November 29, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 48


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome a special visitor to the Speaker's gallery, Harold Collins, a former Member of the House for the District of Gander from 1967-1979 and a former member of Cabinet in six different portfolios, and a recent author of a book entitled, Always A Straight Shooter. We want to welcome Mr. Collins to the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements. The hon. the Premier wishes to have leave to make a member's statement. We also have notice from the following members: the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

Does the Premier have leave to make a member's statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague, friend and a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian, who passed away this past Wednesday at his St. John's home after seventy-six vibrant years.

William Chafe, better known as Billy, was a dedicated member of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador. Billy began working with the provincial government at the age of fifteen and during a career that lasted more than fifty years, he held many positions, including court crier and bailiff in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it was in his capacity of working with the Supreme Court that I had the privilege of first meeting Billy. Our professional relationship quickly turned to a personal one and I was very proud to count Billy as a friend. Billy is perhaps most famous for a stand that he took during a labour dispute in the 1970s, when he decided that he wanted to continue working.

As most of you know, Billy started a precedent setting case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court agreed with Billy that his duty was to the courts as his employer; a ruling still referenced today.

This morning I attended Billy's funeral at the Basilica of St. John's. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, among many others, was there. It was a touching ceremony attended by his many friends, his colleagues and family. Today's service was a tribute to Billy's life, and a tribute to the contribution that he made to Newfoundland and Labrador throughout his seventy-six years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to extend, along with me, our condolensces to the family and friends of Billy Chafe and to recognize his considerable achievements throughout his life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the many individuals and businesses who were recently honoured at the Grand Falls-Windsor Sixth Annual Business Excellence Awards and Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony, held October 21, 2004.

During the ceremony, Central Pharmacy was named Business of the Year. Susan Frampton of Scoop and Save Foods was named Business Woman of the Year. Sonny's Flowers was honoured with the Small Business of the Year Award and D & K Computers, owned and operated by Keith Hayley, received the Customer Service Award.

The Ambassador Award was presented to the A.N.D Company Players and Windsor Pharmacy received The Helping Hands Award. Roger Barnett, who is a familiar voice in Central Newfoundland, received the Rotary Personal Excellence Award.

Two long-time businessmen were inducted into the Business Hall of Fame and now join thirty-three previous inductees from over the past five years. The newest members include Sonny Hawkins and Joseph H. Sharron.

As the owner of Sonny's Flowers, Sonny has provided this community and the region with top quality products and services for some thirty years. Joe Sharron took over his father's business in the 1960s and has been a major contributor to the economy of the Exploits Valley ever since, having established some fifteen companies in the region.

Mr. Speaker, the Exploits Valley continues to enjoy economic prosperity and I would like to thank all businesses, including the recent winners of these awards, who continue to contribute to the success of the region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Mayor Tony Keats of the Town of Dover, on receiving a Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities Torngat Municipal Achievement Award for 2004, in the category of Municipal Awareness.

The Municipal Awareness category recognizes organizations or individuals who are helping to raise public awareness of the important role played by municipal government and municipal leaders. This is the first year for this category.

Mr. Keats has been a strong proponent of increasing public awareness of the vital role of municipal governments. His hard work and dedication to the Town of Dover, his impassioned knowledge of the municipal process, and his exceptional leadership skills are just a few of the reasons why he is so deserving of this award. It is a pleasure to have Mayor Keats in the public gallery today.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Mayor Keats on such a prestigious award and commend him on his commitment to municipal government and the Town of Dover.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young woman from the District of Grand Bank, who recently completed a most worthwhile program designed to give back to the community.

Samantha DeGruchy of Grand Bank has been awarded the Bronze Award of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Program. The award is designed to encourage and motivate youth over the age of fourteen to voluntarily become involved in a variety of personal development activities, including community experience, expedition skills and physical recreation.

Samantha said the sea cadets program, through the summer training camps, was instrumental in affording her the opportunity to win this award. Much of her expedition training in such things as hiking, canoeing and map reading was completed through her involvement in sea cadets.

Mr. Speaker, in the phys. ed. component, Samantha helped with swim practices at the Grand Bank swimming pool and participated in school sports. In the leadership component, she was involved with the John Burke High School Student Council and participated in the leadership conference in Marystown last October.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of all the work Samantha has done and I am pleased she has been recognized by the Duke of Edinburgh Awards Program for her work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Samantha DeGruchy of Grand Bank on her award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Labrador as a whole for sweeping this year's Economic Development Awards which were held recently in Rocky Harbour the beginning of November. It is no surprise that out of six awards, Labrador brought home four!

I want to say congratulations to Mr. Brian Fallow and the staff of the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce for winning the Excellence in Partnership Award; Ms Carol Best and the organizing committee of the Big Land Fair for winning the Innovation in Education Award; the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited for winning the Excellence in Fostering Entrepreneurship Award; and Mr. Jamie Pye of Southern Labrador, who works with Smart Labrador, for winning the Excellence in Youth Leadership Award.

I ask all members of this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating these individuals and organizations in their efforts and excellence in the Economic Development Award sector.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a citizen from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who recently celebrated a tremendous milestone. Mr. William Powers of Salmon Cove, last week, celebrated his 100th birthday.

On November 3, his sisters, Florence Baggs and Myrtle Kennedy, and his brothers, Ches and Jim, were among the approximately 100 nieces, nephews and friends, who turned out at Riverside United Church to help him celebrate his birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to attend this birthday party and extend congratulations, and share in this very memorable occasion. I cannot help but say how wonderful it was to hear Mr. Powers recount +some of his many experiences.

Mr. Speaker, along with the significance of his 100th birthday, also came the distinction of being Newfoundland and Labrador's most senior driver. Officials from the Department of Government Services and Lands presented Mr. Powers with a plaque and certificate recognizing this tremendous accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, 100 years is certainly something worth celebrating, and I ask all member of his hon. House to join me in extending Happy Birthday wishes to Mr. William Powers of Salmon Cove on the occasion of his 100th birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th Anniversary of the Reidville Volunteer Fire Department.

I want to thank and commend everyone associated with the Reidville Volunteer Fire Department, past and present, for the outstanding service they provide to the entire community. I know that their unselfish dedication to keeping the people of Reidville safe and sound, day and night, is appreciated by everyone throughout the Reidville area.

In addition to the fifteen members who make up the Volunteer Fire Department, I would like to acknowledge Art Reid and Eric Reid, who have been with the Reidville Volunteer Fire Department since its inception thirty years ago.

The Reidville Fire Department not only services their town. Since their beginning, they have always worked closely with neighbouring communities and fire departments such as Deer Lake, responding whenever needed to make the entire area a safe place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Reidville Volunteer Fire Department on a wonderful thirty years of service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House that the Premier and I have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding to agree to implement a passport system of securities regulation in Canada.

All provinces and territories, except for Ontario, has either signed, or have agreed to sign, the MOU. The passport will proceed with the participation of all signatory provinces.

Mr. Speaker, this a major step towards improving securities regulation in Canada. A passport systems means that firms wishing to access capital markets in more than one province or territory will deal with one set of rules and one regulator.

The passport system will streamline securities regulation in Canada, making it more efficient for industry participants and eliminating duplication of efforts by the provinces.

Essentially, companies will only have to deal with one principal regulator where their head office is located, and the other jurisdictions will recognize the approval of that regulator. By eliminating this duplication of work, regulators will be able to devote more time to areas of consumer protection, such as enforcement, in their own jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that by working together with the other provinces we can have an effective, streamlined and efficient regulatory structure that provides a high standard of investor protection across the country.

The target for the implementation of the passport system is by August 2005. All jurisdictions will continue to set their own fees. In addition to this, the provinces and territories are working on new harmonized and simplified security laws to be implemented by December 2006. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, my department is taking steps to eliminate duplication of regulation and improve efficiencies in our operations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for her advance copy of her statement. It is good to see the Premier and herself sign off on this initiative. I remember being involved in the discussions that brought this together a year or so ago and, as the minister has said, sometimes dealing with government is an onerous task, and when you have to deal with two levels of government, I guess, it is twice as bad or three times as bad, so anything we can do to facilitate companies doing business in this Province certainly bears merit. I am pleased to see that the fees are still being administered to and charges set by our own Province.

On that note, now that the minister has completed this onerous task, I ask her to revisit some of the fee structures in her own department making them more affordable for the ordinary people of this Province.

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.

This is a step forward. The harmonization and simplification of security laws across the country has been something talked about for many years, so I am pleased to see this progress on all provinces.

I would make two comments, though: that we are now in an era of heightened need for corporate and directors' responsibility and I hope that is part of the discussions that the minister and her officials will be having with other securities regulator across the country, and also a concern that access to information be available readily in each province. If we are going to be relying on securities regulation with another province there should be full and adequate disclosure of information and availability of information here in the Province, because this Province has pre-approved, in a way, the passage of regulations by other provinces.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions?

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last month we had the announcement of the closure of the Harbour Breton Plant and the Premier's silence on the issue continues to be deafening. He has avoided answering any questions here in the Legislature and when questioned in the media on Friday he danced around the issue without providing any real answers at all.

I have been told, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has already met with Mr. Derrick Rowe of FPI and is remaining silent because he told Mr. Rowe, in a private meeting, that he agrees as a matter of principle with FPI's business case to close fish plants.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he will confirm that he supports Mr. Rowe's business case for the closure of the Harbour Breton fish plant?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition must be talking to himself, because he is starting to believe his own nonsense. I mean that is really what it is when you come right down to it. There is nothing further from the truth. That is absolutely incorrect, completely untrue. There have been no meeting with Mr. Rowe. I can inform hon. members opposite, though, that myself and the Minister of Fisheries have requested Mr. Rowe and Mr. McCurdy -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely untrue! Absolutely, totally incorrect, Mr. Joyce! Maybe you gave him the information. That explains it all, then, if that is the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what we have done this afternoon is we have invited Mr. McCurdy, who is returning from Harbour Breton today, and he was down there this morning and I spoke with him this morning. He is coming in for a meeting with myself and the Minister of Fisheries today and we are going to continue to explore this, we are all over it. The minister has had several meetings with the stakeholders. If I stand up and I get totally involved, I am accused of a one-man show; if I am not involved, I am not interested at all. Well, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too, boy. Get a life (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, his own minister, in this Legislature - if the Premier would pay attention - indicated that the Premier has been in meetings with FPI. It is in the record of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, FPI, as well, is planning to sell off the very valuable and very profitable, value-added marketing division of the company. The Premier has also indicated to FPI that he agrees with this decision as well. However, rather than admit that he agrees with it, he says he is willing to bring it to the House of Assembly for a free vote.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, why is he talking about bringing this decision to the House of Assembly for a free vote when even Mr. Rowe himself admits that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture already has the authority to deny or approve this sale?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want a few minutes to check with Mr. Joyce to make sure that second question is accurate?

Obviously, your information is totally and completely incorrect. I have been on top of the FPI file and I have been for some considerable period of time because, unlike yourself, I was interested enough in asking a lot of questions. That is exactly what I have been doing and, unlike the former Minster of Fisheries, who stated in this House, on this side of this House, that he is just as much in the dark today as he was yesterday. We are in the light all the time. We are in the know and we are asking questions. You need to understand that first of all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Now, we are very concerned about some of the actions that FPI were prepared to undertake and we are trying to protect the people of the Province. So we have asked a lot of questions, we have gotten a lot of legal opinions. We have gone back to that company time and time and time again to get concessions before they move forward. Then, if we are unable to be satisfied on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to put it to the Peoples House and have a free vote and let the people of this House and let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, when they refer to other members of the House, if they would refer to them by their district name rather than by their regular Christian names.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that Mr. Rowe and the representatives of FPI will be interested in hearing the new answers from the Premier in the Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker, last month FPI launched their newest factory-freezer trawler that allows our resource to be caught and processed at sea without ever being landed to create jobs in towns like Harbour Breton. In their election blueprint, Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated there would be no more resource giveaways. The processing of our fish at sea is the biggest resource giveaway of them all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is your government willing to allow FPI to continue expanding their factory-freezer trawler fleet and ship their product directly out of the Province while fish plants in the Province close down? What happened to no more resource giveaways, I ask the Premier?

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, the Leader of the Opposition's question clearly demonstrates how little he knows about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. The launching and the christening of the new vessel by FPI a little over a month ago was the Newfoundland Lynx. It is a shrimp trawler. It is geared to carry on the same fishery that they have been carrying on for just about thirty years now on Northern shrimp. It is a factory-freezer trawler, yes. It allows them to process shrimp at sea just as they have done since the late 1970s early 1980s, Mr. Speaker. Just as it has done for the fifteen years that they were in government.

The only difference in FPI's operations today versus what it was ten years ago, for example, is based on an agreement that they reached with their trawlermen and their plant workers on the South Coast in groundfish, where they are freezing their groundfish at sea so it can provide stable and consistent work to their plant workers and give decent working conditions to their trawlermen. They are freezing at sea and processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, last week when asked if he would ensure that the quotas traditionally proceeded in Harbour Breton would remain in that town, our Minister of Fisheries said that the only person who could make that decision was the federal Minister of Fisheries. Minister, I ask you, have you had any discussions with Minister Regan on this issue?

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.

Mr. Speaker, the member is right; that decision is the responsibility of the federal government. As far as we are concerned, we are adamant that no fish shall leave this Province; no quotas from this Province shall be taken to another province. Unlike when the previous Administration were in government and we saw fish leave Burgeo and end up Canso, we have taken steps over the past number of months to prevent that from happening.

That is the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. As for fish moving between communities, that is a separate issue. As we have said to the people of Harbour Breton, we will work with them to try and find a solution. As we have also said to Fishery Products International, we would hope - however, we recognize that we cannot force - we would hope that if there is a solution able to be found for Harbour Breton, if a piece of the quota is necessary to make that solution possible, we would hope that fish would remain in Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bill Matthews, the federal member for towns like Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown, supports community quotas for those towns and says he has lobbied the federal government to implement them. I ask the minister: Will he support Mr. Matthews in his effort to secure quotas for those towns?

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.

Mr. Speaker, our position, as I just said in answering the previous question, is that we are adamant that any fish that has been allocated to Newfoundland and Labrador-based companies remain associated with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they be landed and they be processed in this Province.

As it relates to whether it should be tied to any one community, that is not a position that we have adopted. If we were to adopt that position, I would ask the member: How, then, will we deal with the communities who have lost quota and had it hauled into operations right now? What about quota that used to be processed in St. Anthony? What about quota that used to be processed in Port Union?

It is not as simple as the Opposition makes it. These issues are much more complicated. As long as we keep the quota in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is our primary concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the minister has clearly stated that he does not support a quota for Harbour Breton. Thank, you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, FPI has closed Harbour Breton, put Fortune on notice that there will be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and asks members for their co-operation.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said, the minister does not support the quota for Harbour Breton.

Mr. Speaker, FPI has closed Harbour Breton, put Fortune on notice that it will not do any more H and G in that town, and in an independent newspaper yesterday in an article entitled: Sacrifice a Little Piece, Derrick Rowe, CEO of FPI, hinted that the crab plant in Bonavista could very well be moved to Port Union.

What discussions have you had with FPI about the future of the plant in that town?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not say that I would not support Harbour Breton having a quota. Mr. Speaker, what I did say is that I would not stand idly by like some previous ministers and some previous administrations did and see fish moved from this Province into Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That was the reason why we took the action we did in Arnold's Cove, and we stand by that policy, Mr. Speaker.

As for Bonavista, I have had numerous discussions with FPI on Bonavista. The position has been articulated to me from FPI, as it relates to Bonavista, that they will continue operating in Bonavista. It is well known, Mr. Speaker. I assume if he asked any questions of FPI when he was the minister, it is well known by him that FPI has wanted for a long time, under this board and under the previous board, under this executive and under the previous executive, to move the crab operation from Bonavista to Port Union. That is not something that is in the works right now but has always been a wish of the people at FPI for many years, Mr. Speaker, for many years.

As it stands right now, their intent, as I understand it, is to keep it in Bonavista and to continue sharing the product, as they have done for the past number of years, between Triton and Bonavista.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked a series of questions about the airports in the Province. The Government House Leader said that government is not in the airport business. He also went on to say that we are going to hold the federal government accountable.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Government House Leader can tell us why it is that the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Renewal is funding a study to look at divesting of the airport in St. Anthony, which is owned by the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the root to this problem lies in 1998 when the then individual, who was Minister of Rural Development, I believe, at the time, and her colleagues, and the Cabinet of the day, and the government of the day, did not utter a peep or a squeak where airports that were under federal responsibility were downloaded to rural communities; and she has the gall today to stand up and say we are the problem.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: We are very concerned about what is happening in rural Newfoundland with respect to transportation issues. We have assisted where we can, whenever we can, with respect to regional airports - Stephenville and otherwise.

I say to the member opposite: Had you done your homework in 1998, you would have no need to ask a question today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government House Leader does not know what he is talking about, as usual. He is wrong again, as usual, but that is nothing new for this Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this government has no plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador; no plan whatsoever. We are looking at divesting of airports that are instrumental to ensuring that rural Newfoundland is successful.

Mr. Speaker, Gander is another airport which has a long history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that supplementary questions really should have no lengthy preambles. I ask the member now if she would get to her question.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Gander is an another airport which has a long history of being vital to the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the government going to do to ensure that Gander, which is now using its transitional money for operating purposes, does not fall into the same situation that we are seeing in Stephenville?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is very clear to me, and I think to my colleagues in the House and those who are watching, that don't let the truth interrupt with a question that the Opposition may wish to ask.

The fact of the matter is this, with respect to the funding of the study for the airport corporation in St. Anthony, we did because the airport corporation itself requested it. We are only too glad to assist when a request comes by from the town. Fact number one that is lost upon the member's question.

Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, the member has made the allegation that the Government House Leader does not know what he is talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I suggest the member have a chat with the airport corporation in Gander, because I do understand that they are in a profit position this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, on a final supplementary.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would assume from the Government House Leader's answers that, again, he does not know what he is talking about. On the one hand he says they are not in the airport business, and on the other hand he says that they are going to hold the federal government accountable, but at the same time they are supporting a request for a study to divest of the airport. We need to know, Mr. Speaker, exactly where this government stands on airports in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to stand and swallow herself whole anytime, I will give her the opportunity to do it.

Two questions ago she said: We have no plan for rural Newfoundland. Now, when a particular part or a community in rural Newfoundland comes and asks for government's assistance and we provide it, she says that we should not do it. So, which is it? Do you want us to help when communities come to assist or do you not?

Unlike the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, we do have a plan, but it is not aeroplan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. On Friday it was revealed by Petro-Canada that the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my left for their co-operation. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday Petro-Canada confirmed that the oil spill on the Terra Nova platform was running for five hours before offshore workers noticed the overpowering stench of oil. Mr. Speaker, disturbingly, there also seems to be somewhat of a culture of ignoring or passing off alarms as being related to weather, vessel movement or production flow rates.

In light of both safety and environmental condition considerations in our offshore, what confidence does this government have in the equipment and procedures used by Petro-Canada in the operation of the Terra Nova platform?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions asked by the hon. member because these are obviously very serious, given the fact that there was a spill last week.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I say to my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, well thought out questions.

Let me say this, in terms of the response to the question. Like the member opposite, we, too, have seen all of the public commentary provided both by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and also Petro-Canada. We have also read and heard and seen all of the ancillary sorts, reports and opinions that have been brought forward, but I do want to reiterate to the member what I said last week: That in the absence of the investigation being completed, we have a duty - and it is a very serious one - not to prejudge or predetermine exactly what took place. While we do have a sense today of what happened - and I think everyone in the Province does - it is our obligation to ensure that once the investigation is complete, that once government is briefed, then we will be in a position to talk in a more detailed fashion.

I believe the member, given his legal background, would understand that the investigation, whatever may come out of it - and I am not saying that this will but there is a possibility - that there could be criminal sorts of charges laid, depending on what the investigation concludes. We are not going to predetermine -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister if he could complete his answer now rather quickly.

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

We are not going to predetermine what the cause was. We are not going prejudge. We are not going to act as hangman and jury all in one breath. When we get the investigative reports and we are briefed, then and only then we will take action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Environment Assessment Panel that did the Terra Nova, chaired by Dr. Leslie Harris, recommended zero tolerance policy for oil spills; two, the most stringent achievable standards for discharged and processed water, and dedicated independent observers to be on board the platform.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Harris this morning said that he felt cheated and was mad at what has happened at Terra Nova, and that the C-NOPB had not followed his recommendation for having independent observers on board.

Will this government ask the C-NOPB to immediately demand that both Terra Nova and Hibernia have, as condition of operations, independent observers on board their platforms while operating in our offshore?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is any concerned Newfoundlander or Labradorian in the Province today with respect to this issue who does not feel cheated, who does not feel outraged, who does not feel mad, because they should be.

To the extent that we can determine it, there are risks associated with offshore development, and I think we all acknowledge that; but, having said that, with respect to the spill itself, we all wish it did not happen. The investigation will determine what exactly happened, what protocols need to be put in place.

Should the information coming out of that investigation require a number of recommendations, we will look at any and all recommendations, Mr. Speaker, including the one that the member has put forward in terms of observers. But, I will say this, Mr. Speaker, and it is important, it is very important for the reasons that I have outlined in my previous answer, that we are going to wait to ensure that the investigation is complete, that all of the details are before us, and then we will take whatever action we can, within our powers as a government, to ensure that this type of spill, or any other for that matter, Mr. Speaker, does not occur in our waters again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 14, 2004, the Premier inked his name to a deal on behalf of all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, committing to improvements in health care starting immediately. Can the Premier commit to us today that all this new money will be spent directly on improvements in the health care system, or will it be used to pay down the provincial debt?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an important question. As I indicated the other day in the House when a similar question was asked, the health summit that was held back in September, an FMM meeting, this Premier, along with his colleagues in the rest of the country, came to an agreement with respect to important priorities with respect to health funding across the nation, and some of these priorities, Mr. Speaker, included wait lists, wait time, home care, Aboriginal health. Another point that was mentioned last week was transportation; in particular, transportation of the North. I can say to the hon. member that these are the issues of priorities that have been identified, and that these are the issues of priority that will be recognized when important key critical decisions with respect to health funding are made in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Premier accepted the cheque from Ottawa, he also confirmed to show accountability and transparency to the people of the Province in spending of this new money. The minister admits that there have been priorities that have been identified, so I say to him: Other provinces are now rolling out the new investments for health care. Can you tell the public of this Province how this new money is going to be invested into the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

When the federal Parliament, when the federal House of Commons, finds it appropriate to enact the enabling legislation - which, I understand, may come as early as this fall - when that is done, this Province will have some clear understanding as to when the flow through of funds will be expected and anticipated.

Mr. Speaker, when we receive the funds, and with the legislation in hand, and with the federal Government of Canada giving its blessing and its authorization to allow the funding to come through, then will this government be in a position to apply and recognize the priorities that have been set and identified by this Premier and his colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual that some Provinces are actually spending the new investment dollars while the minister opposite is trying to tell me that they still haven't confirmed when and how much they are getting.

Mr. Speaker, also coming out of this so-called, what he calls, health care summit, they announced more dollars for a medical travel program in Labrador. I talked with members of Executive Council in the week following this announcement by the Premier but they had no details, no dollar figures, on the program at that time. So, can you tell the people today the amount of the investment we will see for a Labrador medical travel program, and if there will be conditions on this money coming from Ottawa?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, unlike the former government, we will spend money when we have it. We will not spend money when we do not have it, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we will receive, this Province will receive, over the next six years, approximately $50 million per year. I understand that the amount to be received in year one is closer to $32 million or $34 million, but, on average, approximately $50 million a year, a total of $293 million over the next six-year period. When we receive the funds we will apply the priorities that have been recognized by this Premier and his colleagues and we will exercise due diligence in ensuring that the public health interests of the people of this Province are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the question was with regard to the Labrador medical travel program, so I ask the minister this: If this is a program of your own design, by your own government, can you commit today that it will not be used to replace the provincial contributions being made to that program but rather be used to broaden the existing program which includes all areas of Labrador such as Labrador West which has been brought up by the member for that area on numerous occasions, to cover off the increased costs to boards with regard to air Medivac services and to pay the cost of travel for patients from Labrador who are being referred to St. John's and Corner Brook health care facilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, medical transportation, particularly transportation of the North, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, was recognized as a priority area. It is included in that list of priorities, and I can assure the hon. member that particular priority that has been identified will be included with all other issues and the appropriate decisions will be made in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of fear within the post-secondary education system in our Province about the direction this government is headed, especially given the minister's comments in the Independent of October 17, 2004.

Can the minister today stand on his feet and tell us: Are there campus closures expected by this government? Is this government going to close campuses of the College of the North Atlantic?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member on the other side, if there is any fear I expect it is coming from her direction and from nowhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: This government is committed to looking forward to, I guess, the process which the White Paper is going to bring about, that we are going to look at the aspects of the public post-secondary system, so that we can make sure that the future of that system is certainly in an area where - I am sorry, let me just back up a little bit. We want to make sure that the public post-secondary is under a plan that will cater to our needs and the needs of this Province for the next five to ten years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is clear with the new minister, he will know the direction of the Premier because he did blurt it out in the October 17 edition of the Sunday Independent. He did blurt it out! That was his first public statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate of Memorial University are in the process of preparing a paper for this government talking about tuition increases in the range of 60 per cent to 85 per cent.

I want to ask the minister today: Can you allay the fears of students in this Province by telling them that this government will not increase tuition and they will not cut programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for a very brief answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time I would like to assure the member on the opposite side that this government is moving forward in a very positive way.

When it comes to public post-secondary, let me tell you that our White Paper process is looking at three things: quality of programming, affordability and accessability. Unlike the previous Administration, we are going to deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for oral questions has expired.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

In a question earlier from the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier on the meetings with Derrick Rowe, the Premier said there was nothing further from the truth about the meetings and on two occasions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands who has risen on a point of privilege. I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier questions about meeting with Derrick Rowe. The Premier said, and I quote: there is nothing further from the truth. The Premier used my name, Eddie Joyce, twice and the Speaker asked him to use the Member for the Bay of Islands - that there was nothing further from the truth about those meetings, giving the impression that I was giving the Leader of the Opposition false information to pass on the questions to the Premier of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on November 25, when the Premier was not in this House, he was up in his own office having meetings, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - and I will read from Hansard. "The Premier has been fully involved in the FPI file since last April. He had a number of meetings with Derrick Rowe." That is the minister who said that.

Earlier in Question Period the Premier gave the impression to the people of this Province that the Leader of the Opposition was getting false information, and he was getting it from the Member for the Bay of Islands. I ask the Premier to stand up and withdraw those statements. I ask for a ruling from the Speaker, because it is an attack on my character, that I am giving the Leader of the Opposition false information, which came from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I either ask you to withdraw those remarks or a ruling from the Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I could go ahead and quote to you all afternoon why it is not, but it seems to me it is more of a point of foolishness or a point of frustration, to be honest with you.

The fact of the matter is this, that the Leader of the Opposition's question today referenced a meeting that took place in the last several days with respect to it. If the member says it was not him who provided the information, we apologize to the member. This is really a disagreement between two members, Mr. Speaker, not a point of privilege whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review the transcripts and come back to the House either later today or tomorrow with a ruling on the point of privilege.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act." (Bill 55)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997." (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Court Security." (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow I ask leave to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has the responsibility for the enforcement of inland waters; and

WHEREAS poaching is a very serious problem in this Province, so much so that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had to step in and protect the Province's dwindling Atlantic salmon resource, despite the fact that responsibility of enforcement and conservation rests solely with the federal government; and

WHEREAS the success of the Province's Fisheries Enforcement Program is evidence that more enforcement resources are desperately needed; and

WHEREAS a need for increased enforcement is further evidenced by the laying off of eighty-seven charges after a fifteen-month undercover investigation by the Department of Natural Resources;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the Government of Canada to live up to its responsibility and implement an effective inland fisheries enforcement program which would include special investigations, enforcement officers who are non-river based and a substantial increase in the funding currently provided to the DFO for enforcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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 people who live in the Labrador health region. This is with regard to the debt that the new health board in Labrador and the Northern Peninsula has acquired as a result of the amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, this new board is actually starting off with a debt somewhere in the range of $14 million and they are being asked, at the present time, to pay down this debt and carry forward with a reform in health care in that particular region. Now, this is one of the most northern, most rural regions in our Province and the whole reason that they have accumulated a debt over a period of the past number of years has been in the delivery of the health care in such a difficult geographic area. They will tell you, themselves, that a lot of the debt that has been acquired over the past two or three years is due to serving the community health needs in some of the most rural and northern areas of that health board region. They do not see how they can actually pay down this new debt without affecting programs and services to residents in this particular area.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the Member for The Straits & White Bay North would like to speak on this issue, he could get up and speak on behalf of his constituents at any time but I ask him to listen to what I have to say now because it is in the best interest of the people he represents, as well as the people whom I represent.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this area are already experiencing enough difficulty with this transitional process. I have talked to a number of people in the Labrador region and the Northern Peninsula region, as I am sure other members in this House have, and the MHAs for those districts have, Mr. Speaker, and they are feeling that it is going to be quite difficult to be able to continue with the level of programs and services that they currently have without having the debt addressed.

Mr. Speaker, when the boards were amalgamated some years ago, the debt for these boards was then paid down by the government of the day and it allowed them to have a fresh start in the delivery of health care in those regions. That is what this board is currently asking now.

Mr. Speaker, the needs, the health needs in this area, are increasing. The cost is escalating; it is not going down. The transportation costs alone, to serve the Labrador region and the Northern Peninsula region, are increasing on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, these are all fundamental to the delivery of a good health care service in those areas, and if they are going to be forced to make the savings then that means they are going to be forced to make the cuts.

Mr. Speaker, already the government has in its possession a review that was done of the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board a year ago, of the Labrador Board a year ago, a Best Practices Review, that compared it to other hospitals and boards of that size in other parts of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the conclusive results of the study showed that the board in Labrador was already delivering one of the best health care services and programs it could at very marginal cost to the government and to the taxpayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

MR. E. BYRNE: A few seconds, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A few seconds have been granted.

The member has leave.

MS JONES: Thank you for leave, as this is a very important issue, no doubt.

The review, Mr. Speaker, showed that they were already providing the best services in Labrador under that board at a very marginal cost. Now, that Best Practices Review outlined all aspects of delivery of health care for the Labrador region and it indicated, Mr. Speaker, that there was no room to make cuts or restructure the programs in that particular region in order to bring costs down. The only solution being that more money was needed to be invested into the boards to see those things accomplished.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has in his possession, I am assuming today, if not the final copy of the Best Practices Review on the Grenfell Regional Health Services, he certainly has a draft copy in his possession. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a copy of that particular report, but I would think that the report again, in its conclusion and conclusive estimates, would show that board, as well, in comparison to most boards and hospitals in Canada, is probably providing the most effective and efficient services for the costs and investments that they are presently having.

Mr. Speaker, there is the petition that I present today, and I will be certainly making further comments on this subject in future days in this House sitting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the youth in Labrador, regarding their request for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. Mr. Speaker, I present the petition today on behalf of the students from the beautiful Town of Makkovik, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the youth of Labrador have been asking of this government for quite some time, along with the town council and parents from all over Labrador, the need to build a auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area.

There are many programs that youth and adults alike take part in, in the Upper Lake Melville area, from time to time during the year which enhance the economy of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and it certainly gives people from all over Labrador and Newfoundland and other parts of the world the chance to come to Labrador and to perform.

Mr. Speaker, such a facility is badly needed in the Upper Lake Melville area, and it is certainly one that I fully support and the previous government fully support.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism today, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and to the Ministers Responsible for Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs, that they should take the lead on this, because I know the Member for Lake Melville has encouraged them and has requested that such a building be put there.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our youth in Labrador, and know that they lack such a facility, I think the onus is upon this government, regardless of the timing, to announce that the auditorium be announced immediately so that the children in Labrador can look forward to the coming years, and groups can book events in the Upper Lake Melville area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important issue. I think it is a sad day, to know that today, in 2004, a portion of Labrador lacks this facility.

I can say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when I was there money was identified in your department. I understand from a conversation with the town council from the Upper Lake Melville area last year that the money was still there.

Minister, I say to you, now is the time, with the Christmas season approaching, plans being made for next year, announce the money today, Minister, your government. Even though I was the minister who lobbied my government for it, I will give your government full credit; because this is not about politics. This is about providing a facility to the children in Labrador.

Minister, I call upon you and your Premier today, before this House closes for the fall sitting, that you and your government do the appropriate thing and announce the funding and give the children of Labrador this building that they so rightfully deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I will be back again tomorrow and the day after that to speak on their behalf again.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West concerning medical travel within the region, namely to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to obtain medical services that are not available in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, all other areas of Labrador can travel to either St. Anthony or Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the nominal fee of $40 return airfare. The people of my district have to pay nearly $500 to do the same thing. That is highly unfair, Mr. Speaker, to people who live in Labrador West. We should be treated the same as other people in other regions of Labrador when it comes to having to travel to Happy Valley-Goose Bay for CT scans or other services that are not available within our area.

I listened today, Mr. Speaker, to the question to the Minister of Health concerning money obtained recently, or in the process of being obtained from the federal government, when the plan for that will be developed so that people in Labrador can look forward to a more comprehensive form of subsidy for medical travel, Mr. Speaker.

I also asked the minister last week, myself, on behalf of the residents of Labrador West, the very same question. Mr. Speaker, it is important for this minister to fully understand what the needs of people are, particularly those in my district who now are paying through the nose while other people in the same area are getting their transportation for a nominal fee. That is discriminatory in nature, Mr. Speaker, and I ask government to address this problem immediately.

The number of people from my area, from my district, who have to travel to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I think the latest number that I heard is a little over 100 per year. At the cost of $400, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at probably in the neighbourhood of $40,000; not a huge sum for government to implement a policy covering air travel, but certainly, when a person is sick, it represents a lot of money from their personal pocket, their personal banking, in order to obtain the necessary medical treatments that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge government today to immediately review the medical travel subsidy plan with a view of including Labrador West in the travel subsidy package that currently exists and has existed in Labrador for the past thirty years, where people in Labrador West really did not know there was such a plan until a few short months ago, Mr. Speaker.

I ask government to do the honourable thing, to include Labrador West immediately in the plan that is in existence right now while a further comprehensive plan is being developed.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, is that where we are?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 2, that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. (Bill 39)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Enhance The Transparency And Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province," carried. ( Bill 39)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Enhance The Transparency and Accountability Of The Government And Government Entities To The People Of The Province. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 3, that the hon. Government House Leader, myself, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991. ( Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991. ( Bill 40)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the House of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991," carried. ( Bill 40)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act And The Elections Act, 1991," Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 6, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency, Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency, Bill 41.

It is the pleasure of the House that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency," carried. (Bill 41)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Government Purchasing Agency," Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 9, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991, Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991, Bill 50.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991," Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 10, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace, Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace, Bill 49.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, ‘An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace," carried. (Bill 49)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 11, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," carried. (Bill 47)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 12, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: It is the moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 48)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act," carried. (Bill 48)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, an Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. (Bill 36)

I believe the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has several minutes left where she adjourned debate the day before.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and, I do believe, there is about seven minutes remaining in her address to the House.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to have a couple of comments again today with regard to Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Mr. Speaker, I will not reiterate a lot of the comments that I made when I adjourned the debate last week, only to say that the legislation is not in line with the recommendations that were made by Mr. Dunne when he looked at this particular matter on behalf of government and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The legislation, in fact, still gives the minister the final veto power or approval power with regard to any licences within the Province. The intention of Mr. Dunne, and those that he consulted as part of the stakeholder process, was simply to set up a licensing board that would review and make recommendations as to how the licences should proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, like with any legislation, it is only as good as the government of the day is to enforce the legislation that they bring forward. I think that what we are seeing in this Legislature these days, with regard to the FPI Act, is a reluctancy to use the act and to use the legislation to push forward with the company to keep fish plants open in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if you are not going to use the legislation that you enact here I guess it is no better than the paper that it has actually been written on.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is really unfortunate for people in the Harbour Breton area, and in the Fortune area, that while there is legislation in the House of Assembly which could probably allow them to keep those plants open, to keep people in jobs in those communities, that it is not being used to the fullest extent, to the greatest power and control that the government has to implement those provisions within that act.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the explanations by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I have listened to the explanations by Fishery Products International, and I do not find either to be all that acceptable when you look at the rationale that they have for closing these plants and laying off workers. I am going to give you a very good reason, Mr. Speaker, because they talk about the currency level with regard to the Canadian-American dollar and the exchange rate, but the reality is, that every company in this Province and in Canada that exports outside has to deal with the currency issue. It is not an isolated issue to the fish business or to the fishing industry. It is an export issue that pertains to all those in the manufacturing sector and the export sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada.

The other reason they talked about was with regard to the processing sector in China and not being able to compete. Well, you can take that to whatever level you want because if that rule of thumb were to apply we would have no processing going on in Newfoundland and Labrador right now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we would not have new developments and expansions within the fishing industry, and it is happening.

Actually, on Friday I was on the Northern Peninsula and I stopped into Main Brook, and I was completely surprised to find in this community the actual starting up of a new processing facility, a processing facility that will do value-added fish product for export. Now, does that sound like a company which feels that the competition factor with China or that the exchange rate on the dollar is inhibitive of doing business and creating opportunity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? No, this was a private sector company investing well over a million dollars in private sector money to create a hundred jobs in a rural community in Newfoundland and Labrador. In what, Mr. Speaker? In the processing of a fish product and a valued-added product to export out of the Province, out of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is going on today as we speak. I toured the facility on Friday and it is giving new hope and new opportunity to this community. Do you think that a private sector individual would be investing well over a million dollars in the fish processing business in this Province today if they did see opportunity, if they did not feel they could be competitive, that they would be able to compete in a marketplace? I do not think so.

I talked to the gentleman who is doing this operation, who is investing this money. A very intelligent individual with thirty years invested in the fish processing sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Very optimistic, Mr. Speaker. He comes into this new investment, in this new business, with a wealth of knowledge of the world markets; has travelled and worked in various countries in the fishing sector. This is an individual who knows that he is putting his money in the right place and making the right investment, and he is not deterred by the currency and the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. He is not deterred by the fact that there is competition in China. He is not letting that stop him, but we are allowing FPI to use it as an excuse to stop their processing in Harbour Breton and Fortune, and possibly other communities like Bonavista.

That is not right, Mr. Speaker. If that was the case and that was the reality, and the minister when he stands and says that really believed it, we would see more companies in this Province closing down and shutting their doors. Right now he has the power of legislation to stop FPI from doing this, to allow them to give these other communities like Harbour Breton an opportunity to move forward and to invest for the future in the fishing sector, just like is happening in other places like Main Brook, in small communities in this Province where investments are being made in the fishery to move forward. They see a future.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think that what this is on FPI's part is an opportunity to offload some of these fish plants, to get rid of some of these workforces and to downscale its entire operation, not to make it profitable but to make it more profitable, because last year alone they earned $24 million in profit. This is not the sign of a company that is on the verge of bankruptcy. No, it is a sign of a company that is giving up on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and rural communities, and the government over there opposite is allowing it to happen. Allowing it to happen, because they are not using the act that has been enforced, voted on and supported by them in the House of Assembly.

Yet, today, we call Bill 36 another piece of legislation to enact in this Legislature for the Minister of Fisheries to be guided by, but it is only as effective as those who stand behind the legislation and are prepared to enact it.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that we have to use the legislation that we create here. We have to use the (inaudible) we have to keep plants like those in Harbour Breton open and working for the people in those communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has requested leave. Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very important bill. I did get an opportunity to say a few words on it last week, and it is important that I reinforce my comments today, because this bill was created out of a report that was done by Eric Dunne. Mr. Speaker, the recommendations by Mr. Dunne are not evident in this legislation. In fact, what Mr. Dunne recommended was that the licensing board would be separate from government. That was what he heard when he did the consultations around the Province. That was what committees reported to him. They wanted an arm's-length licensing board. What this legislation does, under Bill 36, is, it gives the minister the opportunity to veto or approve any recommendations of the licensing board. It is indeed not arm's-length, but rather it leaves the final decision with the minister again. Therefore, that is not concurring with the recommendations that were in the Dunne Report.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is all right to have legislation, but portray it in the light that it should be. Also, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to enact it in this House, be prepared to use it, just like the FPI Act. I say to the minister that he should be prepared to use that act right now to keep those plants open in those rural communities, because the reasons being given by FPI are not acceptable; the reasons being given by him, as the minister, are not acceptable. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are other private sector companies in this Province investing in the fishery today for export out of this Province, and they are not deterred by the exchange rate and they are not deterred by the processing sector in China. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they see a prosperous, bright future in the export industry in terms of the fishery and valued-added products in this Province.

Maybe the minister needs to use the power that he has in the Legislature, under the FPI Act, to show FPI that they will not be able to close down rural communities in this Province and lay off people at their own whim just so they can make their company more profitable, Mr. Speaker; not to generate a profit, but to be more profitable, because last year alone they generated more than $24 million in profits, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker. Yet, they say they have to be more profitable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable to me and I want to push the minister to make sure that he uses the FPI Act to keep those plants open in the Province. If he is not going to use the legislation, there is no point in bringing it to this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill 36 because of what I feel is the impact it will have certainly in rural Newfoundland. As the critic for Industry, Trade and Rural Development, I think it is incumbent upon me to speak to this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What rural development?

MS FOOTE: My colleague says, what rural development?, but let me get on, Mr. Speaker, with this bill.

When we talk about the legislation itself, and we talk about what is being proposed here by the government, and that is this whole idea of taking the board, or an advisory board, and having it report to the minister, that, I think, is cause for concern, Mr. Speaker.

The irony in all of this is that the Minister of Fisheries constantly refers to the political involvement by the previous government in anything to do with fisheries in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The irony here, Mr. Speaker, is that, when you look at what is being proposed, that is exactly what is being proposed. Contrary to what is recommended in the Dunne Report, that there would indeed be an arm's-length independent board, the minister and the government have chosen to ignore that particular recommendation by Mr. Dunne and instead look at an advisory board that would report to the minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, looking at that objectively, anyone would have to say that certainly does smack of political interference, and it certainly does not take into account all the work, all the research, that was done by Mr. Dunne in terms of putting together this report.

What we are seeing here in Bill 36, I think, can only be harmful to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It can only be harmful to the people who fish and the people who rely on the fishery and who are looking to the government for responsible decisions.

We see enough happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, Mr. Speaker, that it is harmful to the people who live there. Of course, I speak specifically today about what is happening in Harbour Breton, and the protest that is taking place in response to actions and decisions being taken by FPI, a company that existed, at least to my recollection, for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not to the detriment.

What we are seeing happening today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in Harbour Breton, is cause for concern, because when I look at what Mr. Rowe, Mr. Derrick Rowe, has said, the CEO of FPI, is that we can sacrifice a little piece. In fact, the headline in The Independent newspaper quoted Mr. Rowe as saying: ‘Sacrifice a little piece' Harbour Breton plant must shut down for greater good of FPI operation, CEO says.

Now, I can guarantee Mr. Rowe that the residents of Harbour Breton certainly do not consider themselves to be a little piece. In fact, they would consider themselves to be very much a contributor to what is happening in FPI in terms of the bottom line, not a detriment or a deterrent.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when you hear the CEO of FPI say: With the state-of-the-art Marystown plant not "anywhere near capacity," Rowe admits that FPI will be taking a closer look at its stable of aging plants.

Well, why didn't they take a closer look at the plant before now, especially in Harbour Breton, and invest, make the necessary investments in a plant like the one in Harbour Breton, so that instead of looking at a stable of aging - and I am assuming he means dilapidated - plants, that they would have made the investment and made sure that the plant was, in fact, safe and operable.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about rural Newfoundland, and I can speak personally about Fortune because Fortune is in my district. I know that when all the news broke about FPI and its plans with respect to its plants in rural Newfoundland, that the people in Fortune and surrounding communities were petrified; not sure of what to expect, knowing that they were waiting with abated breath as to whether or not the plant would actually operate in 2005. I stand here today having been told that, in fact, it will operate in 2005, which is good news for the people of Fortune and of Lamaline and of Point May and of Point au Gaul and all of these communities, and Grand Bank - people who, in fact, earn a living with FPI through the plant in Fortune. I am hoping there will be long-term benefits for the people who work in that particular plant, but today all we know is that in fact it will operate for 2005. We do not know yet what it will process. We know that FPI is not buying anymore H and G cod, but we do not know what other source of raw material will be processed in Fortune.

I am hopeful that, in fact, Fortune will be around for a long time, but when I hear comments by Mr. Rowe about the state-of-the art facility in Marystown and the fact that it is not full to its capacity and, therefore, they have to look at the stable of aging plants, I really do get concerned because I know the impact it will have on a rural community like Fortune if the one major employer in the community shuts its doors. And it will not be just the 350 people who work in the fish plant in Fortune who will be impacted, it will be all of those other businesses that will be impacted because they rely, of course, on the people who work in the fish plant to buy at their businesses. What we will see, of course, in addition to the closure of a major employer - if they shut their doors - you will then see the closure of other businesses because there will not be the money available to spend in those businesses.

I have a real problem with FPI and its decision when they talk about selling off the profitable arm of the company. Well, my concern will be is that if you have an arm that is being profitable, take the money and reinvest. Reinvest some of that money into the plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. Isn't that what FPI is supposed to be all about? I recall speaking with the former CEO of FPI, and that certainly was his understanding, that there was very much a social conscience connected with FPI. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that this government does what it is supposed to do under the FPI Act and ensure that plants operate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

How much wealth is too much wealth? How much wealth does a company expect to get? The last annual report that my colleague from Harbour Breton read when he was in the House last week - and today he is in Harbour Breton representing and walking with his constituents, where he should be, but I remember he quoted in an annual report that they had a profit of $22 million. Twenty-two million dollars. Well, how much money is enough money for the shareholders of FPI? I think it is about sharing the wealth. I think it is about recognizing why FPI exists and ensuring that the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador get to benefit from some of that wealth. There must be a social conscience with this company. I recognize it is a business, but I also recognize that it is a different business. It has two elements: one, of course, where it creates a wealth and, on the other hand, where it recognizes that it has a responsibility to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you talk about people who are involved in the fishery, these are people who work very hard. These are people who look to companies and who want to be able to trust their employers. These are people who go to sea under very hazardous conditions and make sure that they earn a living and thereby work as hard as they can for the companies that employ them. I know people who go out on these boats and they are out there in the most treacherous weather and hope to make a living out of it. Sometimes they go out and they fish for days and days and days and do not get their quota. Other days they go out and, of course, depending on where they go to fish, they do meet their quota and that is a good time for them.

Speaking of these men who go to sea, tonight in my district in Grand Bank, we have a fundraising event going on for the seamen's memorial, the Mariner's Memorial, which is a very unique memorial that is being erected to the memory of those men who go down to the sea in ships. I am sorry I cannot be there this evening but it is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to those men and to their families. It is a memorial that has a different approach, in fact, when instead of using a seaman as the monument - Luben Boykov, in fact, was the sculptor - we have a woman waiting, and those of you who visited Grand Bank would be very familiar with the homes in Grand Bank where they have a widow's walk. The sculpture is, in fact, a woman who is standing at a widow's walk wondering and waiting for her spouse or her brother or her son to come home from fishing.

Fishing is an industry. It is probably one of the most treacherous industries that you could be involved in. I know that there are so many in my district, which is primarily a fishing district, but you have to look at everybody who will be impacted by decisions to close down plants, and that includes our students, it includes our teachers, it includes everybody else who has a business in a community. We are talking rural Newfoundland. It is the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland. Yes, there are other opportunities in rural Newfoundland, and we need to cultivate those opportunities, we need to identify those opportunities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but at the same time we can never lose sight of that most traditional of industries that has made Newfoundland and Labrador what it is, and that is the fishery.

I am fearful, Mr. Speaker, that the decisions being taken by FPI, in concert with this government - because we have not heard anything to the contrary. We have not heard anything to the contrary, that they have spoken out, because we have not heard them speak out against the decision of FPI. They have the authority. Even the CEO of FPI has said he has two bosses: the shareholders of FPI and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, we have called on one of the bosses, who is supposed to have the social conscience, to make sure that FPI lives up to its commitment under the FPI Act.

To date, unfortunately, we have not heard a lot in the sense of the government being concerned, or speaking to FPI, or ensuring that plants in rural Newfoundland and Labrador continue to survive. Whether it is an issue with China, or whether it is an issue with the value of the dollar, or whether it is an aging plant, we need to work together. We need to find a solution and not just automatically say we are going to close a plant - we being FPI.

To have a comment like, ‘Sacrifice a little piece' for the greater good, that really concerns me, that anyone would suggest that closing down a plant that employs in excess of 400 people is sacrificing a little piece. What are they going to say when it comes to Fortune, where we have 350? What are they going to say when they come to Bonavista? What are they going to say when they come to Marystown? Because right now they are looking at Marystown as a state-of-the-art facility that is not filled to capacity. Well, when will the day come that they will no longer be able to continue to operate Marystown?

Mr. Speaker, with Marystown and with Fortune, and those major employers in those two communities not operating, that will be the death of the Burin Peninsula as we know it. Even though we are looking at an oil industry taking on there, and indeed other initiatives that are happening there, the fishery is so important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

You know, I talk about a rural plan, and the lack of a rural plan by this government, and I honestly believe that there is no plan. We have yet to see the vision, the vision that this government campaigned on, or what they said during the election, that, in fact, they had a plan. We are still waiting for it. All we have seen is closure of government offices. We have seen fee increases. We have seen failure to live up to health care commitments; and, of course, one that is very close to my heart is in Grand Bank where we have what is now called the largest gazebo in North America because we have steel standing up to what was meant to be a new health care facility, which was part of a seniors' home as well as a clinic to replace a dilapidated cottage hospital. The irony is that we have the CEO of FPI saying that they have to close down the Harbour Breton plant because it is in such dire state. If anyone were to walk into the clinic in Grand Bank and recognize that is where people go for health care, you would have the same thing being said.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that is exactly where this government is going in terms of making sure that decisions they are taking have some kind of basis for them, making up reasons why we should not do, or they should not do, things that they do not want to do, instead of being up front and honest about exactly where they are going, what their plan is for Newfoundland and Labrador, and rural Newfoundland in particular.

I am really concerned that the message that is being sent by Derrick Rowe of FPI is very much in keeping with the message of this government, that you sacrifice a little piece for the greater good.

Either you believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, either you believe in those communities that make us who we are and what we are as a Province - because, when we talk about tourism, we can talk about St. John's and we can talk about Corner Brook, but in reality when people come to Newfoundland and Labrador they come to visit the rural parts of our Province, those parts that make us different from Montreal, Halifax, Toronto or Vancouver.

Rural Newfoundland is what makes us who we are and what we are. It is our roots, our families, our ancestors. It is what we are about, hard-working individuals, particularly people who worked in the fishery and continue to work in the fishery.

My fear is that if we go down this path, if FPI is allowed to go down this path, Newfoundland and Labrador will never again exist as the Newfoundland and Labrador that we know and love. My concern is that those small communities that have worked so hard to survive, that have been here for hundreds of years, will find themselves going by the wayside, because the closure of one plant in a community like Fortune or Harbour Breton or Bonavista or Marystown would have a devastating impact on those communities and people will have no choice but to leave those communities, and where do they go? Where do they find employment? Where are you going to find 350 jobs in rural Fortune? Where are you going to find 400 jobs in Harbour Breton?

As much as we want to see the economy diversify, and as much as we worked hard as a government to work with the manufacturing sector and the tourism sector and every other sector that we could possibly work with people, there is a recognition that there is only so much that you can do. Therefore, we need to hold on to those industries that presently exist in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery being the main employer.

My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that if the fishery goes by the wayside, if we see more and more plant closures, then we will see more and more out-migration. I recall being very excited a year ago when, in fact, we stemmed the flow of out-migration; when, for the first time in years, we actually saw people moving back to the Province. That is what we need to see continued, but I am afraid that with decisions like this, with the lack of a rural strategy, with the lack of any kind of vision for Newfoundland and Labrador, especially for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we will once again see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians leaving this Province and looking to Alberta and looking to other provinces.

My concern again, Mr. Speaker, is that there does not seem to be any recognition, any kind of acknowledgment, by the government that this is a very real problem; that, in fact, if we do not act, if we do not exercise our authority under the FPI Act, then, in fact, that is exactly what will happen. More plants will close, because if they get away with one, if they get away with the closure of Harbour Breton, then is Fortune next? Is Bonavista next? What plant will be next?

Here we are talking Bill 36 and we are talking about legislation. Well, the FPI Act, we have a piece of legislation that deals with FPI. Here we are now talking about a piece of legislation where the minister is asking to have the authority, or to have established an advisory board that would report to the minister. For what purpose? We have an act now with respect to FPI and they are not enforcing that. So, why don't we just call a spade a spade? This piece of legislation is nothing more than to give the minister the political clout to influence decisions with respect to the fishery. Why don't we instead just do what the Dunne Report recommended, and put in place a board, an arm's-length independent board, so that we never have to be concerned about political interference?

It is time, Mr. Speaker, for this government to recognize that it is falling down on the job, that many of the commitments that were made to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that resulted in them being elected and forming the government have not been adhered to. People recognize it. You can go anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, and even people who voted for this government will say to you: Why did we do that? How did we do that? How did we ever let ourselves be talked into voting for change just for the sake of change?

We know it happens. We know that after governments have been in for awhile there is a sense that we need to change. We don't know why. Even though things were going good, we don't know why, but let's vote for a change. Unfortunately, the change that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are experiencing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SHELLEY: By leave. Half an hour (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.

MS FOOTE: I thank the Minister of Tourism for the half an hour to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, we really do need to pay serious attention to what is happening under the direction of this government, and I call on them to use their authority to work with FPI to make sure that the plants in rural Newfoundland and Labrador continue to survive. I also call on the government to recognize what the Dunne Report says, and to go with the recommendation in the Dunne Report instead of the political interference that I think would come from establishing an advisory board that would report to the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to make a few remarks on Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, and I will confine most of my thoughts, Mr. Speaker, to the bill itself.

What this bill does is very simple. What this bill does, and I will state it here - I will read directly from the bill - the objective of this bill is to appoint a board, and, "The objectives of the board are (a) to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding fish processing licensing applications including applications for new licences, and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences...".

Also, what this bill does is allow for the appointment of a five-member board to look at applications that are submitted to the minister's office to look at the establishment of new fish processing licences or the transfer of licences or the consolidation of licences within the fish processing sector of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unlike some of the other comments said earlier, Mr Speaker, this gives the minister the right to refuse the application as it is submitted. The board has the right to make recommendation. The minister has the final say. That is normal with just about every other piece of legislation that you see brought into this House here, but it will not be able to be done in a secret way. In fact, it clearly states, "The minister shall consider a recommendation of the board made to him or her under paragraph 10(2)(c) and shall, following his or her decision with respect to the application, release both the recommendation of the board and his or her decision regarding the application first to the applicant and then to the public."

So, not only will the recommendations of the minister be known, but the recommendations of the board will be known as well. So, it will not be a situation as we have seen in the past where the minister, without any due recognition to what anybody says, go out and start granting processing licences or the transfer of licences. We do not have to think - in fact, many people who are sitting on that side of the House today know full well what happened within our shellfish processing sector a few short years ago when the then Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the now minister representing Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa, went out and doubled the number of crab licences in this Province.

I did not hear anybody over on that side of the House at that time get up and have any problem with what was happening in the granting of processing licences. All that minister did at that time, all was done at that time, and with the full consultation and the full agreement that people who are sitting opposite today - and try to point holes in a piece of legislation, which is a good piece of legislation. It is transparent. It is open to the public. What they did at that particular time was acknowledge the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the now minister representing Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa, go out and double the number of crab licences, and I will tell you what was done. There was not one job created. It was the transfer of jobs from one area to another. In fact, many people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador will tell you that it was the transfer of poverty from one community to another, because today in communities that had crab licences and were the only licences for that particular company in that particular town would have seen their plants, today, operating for probably eighteen or twenty weeks a year. Today, we see them operating for ten, eleven and twelves weeks a year, processing half the amount of crab that they would normally process.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and name communities that should or should not have a licence, but I will talk in particular about Bonavista. When I hear Bonavista mentioned by members opposite, talking about Harbour Breton being closed today, Fortune tomorrow, Bonavista the next day, I say to people that we should not go out fearmongering.

The Leader of the Opposition was on Open Line Friday morning - I did not hear it, so I am only talking about the story that was told to me by somebody else - talking about the announcement of Harbour Breton being closed, talking about Fortune being cut back and probably closed, and went on to say: Bonavista is next because Triton ordered double the number of boxes that they ordered last year. How silly, because Triton ordered double the number of boxes. Mr. Speaker, I worked in the fishing industry for thirteen years and it was not uncommon for any plant to order quadruple the number of boxes one year than they had in the first year. It was stored in a building. It was stored in dry storage. When production time came it was taken and shipped to the plants where it was needed.

I was flooded with phone calls from people in Bonavista saying: What is this I am hearing about the Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, talking about Bonavista closing? So my thoughts were: boy, look, you can only talk about what you heard the member say. As far as I know it is untrue. Every meeting that I have had with Fishery Products International they said it is business as usual, but I picked up the phone. I said maybe there is a new development. Maybe something has happened since three weeks ago when I sat in the boardroom of FPI and we talked about Bonavista. Maybe something has happened. I picked up the phone and asked for a couple of individuals, and within ten minutes I had a phone call back. I said: Boys, this is what I am hearing. Is there any truth to it? The Leader of the Opposition was on Open Line and I am being flooded with calls. They said: Roger, there is not one iota of truth to what the Leader of the Liberal Party said about Bonavista. Not one iota of truth.

Mr. Speaker, what do you do? Is that fearmongering? Well, I suggest to you that it is. Maybe something will happen tomorrow. Maybe something will happen two years down the road. There is always a struggle. There is always a challenge with fish plants in every one of our districts, and me, having a plant in Bonavista, another one in Port Union, another one in Plate Cove, I know what people go through when they even hear a rumble, a rumour, of what might happen. I would say it is irresponsible to throw those - not facts, this propaganda out there, those untruths and put people's lives in agony just for the sake of scoring political points. That is not the way things should be, I say to members opposite. If you have facts, then put them forward, but do not go putting people's lives and their livelihood on the line just to score political points. That is not the way it should be done.

Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened in relation to Bonavista. That is what has happened with my phone call to Fishery Products International. Now, none of us here in this House takes any comfort, none of us here in this House, whether you sit with the Opposition, whether you sit with the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservation Party, not one person here wants to see anybody lose their jobs. That is not what we are all about. I understand that, and everyone of us here. People watching the House of Assembly telecast on television last Wednesday heard people speak one after the other in support of the people in Harbour Breton and the need to keep that plant open, and the importance of the plant to the community, and the 350 people who work there, and the 2,000 people who live there. Everybody here in this House would like to see some resolution brought to that problem, but that is not what we are talking about here today in this particular debate. We are talking about a piece of legislation. We are talking about a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, an act - I cannot even find the piece of legislation now, somebody must have taken it from me.

Mr. Speaker, it is Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. We have debated this piece of legislation in caucus. We have talked about it. I have talked about it privately with the minister and I think it is a good piece of legislation. It is encouraging for me as a member, as a backbencher, to see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture bring forward a piece of legislation that says: Before I make decisions that are going to affect people's lives, affect communities, I would like to be able to refer it to a board to make recommendations so that I might have some help in determining whether I should grant a new fish processing licence, or whether I need consultation on whether we should transfer a licence. We need to get other people involved. That is all this particular bill is doing, I say to members opposite. It is going to appointment a five member board. That board, Mr. Speaker, will elect its own vice-chairperson. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council will appoint the chairperson to that board. That particular board, this five member board that was set for a four-year term, will advise the minister. Now that is what I thought we were all about. I thought that is what people wanted, for us to reach out and ask people to give us advise; to advise the minister where processing licences should be established or if they should be transferred. That is what this piece of legislation does. To tie it in with all of the other things that are happening within the fishing industry is not what this bill does and it is certainly not doing justice to this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support Bill 36. I speak in favour of it and we can talk about the fishing industry until the end of the day if we want to here. We all have plants and we have people involved in the fishing industry, most of us who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and nobody here will belittle what the fishing industry means to the people who live in those communities or live in those towns. It is their livelihood. It is the only job that they know. People have gone to work in those fish plants for some thirty-five and forty years. They find themselves fifty-five years old now without a job, without an education, well trained fisheries workers. Where do they find a job? None of us, Mr. Speaker, are numb to what is happening in places like Harbour Breton and other places where the axe might fall in years to come, but let's not go out and use what is happening in one or two places today, let's not use that as propaganda. Let's not use it for political purposes, to put other people's lives in jeopardy and to put fear in them that they could be the next, even though they may, but we will deal with that when those decisions are made.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this is a good bill. It is a bill that tells what this government is all about. It is a government that reaches out to consult and ask for advice, and to look for information, and to take advice, and to make good, clean decisions, not like what happened back a few years ago when the present Minister of Natural Resources in Ottawa doubled the number of crab licences and left many people in some of our towns without enough work weeks to qualify for EI. We see a dwindling resource in the crab industry today. We see the proud people who never, ever, had to go and look for a make-work project. Well, they always looked for EI because most of those places were seasonal operations, but they did not have to go and look for make-work projects.

I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, that in some of our fishing communities we have the most artificial economy that you could ever create, because not only do you have people receiving EI, but in a lot of those communities today - and it all relates back, for the most part, in some of them, for decisions that were made by a former minister who sat over here, who is a member of that party that sits over there. Now you are having people having to reach out and access make-work projects, access job creation projects, in order to qualify for EI.

You talk about an artificial economy; that is the kind of economy that was created by decisions made by that party over there when they were in power over here, and they decided to go and double the number crab licences.

All they did - and I will repeat again - is transfer jobs from one area to another. Not one new job was created. Well, we are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not going to do that, I can assure you, because he is going to appoint a five-member board and he is going to take advice. He will accept their recommendations and make it transparent, and will advise everybody in this Province of what the recommendations of the board were and what his recommendations will be. It will not be done in secret. It will not be done behind closed doors. It will be transparent and everybody in this Province will know what the recommendations were and what decisions were made.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 36.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak to the bill as well. I can say to the member who just spoke that today I will speak of fear, but I can assure the Member for Bonavista South that it is not fearmongering but rather, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker, just as we listened to the members on the government side now talk of us when we were in government, let me go back in time. When the Labrador fishery was on the go and CBC had the documentary of the Labrador fishery, we saw men and women from Newfoundland board the coastal boats and come to Labrador for the fishery, Mr. Speaker, and we welcomed them there. We saw the government of the day, the Progressive Conservative government, build (inaudible) the best plant that money could buy, for Newfoundland fishermen, while the community of Rigolet couldn't get five cents to put into a stagehead. We watched when the government of the day hooked up running water and the Town of Rigolet couldn't get five cents for water and sewer. Mr. Speaker, that was then.

If we made mistakes, or if I made a mistake when I was on that side, then I will live with that for the rest of my life, but there is something far more important here today, Mr. Speaker. We have a chance to fix things.

Mr. Speaker, blame is something that is very easy, but I was very hesitant today to speak on the fishery because, to me, it would open up a lot of hurt and a lot of wounds. Perhaps I should go back to the closure of the cod fishery, Mr. Speaker, when the governments of the day outlined the criteria for the cod moratorium and for the TAGS program.

Mr. Speaker, when the governments of the day outlined the criteria for the TAGS program, it was based on your catches over a two-year period; and, Mr. Speaker, during these years that they based the moratorium or the TAGS program or NCARP, there was not one fish to be caught on the North Coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, during these years that they based the moratorium, or the TAGS program, or NCARP, there was not one fish to be caught on the North Coast of Labrador, the pride of the cod fishing industry for many years.

Mr. Speaker, we faced devastation. We had an all-party committee that was selected to go to Ottawa to fight for more money for the TAGS program. I was there, and the Member for Bonavista can recall, I spoke very passionately about the people and what it meant to them.

Mr. Speaker, when the cod fishery came into effect, or the moratorium, where the people on the North Coast never received any funding, let me say this: Imagine the hurt and the anger that these people had, when they could not afford to buy their spouse a Christmas card, Mr. Speaker, let alone a Christmas present.

If that is fair, Mr. Speaker, it is fair, but I can guarantee you it is the truth, because that is what happened to the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

We saw the salmon fishery fail on the Island portion of this Province. The Labrador salmon fishery was strong, but what did the governments of the day do? They pumped millions of dollars into salmon farms, that killed the salmon fishery in Labrador. Again, no one came to their rescue.

We saw how governments of the day took the eggs from the char, the Arctic char, in Northern Labrador, and started char farms. Again, no help to the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the seal fishery fail, by protesters who destroyed the seal fishery. Yet, Mr. Speaker, for almost every Newfoundlander who went to the front, they did it as a second income because they were involved with the cod fishery; but, for the Aboriginal people on the North Coast of Labrador, the seal fishery was their main income, and we saw that destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, the devastation that the people on the North Coast faced, and are still recovering from today, I hope that it never happens to people in Harbour Breton, Bonavista, or anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we talk of the Atlantic Accord, of where we are supposed to get 100 per cent of our resources, but there is a far more important message today in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - it is far more important than the Atlantic Accord - and that is, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should stand together to make sure that the disaster that happened on the North Coast of Labrador never happens anywhere else. The minister is bringing in a bill which is going to appoint a five-member committee, but I think they should find ways to answer to someone other than government.

Mr. Speaker, looking back over the years, to see people on the North Coast of Labrador - we heard the previous speaker mention a gentleman fifty-five years old. Well, there is a gentleman in the Town of Postville who is seventy-seven years old. He fished for over fifty years and he was never given the opportunity to sell his groundfish license. The reason why, Mr. Speaker: With the cod moratorium, the people on the North Coast of Labrador were told they didn't qualify for a TAGS program and when they tried to sell their groundfish licenses they were told, you are not on TAGS, so you don't qualify for the buyback; another smack, Mr. Speaker, that hurt the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the other day I heard the Member for Bonavista South speak very passionately of the fishing industry and what it means to people in his riding. Mr. Speaker, I was never one to speak a long time on an issue, but as I started out by saying, we should never, ever let happen to people, like those in Harbour Breton, what happened to the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Blame, Mr. Speaker: Yes, we can blame people back and forth, the things that the Progressive Conservative Government did when they were in power, the things we did when we were in power, but we need to get a hold on our fishing industry for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our heritage, it is our culture. Mr. Speaker, we built our Province on the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the bill goes far enough, that we need to find a way where someone, other than government, will have the final say as to what happens to the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I will end off by saying this: No government and no minister, whether it is provincial or federal, should have the right to do to the people in Harbour Breton, in Bonavista, or in any other part of this Province, as they did to the people on the North Coast of Labrador. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need to stand together and be strong, united, to fight for rural Newfoundland and Labrador because there is a rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the part that is going to help build our future.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today that I find it very difficult to support the bill because, to me, there is no proof that when the time comes that the ability to help the people, like in Harbour Breton and in other communities around Newfoundland and Labrador, that this bill does not go far enough. I would have great difficulty in supporting this bill, but that is a bill. I will just say it for the last time again, that we, as an Opposition, they, as a government, need to make sure that what happens to the people in Harbour Breton and rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who depend upon the fishery for an income, that we need to make sure that it never happens to them as to what happened on the North Coast of Labrador.

So, with that, I will say to the minister, I find it very difficult to support this bill because it does not go far enough and I am sure that we need to find ways to make it much stronger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to have a few words about this today, and I want to thank the Member for Torngat. I certainly remember, Mr. Speaker, being in Ottawa with the member and yourself, and did speak about their areas of the Province and how important this whole industry is for us. The debate goes on and on everyday in this House and throughout the Province as we talk about the fishing industry and the struggles in every single community, because I can tell you, firsthand, that I have seen them.

As a matter of fact, we do not want to go back too far in history but I will remind the member that in 1993 my very first questions in this House of Assembly, the very first day I was in here - and for any new members, they know what I am talking about. The first day you stand on your feet in debate but I stood the very first day on Question Period when, at the time, in 1993 the community of Fleur de Lys in my district went through a very tough time when we saw a transfer of licences. We will not go into the details of that today, but I saw that firsthand. Of course, the people in my own district came into the House of Assembly that day for me to ask questions as to what happened to their licences. Without getting into the specifics of that, that, in fact, is the whole debate today of when we talk about licensing. Yes, we can name ministers and previous Administrations, some members are doing that, but to go there really opens up a whole debate that we have talked about for years in this Province about where we got to where we are now when it comes to licensing in this Province. Who got the licences, why they got them and under what circumstances and so on. That is where that whole debate went. Instead of pointing fingers - I agree with the member. Instead of pointing fingers at administrations or particular ministers and so on, we know that that happened.

I have to commend the minister today, my colleague, who knows the fishery, I believe, very well. I think this is a proactive, progressive move on his part and on the part of this government, to move forward and have this type of process, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, because, in fact, this will make the process public. Not what I had to go through in 1990-1993 to get some answers of why things were happening; exactly what happened. Instead of walking in through the backdoor of a minister's office or finding a meeting somewhere privately, they had: this will be a public process. This will be a public process, not unlike the FRCC who makes recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries right now. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, ultimately it will be back to the minister, but in most cases the public will know the process. That is exactly what has happened throughout this Province for so long. As the member talked about earlier, the number of licences in the last number of years, sixteen licences. There are a lot of questions unanswered. What really happened? Who went where? Where are they in the Province? If you put the map on the wall and look at where the licences have been over the last number of years, some were transferred and new licences were put in. A lot of questions that were never, ever answered.

Mr. Speaker, what this really does - and the member knows it and all members opposite know it - this will give a public process. This will give it an open look to let you know what the recommendations are, the same as the FRCC gives recommendations to the minister. That is a public process. The public then knows what pressure is on the minister to do the right thing, and that is what the key thing is here. I say to the member, when he says this does not go far enough: Well, at least it is going somewhere. We are in the right direction. That gives that process what we have been looking for, so that I, like other members of this House, do not have to stand in this House and ask questions about why licences got transferred, why new licences went there, why another licence went there. All of these questions keep coming out, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the member - any rural member in this House of Assembly can tell you - that as you sit here today, everyday in this House of Assembly, or if you watch the news, you are wondering what the fate of the community and the fish plant in your area is. We all feel like that. I have two fish plants in my area, La Scie and Little Bay Islands right now, at two ends of the district. They are very important. They are the lifeline, of not just the communities, but all of those communities around them. My district has thirty-five communities spread out, but I am going to tell you today - and the Speaker knows it because of his own District of Bonavista South - that everyday that goes by a worker might come up with a rumour or a speculation or something of what is going to happen to their plant tomorrow because it is their lifeline. It is the lifeline of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have said many times in this House of Assembly, the fishing industry is what got us here. It is what brought us here. It is what makes this Province unique. So, nobody has a monopoly on the pride of their community when it comes to the fishing industry.

When you deal with people on a daily avenue, Mr. Speaker, of asking questions about: What is going to happen to our plant next year? Where am I going to be? I feel for the people of Harbour Breton because I know, I have gone through the same thing in my own district. When you go around the north east coast, the south coast, west coast and Labrador, you will find that everybody is wondering what is going to go on with the fishing industry. What will happen? Whoever thought that we would have seen the 1992 moratorium and the feeling in the Province that day when that announcement came down?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all have it on our minds. Well, what is going to happen with the crab industry? What is going to happen with the shrimp industry? Because it is not just a job for people, as I have heard members say very often. It is not a job they are talking about, it is a way of life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is what is going to keep us there, for the people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The people in La Scie and Little Bay Islands in my district now, at two different ends of the district, Mr. Speaker, but it keeps the entire district hopeful when we hear that La Scie had a good year and a good summer, and we hear reports from Little Bay Islands that they had a good summer and they are looking forward to next summer. That means investment by other sectors. It is a full cycle. That is how important it is, Mr. Speaker. So, nobody underestimates the importance of the fishing industry. Consultation with fishermen in the industry, that is a big thing that has been lacking for a long time but this process of a licensing board brings the process to public light. The minister knows that. He will be looking for recommendations from them and he will carry on from there, but it is certainly a step that is out there. It is something that is different from what we have done in the past.

I have experienced that firsthand when I stood the very first day in this House and asked questions to then Premier Clyde Wells. It was not an easy task asking those questions, being a brand new member of this House of Assembly; to ask those questions directly to the Premier of the day to try to get some answers for the people of Fleur de Lys who saw their plant move out from under them. They had some very good arguments as to why it should never have happened. Of course, even to this day, as I listen to the Premier of the day answer my questions and then after to read Hansard and then ask questions again in a meeting. I never did get the answers.

Mr. Speaker, at least on a go forward basis now we have a minister who is going to deal with the board, a five member board that is going to give him recommendations. The whole process will be out there for everybody to see, why licences transferred, why there is a new one, whatever happens with the licensing process. Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the member for doing this and for this government to take this aggressive, progressive move to at least look at licensing in this Province as a whole. Yes, there have been many mistakes in the past, as the member said, from all ends, from all ministers, from the administration, but this is a chance to move forward in a positive light.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister. I think, as the board gets put in place and so on, you will see some interesting debate, of course, on licensing. It always is an interesting debate, because you are talking about the fate of communities, and where our future lies.

Mr. Speaker, this is something progressive. I would like to see some members on the opposite side stand up and support it, and say it is in that direction, and in a good light, and that we move forward on this bill. I support the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the opportunity to be able to stand and make a few comments with reference to Bill 36 in its second reading, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

I want to say that we, on this side, support the establishment of the board, there is no question about that, so I guess there is very little more to add to it. I will get to that part a little later on, where I believe that what is being done here is good, there is no doubt about it, it is a recommendation that was brought forward by the Dunne Report, but I believe that it has not gone the distance that the Dunne Report had requested, and that would be the independent board part of it, arm's length.

However, having said that, I agree with the previous speaker, that all of the time when we stand in this hon. House - and I know we all have to play our roles as Opposition and government, but all too often - and I agree with the former minister who just took his place - what happened in the past is over with. We all know there were mistakes made. There is no two ways about it, from time to time. I believe this piece of legislation, when it goes through - and hopefully, maybe, with an amendment - that it is on the right track and the things that happened in the past will not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to section 9.(1), I just want to touch on that section for a second, where it mentions the powers and the duties of the board. It lists from 9.(1)(a) to (d) what the board shall consist of, and the only comment I was going to make there is that as we speak, to my understanding, the professional staff at the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I think they carry out mostly those duties that are listed there from (a) to (d). Then they make the recommendations which go forward to the minister.

If we look at section 9.(1)(e), it goes on to say, "after considering a matter referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d), make a recommendation, including its reasons for that recommendation, to the minister with respect to a course of action on that matter."

I personally, Mr. Speaker, and I think the people on this side, agree with all of that, right up through, but I am just suggesting that maybe what should have been done there was that it would continue on and that the minister would carry out the wishes of that particular recommendation that was brought forward by the board.

Mr. Speaker, you hear from time to time with regard to if anything is at arm's length. We hear it, I guess, not only with this issue but many other times, but I am a little confused because, from what I can understand, and I am not being critical with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we are saying here that when the recommendations are brought forward from the board they will go to the minister and then he will decide. He may go with their recommendations, and the possibility is there that he may not.

Then we have the FPI Act, where we heard many other members of this hon. House bring it forward, that the minister has the power there to probably step up to the plate and say to FPI, this is what should or should not be done. I guess the lives of the fishers and the whole community in Harbour Breton, as we speak, are devastated, and they are hoping, I guess, the board that is together dealing with those issues will be resolved in a favourable manner.

All too often, Mr. Speaker, when we make comments in this hon. House, we hear the calls back and forth. I know that is a part of the process, and what we are saying they listed as rumours or we are fearmongering. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, for the record, that I, as one - and I am sure I can speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the House - when the comments were made with regard to Harbour Breton closing, with the thought of within the next year or so that Fortune may lose 90 per cent of the produce that they are doing the work with in their plant, and also, Mr. Speaker, when the comments were made in The Independent with regard to some issues around Bonavista and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when those comments were made from this side they were not fearmongering or rumours on our behalf. Those were comments that were coming, I guess, from the speeches or the comments that were made by the President of FPI. I take exception to it when you say we are fearmongering when we bring this up.

I heard my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, when she mentioned about a good news story in I think it was Main Brook, and I can corrected on that, about a private investor in the private sector who was investing in excess of $1 million to carry out a business venture there. I thought it was very interesting how she went on to say that, you know, here we are hearing FPI telling the people in different communities that the main reason - it started out to be the condition of the plant. Then they went on to say the value of the dollar played a major part, and the Chinese processing factor was another issue, when here is a gentleman, here in our Province, who has a very positive note, and he is investing in the very same thing. I am sure that we are all looking forward to seeing that his business venture continues to prosper.

We have heard, Mr. Speaker, prior to and during the election, and since then, that this government has a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt they do, and probably we are not seeing it the way we should be seeing it because it is not unveiled yet. Well, I just want to say that if there is to be a real plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if rural Newfoundland and Labrador is to be revitalized, it has to be built around the sea and the fishery. It is what kept us here for 500 years, and I think if we are to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it still has to be involved around the fishery, even though we have many other major industries coming on stream, millions and billions of dollars coming our way - and we deserve all that, I am not saying that - but if we are to survive here for the long haul, I think it has to be built around the fishery. I am very fortunate, I guess, to come from a district and I do not have the major problems that many of my colleagues on this side of the House and the other side have at this point in time, but we never know when something will happen and strike home to us as well.

This summer, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel fairly extensively within our Province and help with our tourism industry. I can tell you, when I went into places such as Lark Harbour, Rocky Harbour, Point Leamington, La Scie, Fleur de Lys, Eastport and Salvage, all the way up the Burin Peninsula and the Baccalieu Trail, I want to say the people in those communities are concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I had one old gentleman, who is a retired fisherman - and I could be wrong, but I thought it was in Fleur de Lys when he made the comment to me - who said: My son, if we don't get something going in our fishing communities related to the fishery, related to what we have done all our lives here, it is just as well to roll up the pavement and move us out.

That was a sad commentary and he was very sincere, right from the heart, when he made those comments. I think we have major concerns in rural Newfoundland, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have to continue on and do whatever is proper for the fishery in this Province, for our plant workers and our fishers. When it come to Bill 36, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the fish processing licensing board, I, as the Member for Port de Grave, have no problems with the actual board, but I don't think it has gone far enough. That was suggested to be an independent board, to be at arm's-length. It was recommended by the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, those are my comments on this. I think it is a good piece of legislation but I think we have to go that extra mile. I think the hon. minister said it is a good start. Well, we have it here now. I agree it is an excellent start, but I believe now is the time to make that one little amendment, make that one little correction, and go on and say that this board, when they recommend it to the minister, that the minister should carry out their recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to be able to take a few moments to speak on Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fishing Processing Licensing Board.

Mr. Speaker, as I sat here and listened to a number of the speeches, I thought about how important the fishery is to Newfoundland and Labrador. We realize today, and I am sure most members in this hon. House realize today, that the fishery in this Province is the most important industry in this Province. Newfoundland and Labrador has had a foundation built on the fishery and our revenue comes from the fishery.

Just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I actually spoke to the Member for Gander. I said, the fact of the matter is that Gander actually profits and has had the fishery. The reason I said that is because I remember going into a car dealership a while ago in Gander and one of the people there from the car dealership said to me - it was actually just after the moratorium was announced - and he said: You know, we don't sell cars at all now. We cannot sell vehicles in Gander. We cannot sell these vehicles because people, all of the sudden, have no money. The moratorium actually affected even Gander. I am sure there are no codfish in Gander Lake, as we just talked about a few moments ago, but really the fishery is so important to this Province.

My mind went back, actually, to the early 1990s when I owned a convenience store, and the convenience store was located just next to the fish plant in Glovertown. When the fish plant was operating our business was booming, we did very, very well, but as soon as that fish plant closed down for a few days or a few weeks, the business that we did was cut down by 600 per cent. That is how much less business we did in that convenience store. So, yes, the fishery is so important to this Province and we realize that, and not only the fishery, when we look at the fisher people who go out on the water and make their living through the fishery, but, of course, as Bill 36 talks about, the processing of the fish. Today, as I said, I just want to speak about this legislation because it really does affect my district; it does affect this Province.

The fishery in this Province has been going through such changes. You know, the ground fishery was a big fishery. Codfish was a big thing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We see the pictures of the boatloads of codfish that would come in, and the fishermen would be taking those fish and driving these - I used to call them - picks into them, and putting them up on the wharf, and people were almost waist deep in codfish. Of course, today we have seen that change. Today, we have seen the crab fishery take over what the cod fishery was to Newfoundland and Labrador, and it has become such lucrative business in this Province.

The problem we see, Mr. Speaker, is the way that licences were issued in the past in this Province for the crab fishery, the fishery, and the processing sector in this Province. A lot of times it was very political, and that creates a problem within this Province, when things are done because of politics, when it is politically motivated. We saw that happen just a few short years ago, actually, in 1997, when fourteen more licences for crab were issued. We know that the former minister issued those licences even though we knew that we would eventually have trouble within the crab fishery, that we could not sustain the amount of product that was in the ocean. Still, because of politics, there were those extra fourteen licences that were given out in 1997. That creates a problem for this Province and it creates a problem for our processing plants.

When I listen to the hon. Member for Bonavista South taking about the fact that, at one point in time within the crab fishery and within a number of the fish plants, there were probably eighteen or nineteen weeks work for the workers, and when all of this started to come around we started to issue more licences, and all of a sudden we had a major problem. What happened? The people could not get the weeks work. All of a sudden there would be eight weeks work in the plant for the year rather than eighteen weeks work, and it created a massive problem.

What the government is talking about doing with Bill 36 is, I believe, we want to stabilize our plants. We want to stabilize our processing plants in this Province, and Bill 36 will certainly do that. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador needs this bill. We need it desperately. We want to see some accountability, and we also want to see more return for what we have in our waters.

I just want to make a very important statement today, and this is that the fishery in this Province is our fishery. It is our fish, it is our product, and we want to get the best we can get out of it. We have to enhance product quantity, and we have to get the greatest return from processing our fish. We need jobs in this Province, there is not a question about that, and we cannot afford to play politics.

I want to commend the minister today for bringing forth this Bill 36. It always comes with mixed reviews, of course. Some people think Bill 36 is good, and some people think that Bill 36 is not good, but I believe today that Bill 36 is a very positive move forward for this Province. I believe that we need to support this bill and we need to have stability. So many times I have seen in the past how ministers have, as I said before, tried to manipulate the situation so that they could gain political points, and this will take this away; just the very fact that we will put in place a board that will work properly.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about what will happen with the procedures that will be followed, of course, and the objectives of the board that will be put in place because of Bill 36. The objectives of the board, of course, number one, is, "(a) to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding fish processing licensing applications, including applications for new licences, and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences; (b) to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding applications for the addition of new species to existing fish processing licences, and where appropriate, make recommendations regarding licensing on a regional basis; ( c) to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding corporate concentrations, merger and acquisition issues in the context of fish processing licensing matters, and (d) those other objectives that the minister may determine."

Now, I heard a couple of members from the opposite side talk about the fact that, well, it would be great if we just adopted what was in the Dunne Report and say we are going to put this board in place, we are going to give them all the authority and take all the authority from the minister completely, but I believe it is very important that the minister have the opportunity to look at what is recommended.

Now, I do not think for one moment that anybody thinks that the minister is going to go completely against what this established board is going to put in place, but I believe the minister will help enhance the decision that is made by this board and he will help bring it and bring balance within this whole situation.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, as I said before, we do need this legislation. This is actually an example of a new approach for this Province. We spoke about this in the Blue Book. People are looking for new and better leadership, and we are working towards that, and this is a great example of what we are actually doing.

I feel good about this because I know that fish plants in my area need to have stability. We cannot be issuing licences to plants all over the place. The problem is, of course, Mr. Speaker, that today we may be getting eight or ten weeks work, but if we continue to play politics with this issue and not develop this board that we are looking at, what will happen in the future is, rather than get eight to ten weeks work, we are looking at rural Newfoundland and Labrador fish plants, processing plants in the Province of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, picking up four or five weeks work, and it will get worse and worse.

This bill will help this work out in a better way. Providing good leadership is exactly what this government, as I said before, is all about. I am certainly proud to be able to support Bill 36. I am sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are looking today for new leadership. They are looking for a better plan for processing our fish. They are looking for a better plan to provide jobs to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I support Bill 36 and I am certainly happy to be a part of what we are doing today in the fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 on Bill 36. One would be somewhat confused, I am sure, if you are out in TV land today listening to the hon. member who just made comments, who is somehow equating this Bill 36 with new leadership, new directions and new focus. I mean, nothing could be further from the truth. There is no difference being brought about by Bill 36 in terms of leadership than who is making the recommendations. All Bill 36 is doing - and let's not confuse it with the Dunne Report - is saying, instead of, or in addition to, the ninety-five people we have in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture who currently advise the minister, we are, in addition to those public servants, going to create a board, put five people on it, and they will also advise the minister and make recommendations. There is no big change in leadership.

This is coming from a government, by the way, that in every other area has chopped boards to pieces. Whether it be school boards, whether it be hospital boards or whatever, we see chop, chop, cut down, and all for good purposes supposedly: efficiencies, savings on administrative costs. There is nothing wrong with those objectives of cutting down the numbers of boards, but yet you see this creation of a new board with five people.

What the people also have to understand is, let's not confuse what is in the public realm with being open and transparent. There is a totally different meaning. Just because something is made public - for example, you are going to have a board who is going to publicly say that we recommend a, b, c or d - that does not make anything necessarily open and transparent, everybody can see through it and know what was done.

We are dealing here with an issue of who does or does not have any commentary on when licences get issued - one of the things in this bill. This is another board that is going to make some commentary on it and some recommendations to the minister.

I noticed the Member for Baie Verte earlier too, and the member who spoke just before me, he commented about: Surely, the minister would not go and do something that is contrary to what the board recommended. In fact, the Member for Baie Verte made mention of the FRCC. Surely God, a public body that is open and transparent, like the FRCC, dare a minister not take the recommendations of that board. You would not see such a thing happen. Well, I do not know where everybody was in the spring of 2003 when the FRCC recommended a limited fishery in the Gulf for cod and we had a certain fisheries minister, named Minister Thibault, who said: Thank you very much FRCC, but I am not buying your recommendation. There is so much for openness, there is so much for transparency, there is so much for so-called leadership. I do not see much difference between the FRCC and the realm of what they make recommendations on and what this board here is making recommendations on.

We are speaking here in second reading as well about the general principle of the bill and what we feel about it. Just for the record, I am opposed, in principle, to Bill 36. That is for some of the reasons, because you cannot support it because you think it has something to do with leadership. It has nothing to do with leadership.

One piece of Bill 36 I do agree with. I do not mind saying right off the top, I agree with it. It is listed as section 4(c). I wholeheartedly agree with that section. It says, "to assess and make recommendations to the minister regarding corporate concentration, merger and acquisition issues in the context of fish processing licensing matters." No problem! If we are creating a board for the purpose of getting more advice in, and if that is what we are doing, no problem. Take all the advice we can ever get but do not stand up here and proclaim that we are doing something great by creating this board here, which is not arm's-length. Has anybody over there bothered to read the recommendation of Mr. Dunne?

Commissioner Dunne, on page 146 of his report, is pretty clear. Recommendation 9.10, "I recommend strongly: That the Department establish an arms-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests made to the government." Arm's-length. Arm's-length means independent. Arm's-length means make final decisions. Arm's-length does not mean to make recommendations and suggestions or advise. Let's not misunderstand either where Mr. Dunne sits. His report is not being put into this legislation. In fact, it is the opposite of what he is saying. Let's not misunderstand that because there are some people out in the general public, if they were to listen to government members, they would think that the Dunne Report was being incorporated in Bill 36. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I notice, as well, if you go back to page 113 of the Dunne Report where he talks about some of the rationale of why he made his recommendation. It is very telling. "The single most common observation of all meetings during this review was that an arms-length body must make fish processing licensing decisions." The single most common observation that everyone made to him in the industry during his review. "This is not a new concept; similar recommendations have been made in the reports of different Reviews and Task Forces since 1996. The fishing industry in the past has been lukewarm to the concept of independent boards; therefore I am struck by the virtual unanimity on this point from all parts of the industry." So, let's not fool ourselves either, that this Bill 36 is not where everybody in the industry wanted to go.

I take it from his comment, in saying that, "...all parts of the industry..." that Mr. Dunne must be talking about the processors. He must be talking about the FFAW. He must be talking about the various unions that are involved in the fishery, "...the virtual unanimity on this point..." One thing I would like to clarify is I am against this Bill 36 because it does not do what Mr. Dunne, who I obviously thinks understands the issue quite well and who has talked to everybody in this Province - everybody in the industry decided what they think is best.

Now, another comment that has been made about, in the past, abuses and so on; ministers who might abuse. As I say, the Member for Baie Verte said earlier: God forbid, you know, committees make these reports all the time. The minister would follow the reports, it is so public. Well, they did not do it on the FRCC on the Gulf cod fishery last year, I say to the Member for Baie Verte, nor did they do it in the past. We talk about abuse, and I would concur, there have been lots of incidents in the last decade or two when fish licences, processing licences were given to people, ventures and areas that people might question why it was done or question the politics of it and say that a certain minister was being political or partisan in his decisions, but that broom sweeps up both sides of the room. That broom is on both sides of the room. I do believe it is fact that in 1972 we had forty-five processing licences in the Province, and as of 1989 we had 251 processing licences. Now, I think that is something like a 500 per cent increase in the number of processing licences in the Province. We can get into this abuse if we want; it just depends on what year anyone wants to pick out to go there.

The other reason I am unsure about some of the provisions here and where the minister is coming from is, we have another act, the FPI Act, for example, which I feel is quite clear on what authority the minister has. Here we are now, when he claims to be open and transparent but it is not independent, not arm's length, as Mr. Dunne has recommended that we have, definitely not. So, he has reserved the power unto himself to make these decisions.

Personally, I have no difficulty in accepting that our minister of the day, of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, will make the right decisions for the right reasons. That is my personal thought. There are some people over here who happen to think that this does nothing, that the minister should have the authority. He understands the industry. He understands where we need to go, and understands where we wants to go. I have no problem with this minister who is going to get his advice from wherever sources he can to make the right decision, and no matter what decision he makes somebody is going to say it is the wrong one. He can make whatever decision he like; there is always going to be somebody here to say it is the wrong one. The bottom line is, the buck stops here. The buck stops with government. That is what part of being government is all about. Why put it into a board that tells you nothing, only recommends to you, and at the end of the day you still end up with all kinds of trouble?

If he takes a recommendation and says no, he has trouble. If he takes it and he accepts it, he can always say: Well, I listened to the board. It makes him look good then, but there is always still somebody else out there, some union, some processor, somebody, who is going to say you were political anyway; you are just using the board now to cover up what you wanted to do. So, what is the purpose of it, if we are no further ahead tomorrow than we are today?

If he is going to make the tough decisions and he is going to take the knocks for making them, he does not need this bill. If he wants, he can enlist the help of Mr. Dunne on a contractual basis any time he wants to, or another five people in this Province who he thinks he might need advice from, but do not do it under the guise of openness and transparency.

We compared it to the FPI Act. Here he is now reserving unto himself the right to make these tough decisions, which I say he should have anyway. That is why I disagree with Bill 36. Do not create a board which adds another layer of bureaucracy and more cost to this thing. You have the right to make the power now, and make the decisions. Make them. You have been making them. Go ahead and make them, and live by your decisions, right or wrong, with or without this board, because you are not doing what everybody in the industry and Mr. Dunne thinks you should do anyway. So you are either going to take it out of your own hands or you are going to keep it in your own hands, and he has decided that he is going to go in between. This minister has decided, we are not going to do either or. We are not going to keep the total power here over it. Oh, we are keeping the total power here, no doubt about it, but we are going to make it look like we have not. We will create this board that is going to make recommendations to us. So it is a wishy-washy, half-hearted attempt to deal with an issue and it does nothing to deal with the Dunne Report, which everybody in the industry agrees was a pretty good report and had some pretty good suggestions.

Yet we see, on the other hand, FPI has been talked about here. What is the point of a minister having the authority to do what he wants to do, or needs to do, if he is not prepared to use it? We have asked questions here in this House in the last two weeks about the Harbour Breton situation and said: You have the FPI Act and you have certain authorities under it. Well, I am not sure if I do. I do not know if it has the teeth, he says.

I asked the Minister of Justice, can I have copies of the legal opinions? Because either you do or you do not. What is the situation on this income trust? Oh, we cannot tell you. It is private; it belongs to the government.

We are not supposed to ask the questions because they are too tough. We ask for information to try to help us formulate our questions and we are told it is none of your business because we have not made the decisions yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, he knows quite well what I was looking for. I asked the Minister of Justice for copies the Premier has publicly talked about where FPI may be in violation of the act. The Premier publicly stated that we may, in this House, end up having a free vote on that particular issue. The Premier publicly stated that there is a legal opinion that causes him some concern in that regard. All we are saying over here, and I believe it has been talked about again - a free vote. The people of this House might have to make the decision, the Premier said as recently as today, and all we said is: If you are open and if you are transparent, and if you have these concerns, if we are going to have a fully informed debate on this issue, we should all have it.

That all ties into Bill 36 in the sense of, you have a law already that you are not prepared to use, or you are not sure if it is strong enough for you to use, to do the things you want to do or might even want to do.

All the questions that I have ever directed from over here were to the point of, if you are not sure if you have enough authority to do what you might need to do down the road, I just suggest that I think it would be prudent to at least give yourself enough authority to do what you need to do. Whether you ever do it or not is a different issue, but let's not find ourselves in a predicament down the road where - we have a pretty good idea of what is happening in the FPI realm of things. We don't need to be rocket scientists to figure out these people are operating as businessmen. There is nothing wrong with that, by the way, there is nothing wrong with acting as a businessperson. That is what Mr. Rowe is getting the big bucks for, the CEO. That is what he is getting paid for, making the big decisions. But he is going to drive it as a business decision. That sounds a very nice clip on the NTV news when you hear it, that: I am going to do what I have to do. It is my company, he even says. What he forgets about probably - and this is where somebody might need to remind him - is that he does have two masters. I think he subsequently admitted after his NTV rage last week that maybe he does have two bosses. Maybe he does have a board of directors and maybe he does have government that can tell him what to do. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Rowe, the CEO, the businessperson, forgot that when FPI was created it wasn't just created to make money. It was created and, in fact, it says in the legislation, I say to the Minister of Justice, it says right in there, if you read section 2 - it talks about the social conscience that this publicly traded company must have.

We can talk all we want about dollars and cents and balance sheets and income trust and selling off our arm of the company to raise $200 million so that we can put it into whatever; maybe factory freezers or whatever. The bottom line is he is driving FPI from a fiscal economic point of view for the shareholders of FPI. There never would be a shareholder of FPI if every single soul in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador weren't already shareholders, because we made them. There is nothing wrong with being fiscally prudent, as a board, but let's look for alternatives.

Some people get scared and say we are fearmongering if we talk about closing Bonavista; shouldn't be out there talking about that. No, we should just let something like that happen and not even raise the ire that it might happen. You can't talk about something these days, to ask someone? We didn't think last Monday when we started asking questions about Harbour Breton that it was the end of Fortune either. We asked about Harbour Breton, and when we were told about Harbour Breton in the media somebody says: By the way, do you have any plans for Fortune. Lo and behold, three days later we are told: Well, no more H and G for Fortune. Well, thank you very much for asking. We are glad you told us that, FPI.

Then somebody said: Well, maybe we should ask about the other FPI plants. What is in your grand scheme of things for Bonavista? It is not fearmongering to ask someone, particularly someone like Mr. Rowe, who makes no fuss about saying, we are into this for the shareholders of FPI - I don't call that fearmongering, I call that being responsible. I think anybody who is afraid to ask those tough questions because you might be afraid to get the answer you do not want, I do not think that is the proper course of action.

The Mr. Rowe's of the world there in their boardrooms, they are not only there for those shareholders, they are there for the 522,000 shareholders that exist in this Province of ours. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is not sure what he can or cannot do under the FPI Act, that he should get more sure about what he can do and he should take a more definitive approach to what happens with FPI so there will be no need for fearmongering. Fearmongering comes about when one does not know where they are going and what is going to happen. But, if he took a more definitive, aggressive approach with the operations of FPI, we would not have to worry about Bonavista twelve months down the road, or two years down the road, or anytime down the road because we would say: It might be tough, Mr. Rowe, it might be very, very tough, but you do whatever you have to do to make sure that rural Newfoundland exists.

Coming back to Bill 36 again, we are talking about processing licences. Well, folks, we do not need processing licences on factory freezers. We do not need them. As I understand it, we kept for ourselves the control - when we joined Confederation - about processing activities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not have to worry about this board. We do not have to worry about the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's authority. We do not have to worry about the ministerial approval. This here, it does nothing to help the situation about processing vis-B-vis anything that is tied up in the FPI situation if it is processed offshore. You will not have to worry about Mr. Rowe coming back and going to this board and asking for any licences to do anything; not a bit.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say yes, I am opposed to Bill 36 because it does nothing. It does nothing to help the industry. If you had accepted the recommendations of Mr. Dunne it would have been truly arm's-length; yes, it would have been truly transparent; yes, it would have been truly open and it would have responded - as Mr. Dunne says - to the virtual unanimity of the industry on having an arm's-length board.

This government, not leadership, is not what is being shown here. This is a wishy-washy answer to a serious problem, when we were given the solution already by Mr. Dunne. But, this government did not have the intestinal fortitude to take what Mr. Dunne said and put it into a piece of legislation. They have taken the half-arsed approach to it and when you do, you end up with the same kind of solution. It goes nowhere to address the real problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few minutes to say a few words on this particular bill, Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Let me first say to the hon. gentleman who just took his seat, that there will be no processing licence required for factory-freezer trawlers. This is the essence of this Opposition. I have never seen an Opposition operate like this one before, in all my time in this place, and I have been here longer than anybody else. I have been here longer than anybody else in this House, followed closely by my friend, the Member for Port au Port.

MR. E. BYRNE: On both sides.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been here on both sides. I have seen Opposition's operate and I have seen governments operate, but I have never seen an Opposition operate on the basis of you take a little bit of a fact - there is a factory-freezer trawler out there, we know that. That is a fact, you cannot dispute that, but then you extend that into something that is not true, that is not a fact. The factory-freezer trawler is not out there processing groundfish. If it catches groundfish it brings it into a plant somewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador to process. What is wrong with the truth, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This crowd would not know the truth if it hit them in the side of the head. The truth of the matter is that you have to have a factory-freezer trawler to process shrimp. That is the norm in the industry. Nobody disagrees with that. Not even the Opposition, I suppose, disagrees with that - maybe they do. They disagree with anything that is sensible. Then they take that partial fact and they stretch it into a non-truth. They stretch it into something that never happened. They stretch it into something that is not reality, because the factory-freezer trawler, if it catches groundfish as a bycatch or a directed fishery, puts it in the hole, freezes it and takes it into an onshore facility for processing. Now there is the fact, but would you get that from listening to the members of the Opposition speak about factory-freezer trawlers? No, you would not get it, Mr. Speaker, because they do not want to tell that side of the story. Would you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Listen, Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman who just took his seat.

Mr. Speaker, questions that came from the Leader of the Opposition today about the fishery again. I mean, they just weren't factual. They just were not true. If I were calling an Open Line show I would call it by another name that I am not allowed to use in this House. I have seen press release after press release after press release put out by individual members of this Opposition that were based on untrue statements. I have seen it during the course of the summer and I could not believe my eyes. I have said it to members of our caucus. I have said to members of the Cabinet, that I have never seen, in all my years here, an Opposition that operated, predicated on something they knew was not a fact but promoted it anyway. I mean, it is like the Dr. Gullible's approach, I suppose, if you tell the big lie long enough and often enough and embellish it enough, somebody will believe it and you might end up even believing it yourself. So, that, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of what I see here with this bill.

This is not a bill to implement the Dunne Report. This is a bill to establish the Fish Processing Licensing Board. That is all it is, nothing more, nothing less. We do not have to, because Mr. Dunne - and I have known Mr. Dunne for years. He was Director General, I guess, when I was Minister of Fisheries in the Province; a fine man. He knows a lot about the fishery, but is he the expert in every area of it? Not necessarily so. We can accept some of his recommendations. We can reject others of his recommendations. We can justify doing so. We are the government. That is our responsibility to pick out of his recommendations what we are going to pass into law and how we are going to pass it into law. We are the legislators. We are the Legislature. We do not have to accept his report holus-bolus without question. We have accepted what we think makes sense. We have implemented what we think makes sense and we are implementing this board in a way that we think makes sense. Any minister, if he or she receives recommendations from a board that they do not agree with and they make a decision opposite to what the board recommended, they have to be able to go and defend it. They have to be able to defend it. That is what transparency is all about. That is what accountability is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The way the thing is set up now, nobody has to defend anything. A previous Minister of Fisheries could issue a processing licence to his mother-in-law, God bless her. There was no accountability, no transparency. Once this bill becomes law, Mr. Speaker, if any minister having put the issue to the board and having had the board recommend, if any minister makes a decision contrary to that, the minister has to stand on his or her feet, on behalf of the government, and defend it. Now, what more accountable and transparent can you have than that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I would say, Mr. Speaker, 99.9 times out of 100, I dare say, the minister of the day will accept the recommendations of the board, but there may be some time, in the interest of some rock hole or some cove or bay in Newfoundland when the minister should not accept the recommendation. If and when that time comes, Mr. Speaker, that minister will have to defend why he or she did not.

Now, this legislation is about nothing more, nothing less, than that, and to hear the Opposition speak, Mr. Speaker, you would not know but we were creating some kind of a monster here that is going to rear up and bite the backsides of every fish processor and fisherman and company in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is just foolishness. I have never seen an hon. crowd like it in my life but it is their trademark, Mr. Speaker. It is their trademark since day one. They have never cared, they have never been restricted, by playing foot loose and fancy free with the truth; not this crowd, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Is the hon. Government House Leader moving to close debate?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

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

When the minister speaks now he will close debate.

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

Now, if there was ever the most apt description of a piece of legislation put forward frankly, honestly, forthrightly, it was just put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Works and Transportation on exactly what-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - this legislation is about. Putting in place a process whereby the issuances of licences go to a board, Mr. Speaker, with a strict set of criteria, with a group of people who will be appointed, who have an interest and a background in the fishery, so that when a decision is made all (inaudible). Not to belabour what my colleague said but just to underscore the point that he made which is this: That if a decision is made contrary by a Minister of Fisheries either now or in the future once this becomes law, then that minister will have to defend it on behalf of the government. In defending it on behalf of this government, I can confidently say that every member and every other minister will be able to stand with that Minister of Fisheries in defending it because it will be done in the public interest not in the private interest of one or two or three individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close debate for second reading on this. I want to thank my colleagues for participating in this debate. I want to thank the work that was done by the department on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, by his own officials.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move second reading of Bill 36.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licencing Board, Bill 36.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licencing Board," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 36)

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

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

I think, by agreement, what we will move to now - I will ask that the House not adjourn, but we move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on a Supply Bill.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 42, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act."

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Clause 2 carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We would like to propose an amendment to section 3 of Bill 42. I have already circulated a copy of the amendment to the Government House Leader, and I believe this is considered a friendly amendment. I believe he has discussed it with the Minister of Education as well. The purpose of the amendment here is: Under section 3 as it currently reads it makes to (d) and it says, "13 members from the students in attendance at the university, including one student from the Marine Institute, with all members to be chosen in a manner approved by the board."

The purpose for our amendment is for some consistency, we would suggest. If the Board of Regents are going to have amongst its membership specifically designated members - for example, one from the Students' Union, one from the Graduate Students, one from the Marine Institute and one from the Wilfred Grenfell College on the West Coast. We thought, for the purposes of consistency, we should have the same kind of guarantee for the Senate membership. There are going to be thirteen student members on the Senate, but this amendment will specify now that there must be one from the Graduate School - at least one - one from the Marine Institute, and one from the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

That amendment is on the Table and before the House here today. As I said, the Minister of Education and the Government House Leader apparently have perused it, and it is in order. It is a friendly amendment. With that said, we have no other comment on Bill 42.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile that clause 3 be amended.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee will take a brief recess, because apparently some people do not have a copy of the amendment and the numbers as provided to the Chair here are certainly not reflective of where the amendment should be placed in the bill.

Maybe we will have a short recess until copies of the amendment are copied and circulated and the proper numbers attached to it.

Recess

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

[Technical difficulties]

(d) 13 members from the students in attendance at the University, including at least one student from the Marine Institute, one graduate student, and one student from Grenfell College, with all members to be chosen in a manner approved by the board.

This amendment is proposed by the Opposition House Leader and the Table deems the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just rising on the amendment to indicate that it appears to me to be a friendly amendment. I feel that in putting forth the bill that we had covered all bases; however, if this clarifies it or seems to clarify it, we have no difficulties with it.

Just to indicate that the Board of Regents do take care of the Senator selection process and to make note that there are three Senator seats from the graduate, nine from the student unions at the main campus, two for Sir Wilfred Grenfell at Corner Brook, and they had requested that we put an additional one in, a student representative from the Marine Institute, that the student groups have full authority over these appointments.

Again, this being a friendly amendment, it is acceptable to me and I have no objection to it going forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are at Bill 42, at Committee stage. I have a question, I guess, for the minister.

I am looking at the wording that is used here in clause 2. I know when we discussed this - and I know one of the issues that was raised by the various student groups over the last number of years was the fact that there was a difficulty of ensuring that students who were chosen by the various student bodies actually got the appointments to the board.

I think the intention is - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - the intention is here that although the Lieutenant-Governor in Council actually makes the appointments, that these appointments flow from the board, and the intention is that the nominees actually be nominated by MUNSU or by the GSU or by the Marine Institute Student Union.

AN HON. MEMBER: They already are.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I know that. I know they already are part of it, Mr. Chairman. The Dean of Students had a say in whether or not the people were appointed or not - did have a say. There were debates and arguments about that over the last couple of years, as to whether or not the recommendations put forward by the Board of Regents were the ones that were nominated by the student union.

What we have here - if you will just bear with me for just a moment, Mr. Minister - if you look at subsection 1 and compare clause 1 to clause 2, in clause 1.(4) it says, "Two of the members appointed to the board under subsection (1) shall be students of the college who (a) are nominated by the executive body of the student association of the college."

It is very clear. There is no question whatsoever that the students who are to be appointed to the board are nominated by the executive body of the student association.

If you go to clause 2.(d) it says, "4 members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council being full-time students of the university who (i) meet the requirements set out in the regulations, and (ii) are recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by the board following the recommendation to the board of one candidate each from the following student unions:".

I am just being very picky here. Is this a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We are not allowed to be picky here. We are not allowed to question the meaning of words, and the choice of words.

Is it a student from the following student union, or is it one candidate who is from the following student unions or from that group? Are we clear here? If the intention is right, then we have to understand that the recommendation we are talking about, it must be a recommendation from the student union itself, from that executive body.

I just want to clarify that, to make sure that we are on the same page here, that the intention is very clear that the students who are to be on the board are to be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by the board following the recommendation to the board of one candidate from each of the following student unions.

So, the student union gets to nominate one candidate. The board then passes it on to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who nominates that student from that particular individual body, the MUNSU, Graduate Student Union, the Marine Institute or Grenfell College. That is absolutely crystal clear. There is no question about that. That is the intention. Clear enough!

That having been said, Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with the wording here. The wording is a bit awkward because it elaborates on following recommendations from various organizations, so I am satisfied that is the case. Although I do notice that in the next clause, paragraph 3, when the Senate is being discussed - and I understand there is an amendment to that - it says that all the members nominated from the student group are to be chosen in a manner approved by the board.

I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether or not that includes the respective student organizations having a say in that. Is there some election procedure or is there some internal procedure that is approved by the board that allows, in fact, the University to choose who the students are going to be, and not the student groups themselves. Perhaps the minister can clarify that either before or after the amendment. The same wording appears both in the amendment and in the wording here. If the minister is able to clarify that, I would certainly appreciate it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On two points: one is on paragraph 2, and that is the Board of Regents that you are referring to. It is a selection process that is done by the students, and they have assured us as well, I say to the hon. member, that it will be done through a majority vote, so there will be an election and a name put forth.

With regard to the Senate, again, the Board of Regents, I guess, falls under the act and it is done with an Order-in-Council; however, the Senate is done internally by the Board of Regents and they have indicated that the Board of Regents have a well-established student senator selection process with substantial involvement by the students at Memorial University, and then it goes down through the process. Really, the student groups now have full authority over these appointments with regard to the Senate.

I hope that clarifies your inquiry.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 3 of Bill 42?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 42, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act, passed with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Bill 42 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House leader.

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

I move to Committee on Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

CHAIR: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 35)

CLERK: Clause 1

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I believe, by agreement, we are going to move through all the clauses in this bill with exception of one which we want to leave for another day, and that is clause 29 of Bill 35. If we can, just for the sake of speeding things along - it is a substantial bill in content and the length of clauses. I guess, what I am suggesting or recommending, Mr. Chairman, is that if there is a procedural way - and I believe there is, we have done this in the past - to move through the clauses, with the exception, and again I want to be clear, of clause 29. There is a potential amendment coming to this and some discussions that are taking place and we will be able to maybe revert back to this in Committee tomorrow to clue up that section.

I guess the take home message, Mr. Chairman, is that we can move through all the other clauses fairly quickly with the exception of clause 29. I believe there has been agreement by all sides of the House that we do exactly that.

CLERK: Clauses 1 through 28 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 28 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 28 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 28 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 30 to 36 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 30 to 36 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 30 to 36 carried.

On motion, clauses 30 through 36 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I now move to Order 5 which is Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 37.

CHAIR: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Just a few quick words. When I introduced this bill the other day or spoke to it in second reading, I had said what I pretty well wanted to say on this. It is a bill to deal with the harmonization of taxes when two or more communities want to come together to amalgamate or share services or what have you. My hon. critic at the time brought up a couple of points when he spoke to the bill in second reading and I just want to address those so I can let him know what the situation is.

He spoke of Fogo, when he was minister he appointed Mr. Best to do a study on Fogo and he did not know the status of that report. I just want to let him know, and hon. members, that the report formed at Fogo has been submitted to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I sent a copy to the municipalities involved and asked them for their comments on the report to basically see how they felt on the report and the recommendations of the report.

He also mentioned the debt consolidation that was started by the previous Administration and the amount of monies that has gone into that. Basically, what it is, it is a debt retirement for the municipalities through the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation. This past year in the Budget, although it was a very difficult Budget - I suppose most people would look at it like that and we have said that ourselves, and it had to be - we managed, as the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to come up with $9 million to help pay down the debt of the municipalities in rural Newfoundland, all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He also mentioned, too - and it was pretty well at the core of this amendment - the purpose of the amendment itself, which was to harmonize the mil rates of municipalities when they come together. The concern that he had, and it was certainly a legitimate concern, was that the minister might get involved prematurely and just set a mil rate for the municipalities that are coming together. I want to inform the hon. member that this piece of legislation, the intent of it, of course, is when you are having municipalities coming together, to amalgamate and to share services, and to combine their services to save money for the taxpayers of their communities. The whole intent, of course, would be an agreement and it would be up to the communities themselves to come to some agreement with respect to the phase in or the harmonization of the mil rate or the taxes within the newly formed community.

As I said the other day, if a community had a mil rate of six mils and another one had a mil rate of nine, ten or various in between there, the towns would try to come to some agreement themselves. More than likely, if they are to the point where they are going to amalgamate, I am sure that in most cases they would come up with an agreement on the rate of harmonization and how they would harmonization the taxes over a given number of years, whether it be two years, three years, four years or whatever the case may be, and hopefully that would be worked out. It would only be in the extreme situation where the minister would get involved and set a mil rate. I do not foresee that happening or have to happen, but, again, it was a very legitimate concern that was brought up by my critic, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. I think they were the concerns that he had at that point in time. Hopefully, I have addressed them for him. We can always speak on this before the final completion before it passes through the House if he has any other concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak for a moment on this bill, and perhaps see if the minister would respond. What we are dealing with here is the harmonization of taxes when two or more towns or areas are amalgamated, or annexed. Obviously, we support this legislation and the opportunity that it does give to facilitate the kind of process of amalgamation and joining together when towns seek to do so.

What I am thinking of and concerned about is: What about situations where there is not that kind of circumstance where there are towns working together, but there is an overriding need for some collective services? I am thinking about the situation on the Port au Port Peninsula. The most recent information over the weekend on that situation there is that there are at least two schools that are now without fire protection. That may have changed in the last forty-eight or twenty-four hours, I do not know. We have two schools now with children going to school everyday who are without fire protection, and do not have access to fire protection. Does the minister foresee having the power, or does he think that he has the power right now under the Municipalities Act, to in fact impose a fire protection fee on towns in a region that would have the effect of ensuring that fire services available - that a particular town that has a fire service would be required as a result of receiving a fee that was set by the minister under something similar to this type of provision, where the minister determines that fire protection in an area should be available and that residents will be required to pay a fee to facilitate that? So, I am thinking of that.

I am also thinking, in general, we have - the amalgamation issue has become a real bugbear for a lot of places and a lot of communities, particularly we hear it in Mount Pearl a lot, at least by municipal officials, not so much by the townspeople. Isn't there a way that somewhere between outright full amalgamation and the status quo, where we could have a situation where the taxes in a particular region were harmonized so you did not have, for example, one town - I was driving the other day through St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, and again, without the big, huge signs that you see, you cannot tell the difference between one and the other. I am sure Conception Bay South - I hit Conception Bay South at the end of the road before I turned down to St. Thomas's Line, which is in Paradise, obviously. But, is there a way, Mr. Minister, that there could be some arrangement whereby, or some process whereby there could be a harmonization of some of the taxes in, say a regional municipality, like the Northeast Avalon or the St. John's Metropolitan Area, whereby you did not have towns competing with one another by lowering mil rates to attract business away from one place or the other? It is kind of a race to the bottom that really may benefit the businesses but, in fact, deteriorates from the tax base of the entire region by, in fact, effectively lowering rates. Is there some mechanism that the minister envisages, short of amalgamation, that could, in fact, effectively harmonize tax rates so that you do not have this situation where people are moving to a town to get a lower tax rate and then demanding the same kind of services that they might get if they had to pay a higher tax rate elsewhere, because we see that happening in the St. John's area?

Both of these issues, the fire protection issue on the Port au Port Peninsula and that issue of the St. John's urban region area are related to the harmonization of taxes. I wonder, is it possible the minister would address those here at second reading? I know I am not technically attacking the bill. I support the bill. I think that the minister should have the power to assist municipalities in completing an amalgamation process. These other issues, particularly the firefighting issue where we have now, according to media reports, two schools without fire protection service, is there something the minister can do about that under existing legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Chair, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi brings up two good points. The first point, with respect to the situation that happened on the Port au Port Peninsula, really it is a separate issue from this legislation that we are passing here today, but by an extension, I suppose, you could consider it to be a part of this legislation.

The legislation today deals with communities coming together to amalgamate, to share services, to combine services and to, basically, bring their tax rates together over a period of time, which is fair to everyone.

With respect to the Port au Port Peninsula and the two communities involved, what has been happening is that the Fire Commissioners Office has been in touch with the people in that area, with the towns involved and offered to assist, to help the communities come together to share the services. Some of the communities involved have not been paying - from my understanding of the situation - a fee to the fire department that was called upon to respond initially. We are prepared, as we told people in the Province since I became minister, any group that want to come together to share services, whether it be firefighting, garbage collection, engineering services, snow clearing or whatever, that we would certainly assist them in any way that we can, as a department, to come together to share services. If they need a study to be done, I say to the hon. member, we would either pay for it or cost-share a study to be done.

Out in Conception Bay Central now we have a study being just recently completed for a number of communities to come together with their fire departments in that area, to come together and, instead of having so many fire departments so close to each other and the costs involved with that, to look at reducing the costs to the taxpayers and maybe even improving the system.

Yes, there is certainly a problem on the Port au Port Peninsula at this point in time but we are working with the fire departments involved to try and come to some solution to that problem.

With respect to the second point that the hon. member brought up, he talked about harmonizing the tax rate in a region. I can understand where he is coming from, of course. Here on the Northeast Avalon there have been a lot of questions over the years with respect to amalgamation when you are looking at St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise, and competition for businesses coming into these towns.

We have said, and our policy has been, that there be no forced amalgamation. The only way you could do this, in my mind, is to harmonize the tax, because from a provincial perspective you would really be interfering too much with the operations of a given municipality. The only way you would do that, of course, is to bring it together. If you harmonized a tax and said each municipality pay the same tax, basically, you are forcing amalgamation through taxation. I do not know if that is a road that we would want to go down. I know our policy has been no forced amalgamation. That was our policy before the election, and that is our policy today, but I understand where your question is coming from.

With that, hopefully, I answered your questions.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 37)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 37, An Act To Amend the Municipalities Act, 1999, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 37 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 42 passed with amendment, and Bill 37 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, we will handle these bills separately. We will handle Bill 42 first and then follow it with Bill 37.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 42 passed, with some amendments.

When shall the report of the Committee be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Adopting the report on Bill 37.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 37 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I do now move that Bill 37 be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 37 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A Bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: This Bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

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

I move that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996, And The Memorial University Act be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 42 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act, Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act" read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42)

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the House. It has been a fruitful day in terms of the parliamentary sense in moving legislation forward. I do now move that the House adjourn and return tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn and return tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.