breton to find a solution to it. I believe that with all of us working together we can because that is what it is all about, finding the best thing for the people of Harbour Breton as they find themselves in a crisis situation today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will vote on the amendment first. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

The amendment is carried, and it is desirous that the amendment be noted as carried unanimously.

On motion, amendment carried unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

I do believe the motion, as amended, has been carried unanimously as well.

Motion carried unanimously.

I thank members. This being Wednesday, this House will now stand adjourned until tomorrow, at 1:30 p.m.