March 26, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 6


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call upon the Speaker to send a message to the Brad Gushue team -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: - who yesterday won the World Championship in Junior Curling. This is the first time that a world championship has ever been won by Newfoundland. I know the feeling, most of my children curl and have come up through the junior ranks. Some of them have actually won the Provincials and gone to the Nationals and I know the feeling of pride that I felt then, but they have never been fortunate enough to have accomplished this.

I know also of the work of the volunteers and I speak, in particular, of John Wheeler who works as a volunteer with the school boy and school girl curling and has put a lot of time and effort into it. I suggest that without the efforts of volunteers like this the junior curlers would not have the basis that they need to go on and reach such accomplishments.

I know also that this team - to those who watched it, it may have looked easy, but from being involved with the Curling Club I know that at any given time you can walk into the Curling Club and see the team of Brad Gushue, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab, Brent Hamilton and Mark Adam out there practicing shot after shot, lining up all the shots -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and lining up any possible shot that could be presented with them. So it did not come that easy. It came with a lot of very hard work. Once again, I would like to ask the Speaker to send a message of congratulations on behalf of all the members of the House to the Brad Gushue team; and to their coach, Jeff Thomas, who is a constituent of mine, who works long and hard with that team.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a special Corner Brook teenager who is using her experience with cancer to help other teenagers fight this dreaded disease.

Heidi Randell is an eighteen-year-old who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma some five years ago, and this year she is Newfoundland and Labrador's representative for Candlelighters Teens, a newly formed Canadian support group for teens with cancer.

Through the fundraising efforts of Mentor College, a private Ontario college, Heidi has recently travelled to a retreat in the Carribean where she took part in various sporting and networking activities with teens from across Canada who are also fighting cancer. The concept behind the retreat is to give teenagers diagnosed with cancer a chance to act as normal teenagers while interacting with people who can relate to their struggles. She was accompanied on this trip by Margaret Thomas, Provincial Co-ordinator of adult Candlelighters.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me, in congratulating Heidi for her efforts in helping others and to wish her well in her plans to enroll in University this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: She is a shining example of courage in the face of adversity and an example to us all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, as well, to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador curling team: Brad Gushue, Mike Adam, Brent Hamilton, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab, and coach Jeff Thomas, on winning the 2001 World Junior Curling Championship yesterday in Ogden, Utah.

This is indeed a great achievement for those young curlers on a personal level and a real life example to everyone of what can be accomplished with dedication, hard work, and probably more importantly, team work. It is also a great tribute to their families, for I am sure, without their support and encouragement their accomplishments would not have been possible. They have made us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and of course, all Canada, very proud of them as they established our country's place in world curling.

Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud to say that two of the players, Mark Nichols and Mike Adam are from Labrador West and came up through the Carol Curling Club. I am sure all Labrador West and, particularly members of the Carol Curling Club, were watching very anxiously yesterday and are extremely proud of the championship title.

I am certain our Province and our country has not heard the last of those fine young curlers. We certainly wish them continued success in both curling and their personal lives in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee on the opening of a new Crime Prevention Centre in the Peninsula Mall in Marystown.

This centre, which opened Thursday, March 15, will provide residents of the community with a wide range of crime prevention related information. The focus of the information will be on violence and substance abuse, two main areas of concern identified at a local crime prevention forum.

The Marystown Crime Prevention Committee, through the financial support of the VOCM Cares foundation, will be implementing a mural project. Through the work of Youth Services Canada participant, Sheldon Kilfoy, murals will be painted in a number of schools to reinforce the drug and violence awareness campaigns presently focused on by the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Marystown Crime Prevention Committee, the RCMP, the VOCM Cares Foundation and other community-minded organizations in the Marystown area for their efforts in promoting safe homes and safe communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we will not be shy today. What a weekend for the sport of curling. What a weekend for Newfoundland and Labrador! The Gushue Rink is the World Men's Junior Curling Champions. Brad Gushue, Brent Hamilton, Mike Adam, Mark Nichols, Jamie Korab and coach Jeff Thomas are number one in the world.

Could a Province and its people, or a nation for that matter. be prouder. For remember, not only did the achievements of these outstanding athletes give this Province one of the proudest moments in its history; they have brought home a world championship to Canada, and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The skill in the sport of curling at their level of competition is unparalleled. Imagine the degree of determination, the incredibly long hours of practice to reach a goal that has brought them to this level of athletic excellence. All the while they have remained successful in striking the fine balance between athleticism and their responsibilities to high school and university studies. These are commitments whose scope is difficult for many of us to comprehend, but there is another part of this remarkable story that extends beyond the bounds of a curling rink.

Through the arduous journey of competition to get to the World Championship, Brad, Brent, Mike, Mark and Jamie have presented themselves in a manner of professionalism and maturity that can only be measured beyond their years. We could not ask for more suitable ambassadors for our Province to the world.

The members of this championship rink are also members of families; so, to their families, we extend heartfelt congratulations. We thank them and applaud them for their dedication and the many sacrifices they have made in support of their sons' talents and goals. We share in your pride.

To the coach of the winning team, Jeff Thomas, you have the thanks of a proud Province for your superb coaching and the guidance you have given to this team.

Mr. Speaker, the Brad Gushue Championship Team will arrive home tonight at midnight. I would encourage everyone to make an effort to greet our World Junior Mens Curling Champions. I will be there to welcome them home, and look forward to a celebration of their outstanding accomplishments.

As a Province, we are overjoyed by this unequaled feat of athletic achievement. As a people, we are very proud of our sons whose performance on the world stage was done with grace and dignity, and with such superior sportsmanlike conduct.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people, I extend our sincere congratulations to the Brad Gushue Rink and remind them that we are truly proud of them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: All of Canada was cheering yesterday as the Brad Gushue Rink from Newfoundland and Labrador earned the distinction of becoming the top Junior Men's Curling team in the world. The game in which they beat Denmark yesterday 7-6 was a real nail biter. The cheers were heard loudest in St. John's Curling Club, the rink at which they play. This is Newfoundland and Labrador's first ever world championship in a team sport. I would like the Speaker to send a message of congratulations on behalf of the members, representing the people of this Province, to: skip, Brad Gushue; third, Mark Nichols; second, Brent Hamilton; lead, Mike Adam; fifth, Jamie Korab; and coach, Jeff Thomas.

I would also like the opportunity to recognize the excellent performance in international sport we have seen from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in recent years. Patrick's Cove basketball star, Carl English, has impressed everyone with his performance with the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors, a performance good enough to carry the team into this year's NCAA tournament.

We are also impressed with the performance of diver Adam Morgan of Portugal Cove, who is now a student at Texas A&M University, who placed fifteenth in the NCAA Men's Swimming and Diving Championships this weekend in College Station, Texas.

Our athletes are indeed world class and I trust the government, both provincially and federally, will invest in the appropriate programs and infrastructure so that our young people can fulfil this potential -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: - so they indeed can be the best in the world.

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.

It is indeed my pleasure to join with the minister and the Member for St. Barbe in congratulating the Brad Gushue Rink on their tremendous success in the World Men's Junior Curling Championship. When I heard on Saturday, a quote from Brad Gushue who talked about the level of confidence that he had, how they really played well in the clutch and expected that they would win, I sort of had this feeling that, here is a young man with a lot of confidence in himself and in his team. Sure enough, they proved that the confidence they had in themselves was well deserved. It is yet another example of the degree of excellence, of sportsmanship, of ability, of drive, that we have in young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have it in this sport, we have it in many other sports, and I hope that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that this government will look into the possibility of providing the level of support for athletes who are able to compete on the world stage and provide some sort of program for training that allows them to reach their goals, as they surely can do, as the example of the Brad Gushue Rink has shown - a true Newfoundland and Labrador team.

Thank you ver much, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we have all heard in the Province this morning, an issue has arisen dealing with the possible takeover of FPI, or changes in the corporate structure. This was an issue that was hotly debated in the Province not so long ago, and I have some questions for the Premier regarding it today.

First of all, Premier, I would like to ask you: Have you met with John Ridley of Clearwater Fine Foods, or other individuals, regarding the future ownership or change in corporate structure of FPI? If you have, will you inform the House about the nature of those talks with these proponents about the proposal they have for Fishery Products International?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague from Twillingate is out of the House today, and I am his second, I will attempt to answer the hon. gentleman's question.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that the government, last week, received a courtesy call from Mr. John Ridley to inform us that he had intended to put people on the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International. We thanked him for the information, and he left.

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

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

I did not ask the former Premier; I asked the current Premier.

I understand that you have met with him on two occasions, last week and again yesterday, so I will ask you again: Could you inform us of: what was the nature of those talks, what was presented, and what your response was, Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting yesterday. There was a meeting late last week, a courtesy call by Mr. John Risley, among others, to inform the government that they indeed intended to place people on the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International.

As I said to the hon. gentleman, they were listened to and promptly went on their way.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: And promptly went on their way.

What we are talking about is the impact on the Newfoundland fishing industry, on the future of the Newfoundland fishing industry, upon which many rural communities have come to depend and survive. The Premier cannot stand on his feet and tell us today what was the nature of those discussions. This is unbelievable.

I will ask you another question, Premier. As you know, there are provisions in the legislation, current legislation, that affect the corporate ownership of FPI as well as the scope of actions of the corporations of the Board of Directors. That is an act that was put in place in this House in the 1980s. Specifically, the act says that no individual or corporations can own more than 15 per cent of the shares of FPI -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

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

- nor can shareholders act in concert to direct the affairs of the corporation. I will ask the Premier, does the discussions that this group had with you, or the representatives of this group have had with you: Does this proposal conform to the legislative and regulatory regimes that, in this House, have been enacted and are the law of the Province?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman said, in 1987 - he will recall in 1987, I think it was 1987 when Fishery Products International legislation was passed - there was the 15 per cent limit that was placed on the number of shares that any one individual, any one company, or any one corporation could own. That piece of legislation is still in place. At the present time what we have here is not a dispute, I wouldn't say, but a proposed, or reported, takeover by a company. Mr. Vic Young today is in the paper saying he will oppose that and, of course, FPI will oppose it.

Let me inform the hon. gentleman of one other thing, that any attempt to circumvent - that piece of legislation stays in place as it did in 1999 when we were asked by both FPI and a number of other people to take off the cap, so to speak, on the number of shares that any one company could own. That remains in place. As far as this government is concerned will remain in place, and any attempt to hurt Newfoundland's rural communities, as we said in 1999, will only be allowed when those communities themselves say so. That was the decision then, and that position still remains the position of this government. I would say to him: at the present time what we have ongoing here is a dispute between two companies. When the time comes to protect Newfoundland's rural communities who depend on the fisheries resource of this Province, this government will do what is necessary to be done. I have to say to him, that today that position remains the same as it was in 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for those of us who were in this House during the Hydro debates on the privatization of Hydro, it became very clear that one of the issues at stake was that you cannot, in law, accomplish through the back door what you are unable to accomplish through the front door. That was the issue.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has the Department of Justice looked at, or have you instructed the Department of Justice to look at the plan put forward by Mr. Risley and his colleagues? Does it, in fact, meet the test, not only of the FPI legislation, but the general principle of law that you cannot do by the back door what was failed to do by the front door?

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

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that Mr. Risley's plan has not been laid out in any sort of detail as to what he intends to do. He has made the statement -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. He already made the statement that he intends to put people on the Board of FPI's Directors. That was the nature of the call that he made to the Premier; the nature of the courtesy call he made to him.

Yes, if the hon. gentleman wants an answer to the question: Have we asked the Department of Justice to see if there is a loophole in that and if you can act in concert or do through the back door what you can't do through the front door; if there is a weakness in the legislation? We have asked the Department of Justice. We don't have a reply from them yet, but we have asked the Department of Justice to give us a full briefing on just how that might be done because we regard that as a piece of information that we might, at some point in the future, need to have at our disposal if there is collusion, or if there is any danger to Newfoundland's outport and rural communities.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask, I guess, the point guard for the Premier on this case because he will not give me any straight answers; he will not give us any answers. I will ask you then Deputy Premier, in terms of: you have asked the Department of Justice. Does an opinion already exist? Was not an opinion sought in 1999 when the original takeover already sought - was not an opinion gotten then from the Department of Justice on this matter?

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

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, we have asked the Department of Justice to review the whole process to see if there were loopholes there. At the time - if he would recall - in 1999, what the government was asked to do at that point was to lift the cap. We refused to do it. We were not asked to prove there was going to be collusion between different people on the Board of Directors, or different companies that might be on the Board of Directors. He will also recall - I think it was early in 2000 this year - that four companies; one from Australia, Iceland, Nova Scotia, and one made up of a number of Newfoundland processors in this Province, bought up to 53 per cent of the shares in FPI.

We will find out at the appropriate time, we will know at the appropriate time, whether indeed the Department of Justice considers that there are loopholes. At this point in time they do not believe there are but we want to make certain that there are no loopholes, and if there are weaknesses in the legislation we want to know that as well. In case the Newfoundland fishery should become - and the Newfoundland communities that are dependent upon the Newfoundland fishery should in some way be in danger by anything that might happen in the corporate world.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: In seeking an opinion, I can only assume that another opinion has been put forward.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier or the Premier - I will continue asking the Premier, I guess, and he can decide whether he wants you to answer it or if he wants to stand up himself and answer it. I understand that another legal opinion has been put forward to government which suggests that the current - this is what I understand, you can correct me if I am wrong. In terms of the meetings that have taken place with government by this group, that they believe a loophole does exist in the legislation and they intend to walk through it. If that is the case, what assurance can you give to the people of the Province, in particular rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that this proposal which is about to take place will not interfere, will not jeopardize the fishery in rural communities and in fact, will live up to and ensure that the spirit and intent of the law - which is outlined in the legislation and its regulatory documents associated with it - will not be infringed upon, will not be broken and will be lived up to 100 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, I am not aware and I don't believe that government is aware of any legal opinion that has been put forward saying: here is where the loopholes are in the legislation. It is for that reason that we are having our own Department of Justice officials take a look to see if there are loopholes in the regulations and laws that are in place now.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman: we will, on this side of the House - and I am sure on that side of the House - do as we did in 1999, see that Newfoundland rural communities, Newfoundland regions of this Province have access to the resources they need to ensure that their way of life is carried out. It can't be any plainer than that to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Two final questions, Mr. Speaker. When was the Department of Justice asked to do this? Was it last week, the week before last? So the question is: When was the Department of Justice asked to do this? By whom were they asked? Were they asked by the department that you were minister of? Were they instructed or asked by the Premier's office? It is very important to understand what the chain of command is and where the request came from.

Secondly, is there a timeline associated with the request? In other words, have you instructed the department? You say you have, so what department was instructed? Was it the Premier's office? Was it your department? Have you given them a time when you want an opinion back? Thirdly, when you get that opinion: Will you make a commitments to table it before the House of Assembly?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that it is my understanding that Executive Council asked the Department of Justice to provide a legal opinion at the earliest possible moment. To be frank with him, I see no problem in tabling that opinion in this House because it is something that everybody in the Province should know.

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

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

Did Executive Council instruct the Department of Justice to have that opinion ready at a certain point in time?

AN HON. MEMBER: At the earliest possible (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay. It is an important point because from what we understand, if this rearrangement or proposal of FPI's board structure is going to take place, it is obviously going to take place soon, so the timing of when the department has to report back is critical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you, in terms of as soon as possible, can you give us any ballpark figure, without holding you down to it, but can you give us any sort of time frame? By this Friday, by next Friday? Maybe the Minister of Justice would be better to answer the question than you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from conversations this morning that I have had with people in the industry that May 1 is the time when FPI's Board of Directors will meet and if there is a proposal going to be put forward, I would think it would probably be put forward - not probably - it would be put forward at that time. That is their annual meeting on May 1.

As I said to you, at the present time we regard this as a dispute between two private corporations, and until such time as we see that the Newfoundland public, Newfoundland communities, Newfoundland outports, are in danger, I think it is incumbent upon us to let that take place. When that happens, as I said to you before, whatever happens here, we will hack to see that Newfoundland's rural communities are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is interesting. I was not going to ask any more, but I do have one more based upon the response of the minister.

You said this is a corporate dispute; I understand that. The difference here is that there is legislation governing the structure of this corporation. That is the difference. In any other corporation, the legislation governing FPI protects a Newfoundland interest, supposedly.

You said - and I want this clarified - you are going to allow that corporate dispute to occur. In other words, you are not going to get involved with that, with a legal opinion on your own, until whatever happens there happens, and afterward you will deal with it. Is that what you have said? I need clarification on that.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. We will get our legal opinion at the earliest possible opportunity for ourselves, and presumably for this Legislature.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that there are two scenarios here, obviously: that the takeover takes places, and that the Newfoundland fishery may or may not be in danger. There is also the possibility that the takeover will not take place, FPI's Board of Directors (inaudible). At that time the two parties could obviously end up in court, assuming the nature of the takeover and so on, and it may drag on for some time.

We will hack, at the appropriate time, whenever it is necessary, to see that Newfoundland's rural communities are - I think that is the key point, that Newfoundland, as we did in 1999, as legislation did in1987, we will act to see that Newfoundland and Labrador's rural communities are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The government has addressed revenue crunch this year though increased borrowing, but that borrowing is not transparent. The government says the deficit is only about $30.5 million. What you do not acknowledge is the fact that you are taking $184 million from the Sinking Fund surplus that is needed to retire debt. In other words, this year's actual deficit is in excess of $200 million. Won't the minister admit that this Budget provides a distorted picture of our true deficit?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Budget that we prepare is based on the cash we need and the borrowings we need each year to run our programs and services. We have never said anything other than that. It is there is the House of Assembly in December, when our Public Account Committee will receive the audit statements. They know what our unfunded liabilities are. They know exactly what our situation is. We have not deviated; we have not hidden it. In fact, we have written it right in the Budget Speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we know what the Auditor General said: that a $34 million deficit is a $221 million deficit. We are well aware of what the Auditor General has said.

I want to ask the minister, with reference to our GDP growth, for the past three years we have led the country. This past year, 5.2 per cent was our GDP growth. Next year it is projected to be 2 per cent. That is a decrease of 64 per cent. I ask the minister why she is projecting increases in revenue from many areas - consumption taxes to a great extent, in tobacco tax, gasoline tax, corporate income tax, sales tax, even lotteries - when the economy is not supposed to perform as well?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,.

I know it is unfortunate for the member opposite, but plus 2 per cent means a growth of 2 per cent. We are very pleased that the GDP is still supposed to grow by 2 per cent. We are predicting a strong provincial economy and, unlike the member opposite, I am not prepared to fear monger and get people to put their money back into their pockets and not spend. No, the growth is 2 per cent over and above what we have all seen over the last five years. Mr. Speaker, I know it is bad news but it has been doing fairly well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I caution the minister not to wear out that word fear monger. She did it in health; let's not do it in finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister one final question. In 2001-2002, our Province is budgeted to receive $76 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I wanted to ask the minister: Will Hydro be going to the Public Utilities Board this year for an increase in their rates?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The revenue that we are receiving from Hydro will not lead to a rate increase through the Public Utilities Board. If they go to the Public Utilities Board, it will be for their operation to address fuel cost increases like we all have had to address, and other related issues.

Our position, as a government here, is that while our Budget may be for one year, we have to always look beyond one year and try to make sure that we have enough revenue to avoid the peaks and valleys, and anybody can look on page 4 of the Budget Speech to see where we have come from. We have borrowed reasonably. We have no reason and no intention of destabilizing Hydro. We know that they may need to use that equity they have to borrow. Our recommendation and our revenues for related revenues are prudent. We have done it in the past, and we will continue to do it to try to maintain a sound, fiscal, prudent plan for our Province into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Commentaries in the public press and indeed some of the written comments in the Budget Speech show contempt for the collective bargaining processes for workers in the public sector. I ask the minister why she and her government has taken such a dictatorial and arrogant take-it-or-leave-it approach to the bargaining with those public servants who have been treated so poorly and often so disdainfully by all Liberal Administrations starting in 1989?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government has made it very clear that they would very much like to give four times the offer that is being requested, if that was the case; but what we are trying to do is, we are trying to maintain a sound, fiscal, prudent plan for our Province and one that we do not have to renege upon. We do not want to go back to the 1990s, when we all know what happened with the cod moratorium, when we all know what happened in our economy. While we might think in isolation - at least some of us might want to think in isolation - we have to think in terms of what is happening in our country and in the U.S. markets, our major export partners, and we have to be able to focus on what we are able to afford.

We are in the process of negotiating as we speak. All the teams are down there. Nobody wants to pre-empt anything, but you have to be able to work with the money you have and work with the ability you have to achieve a collective agreement, and we will do our best. We really appreciate the work of the public sector employees and we want to give them a fair and reasonable wage increase. We will try our best to deal with all of the other outstanding issues that have arisen at the table over the last number of days, particularly as we get down to the deadlines ahead of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Does the minister not realize, and does her government not realize, that bargaining in the media by announcing what the bottom line is over a three-year period has the effect of encouraging the members of the bargaining unit to really vote for a strike action. Madam Minister, your bargaining strategy must have been thought up somewhere different than what I would have thought would be the possible actions you have taken. Why did you adopt that strategy which had the effect of really encouraging NAPE members to vote for strike action?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to go out and pretend that you could do a whole lot of things that you are not able to sustain. One of the commitments we have made, and one of the things we have looked back over, is not wanting to go back to where we have come from in the 1990s, not being able to pay what we would want to pay. Many of us lived through that and it has been very difficult.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the whole Province has been a part of that process and we all know what we have come through.

Identifying the money available, in our perspective, was not a matter of doing anything other than letting people know what we had available to us. There was certainly an interest that people know the kinds of money we had available to spend with collective bargaining, and that is what we intended to do with that allocation.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is to speak about the issues that concern a lot of parents. Many parents of special needs children in this Province are very anxious about the safety of their children if student assistants go on strike. The NLTA has told their members not to do the work of the student assistants. What action has the minister, or the Minister of Education, taken on behalf of government to guarantee the safety of these special needs children?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about all of the public sector services that are offered by our employees. Regardless, if they work in the schools, hospitals, or clearing our roads, we will make every effort over the next number of days to do our best within our means to achieve a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that is the mission. That is where we are trying to go, and we will do that at the table as best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Many people in this Province will be disturbed that the Premier would not rise in his place today and answer questions about what the Deputy Premier has called a takeover by a company of one of the most important fishing enterprises in this Province. The former Premier, Mr. Tobin, as well as his previous Minister of Fisheries, never hesitated to deal with the NEOS issue in this House. Is it because this government will not act, prior to May 1, to prevent this takeover, or is it because he has already given his tacit approval to the takeover, as long as it is done within the existing legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an issue of considerable importance in Newfoundland and Labrador, as everyone would recognize. The difficulty is that we have some politicians now in the Legislature today who are trying to raise an issue well beyond where it has been raised in the Province.

The fact of the matter is this: Last week, I was visited by Mr. Risley as a courtesy call to indicate to myself and the Minister of Fisheries that he, with a group of Newfoundland and Labrador based business people, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians operating businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, were planning on trying to take an action at the next annual meeting of Fishery Products International to have - because one of the things that happens at the annual meeting is that the Board of Directors for the corporation gets appointed. They intend to try to have a slate of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians appointed to the Board. That is the only thing they told us. That is all they did, come as a courtesy to suggest that they are going to try at that meeting to have a group of Newfoundland and Labrador business people appointed to the Board of Directors of FPI, and that is the extent of what they told us at the meeting.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, why does the Deputy Premier call it a takeover by a company? Why does the current CEO call it an attempt to do indirectly what they could not do directly under the existing legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier spoke about the best interests of the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Will this Premier confirm that the same conditions of the previous government - that it required the approval of the communities, approval of the employees in those communities, before such a takeover would be permitted - will those same conditions apply to the takeover, or the attempted takeover, of the Board of Directors and management of FPI by this group and its supporters from Iceland and New Zealand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me state again for further clarity that the only information that the government has is that a particular group, led by Mr. Risley, is going to try to have a group of individual Newfoundland and Labrador business people voted in as the shareholders of FPI at their annual meeting. That is all they came to the government and indicated that they are going to try to do.

The issues that are raised in terms of a possible takeover, collusion and so on, are issues that I have discussed not with Mr. Risley but with Mr. Vic Young, who has also been in contact with me, not on one occasion but on several occasions. I have talked to Mr. Risley once. I have talked to Mr. Young on several occasions. Mr. Young was in the media today suggesting that this is a possible takeover and that they are going to resist it; that the current shareholders of FPI are going to try to make sure that the current board stays in place. There is another group of shareholders who are going to try to make sure that a different board goes in place.

In a month's time or so, at their annual meeting, I guess someone will find out who the Board of Directors are. There is absolutely no request, no suggestion, no request for action before the government and no suggestion that we have to take any action; but, because Mr. Young has indicated to us that he thinks a different Board of Directors might act together in violation of the spirit and intent of the act, we are having it checked out just in case there might be some truth to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

Notices of Motion

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can we revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister is asking for leave to revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

 

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Public Tender Act, I table the exemptions to the Public Tender Act for December, January and February.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, with concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do move that Mr. Wayne Green be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer under section 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 and that the appointment date be effective April 1, 2001.

I further move that Mr. Wayne Green be appointed as the Commissioner of Members' Interests under section 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act, effective also April 1, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, in making these motions, I wish to inform the House that this proposed appointment has been made, as I indicated, by agreement of all parties. Mr. Green will replace Mr. Robert Jenkins, who is retiring from the public service in just another few days. If I could, with leave, I would like to say a few words with respect to Mr. Jenkins' retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this Legislature certainly knows Bob Jenkins, as we all know him. I would like to thank, on our behalf, Mr. Jenkins for his service to this House of Assembly, to the people of the Province, and more generally for his contribution to the public service over many long, dedicated, committed years.

Mr. Jenkins has had a very distinguished career, having served as a former Clerk of the Executive Council and in several senior positions as deputy minister prior to his appointment as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner for Members' Interests. He has approached every single one of these positions with great diligence and performed them extremely well. I am sure that all Members of this House of Assembly join with me in wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just briefly mention that Mr. Green, who will assume these duties beginning April 1, has a notable career already in the senior public service, spanning some twenty-five years. He has served as Assistant Secretary to Cabinet for Social Policy. He has served as Deputy Minister of Education and as Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

We look forward to having Mr. Green serve this Legislature and the people of the Province in his new duties as Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Members' Interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to take a few moments to talk about Robert Jenkins. There is no question of the distinguished career that he has had. He came to this place, to the public service, under Smallwood, and served Premiers Moores, Peckford, Wells, Tobin, Tulk, Rideout, and now Grimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little bit of everything.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question.

With all respect, I think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to send our heartfelt congratulations on his career and best wishes for whatever endeavors he has.

With respect to the appointment of Mr. Wayne Green, certainly he, himself, has served this Province very well. We look forward, on this side of the House, to working with him in his arm's length, unbiased capacity as Chief Electoral Officer and as Commissioner of Members' Interests. We wish him well and we also wish him to look at the position that he will now be occupying April 1 to seek, probably, the advice of Mr. Jenkins who, in my view, did a very commendable and admirable job on behalf of the people of the Province and on behalf of the members in this Legislature.

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.

First of all, let me put on the record my concurrence with the appointment of Mr. Wayne Green as the Commissioner for Members' Interests for this House, and Chief Electoral Officer as well. These are two very important posts which report to this House, as we expect so will the Ombudsman and the Child Advocate in the future. Mr. Green, as the Premier has mentioned, is a person who has the concurrence, based on consultation with myself and the Leader of the Opposition, so he is considered to be representative of the House and reports to it.

My first encounter with Mr Green was back in 1991 during the Constitutional Committee of this House, chaired by Ed Roberts. Mr. Green was seconded as researcher and officer to this committee, and performed an admirable job for all sides of the committee, who had great interest in the constitutional duties and issues of the day. We look forward to working with Mr. Green who, based on my knowledge of him, is a very impartial, competent and experienced individual who is suited for this job.

May I also say, along with the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, that Mr. Bob Jenkins deserves the hearty commendations of this House for his performance of his role in both of these jobs. He was always competent, available, courteous and efficient in his job, and helpful to members of this House in meeting their obligations under the act. I would like to join with the previous speakers in asking the Speaker to offer our congratulations on his retirement after many years of service to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador in many senior capacities over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Petitions

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

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

I present another petition today on behalf of the residents of the Shea Heights area, who are looking for handicap accessible housing units in the area. The reason we are asking for the handicap accessible housing units within the Shea Heights area is simply this: that it is a community unto itself. It is a very close-knit community. It is a community where just about everybody in Shea Heights knows everybody else there and it would be shameful to take somebody from that environment and put them into a community where they are unknown and they do not know their neighbours. They are unable to rely on the support network of family and friends. There are quite a number of Newfoundland and Labrador housing units in the Shea Heights area, and it is only fit and fair that we have handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

I will read for the House the petition from the residents:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking that government consider the fact that people with disabilities and their families need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the community it compromises the help and support families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

It is with pleasure that I present this petition.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to this hon. House. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of rural and various other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's decision to layoff and transfer Hydro employees in Newfoundland and Labrador and its future plans for layoffs will have a severe social and economic impact on our communities;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to reverse its decision on layoffs and transfers of Hydro employees of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because in my own district there is a generating station between Seal Cove and Holyrood. I do know that at this particular location we are having people bumped, we are having people laid off, and I believe we are having people transferred. I do know that we are certainly transferring work out. We are contracting work out. As a matter of fact, just last year Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in Holyrood went and bought itself a new loader which must have cost in the vicinity of $75,000. I understand now that they have a general contractor which they pay $75 an hour to come in just to clear snow. Now why we cannot use the machine that we paid so much money for to clear the snow away at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's plant in Seal Cove really leaves me wondering.

Also - and I touched on this when I spoke the other day - I have been told by the members of the union our there that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are now trying to sell all of its inventory to a company - which shall remain nameless - all of its inventory which is at that plant in Seal Cove. They want to take all of their inventory and give it to this company so that when they go for their rate increase later on this year with the Board of Public Utilities they can say: Look, we have sold off our inventory and we are really trying to cut down our costs. The deal is that they are going to sell their inventory with the left hand and on the right hand, as soon as they are granted the rate increase by the PUB, they are going to buy all the inventory back from the same contractor at the same price. I believe this is ridiculous.

I also heard the Minister of Mines and Energy say that he was not going to get involved in that because this was a separate issue, that this was Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they should be operating on their own. Maybe they should be operating on their own, but they should not be operating on their own at the demise of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have worked for these companies, some of them for a good number of years, who stand the possibility of being bumped or move out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise these issues today. I certainly present this petition and wholeheartedly support it on behalf of the employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, not only in my own district but in every community where they work throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I would certainly urge the minister to get involved with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: - and tell these people they cannot do whatever they like.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of issues I want to speak about today. One was raised in the House of Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition, the FPI proposal or the proposal takeover of FPI. But before I get to that, one that was mentioned by a number of members and the Minister of Tourism is on the success of the Junior Curling Team and the congratulations that was bestowed upon them by everybody. I was taken back when nobody in the House of Assembly mentioned the lack of news media or the lack of reporting by our national news media, again, by the success and I ask the question: Is it because again, it is a Newfoundland team? I ask the question: If it was a Canadian team or some other part of Canada would they get the recognition or would they get the support and congratulations from all over the country? We had a team of young people here representing Newfoundland and Labrador, who went out and took on the world with confidence - as everybody said here today - with enthusiasm, with motivation and with success. I am not a curling fan myself - well I should not say I am not a curling fan, I have never played curling. I know very little about it, but when you hear about a young group from Newfoundland going you get interested and turn on the television. You switch all the channels, in particular the sports channels, and not once this weekend could I find anything when it came to where they were playing, what they were playing, what the success was, or was there any reporting on. So, I just want to make note of that. I was taken back when nobody mentioned it because I think that as a Province, as a government or as a Minister of Tourism and sports we should at least send a message, or make note of the lack of attention that this tremendous young group of athletes preformed, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador but for Canada. It wasn't just the people from Newfoundland and Labrador they represented, they represented the National Team.

The other issue was the proposed takeover for FPI. I think everybody in this Province should stop and think. This is just not a board of directors replacing a board of directors and what the possible outcome of this could be and what it could mean to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a number of communities around Newfoundland and Labrador who depend on the FPI company to provide stability and income on a seasonal basis in their communities, but we have a little more than that. We have quotas. We have the shellfish part of FPI, we have the groundfish part of FPI, and we have the marketing end of FPI. Now if Mr. Risley wants to come in and take over FPI he has a right to apply and buy up shares within the legislation that is provided by this House of Assembly, but they have already said their legal advisors say with the legislation that is now in place that there is a loophole. You have to be concerned about the thinking in the justice system and the legal system, and the ability of people to find a loophole. So we had better be prepared. That is the secondary issue here. The actual takeover can happen. As the Leader of the Opposition said: what they couldn't do through the front door, they could do through the back door. That is my concern. What are the possible out falls? Is it possible that they will continue on the same as FPI has continued on? I doubt it very much, and I am not a fan of any particular individual when it comes to Vic Young or somebody else on the Board of Directors of FPI. It is not the issue here. What is the issue is the company, one of the world's largest fishing companies, and what it means to the economy, the jobs and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Those people who earn money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, through the fishing industry, keep the companies going in the urban parts. So it matters to every man, woman and child in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was Minister of Fisheries - when I had the good fortune of being Minister of Fisheries - there was a proposal on the table. My colleague, Minister Tulk, said today that the position of government was very clear: You have to go out and sell it to the people living in those communities, otherwise we would not even entertain a discussion. That is still -

MR. TULK: And, by the way, that is still (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is still there, but now we have to be concerned about a possible loophole. That is one thing, but they are now saying that they can go up to within the 15 per cent - 14.1 or whatever - of a number of shareholders and take over the board of directors. Can you stop that? I do not know. I have no legal expertise whatsoever but we better find out through the best possible legal opinion that we have, exactly what the out fall of this is.

Let us use a couple of possible scenarios. Let's use the Icelandic Freezing Plants Corporation -yes, let us use John Risley - Clearwater Fine Foods and let us use the Barry Group. Let's just take three of them for an example. Maybe it is going to be right, maybe it is not. Let us use three. There are going to be probably more companies involved. Let us suppose that Risley, the Clearwater group, takes the groundfish quotas. Can he keep them in Newfoundland? Will he keep them in Newfoundland or will he use them to his own company's advantage in another part of Canada or in Nova Scotia? Or, vise versa, if it is the Barry Group of Companies: What will they do with the shellfish industry? The other thing that you have to thinking about is the market. Will the Icelandic company take the marketing company totally out clear of Newfoundland and Labrador altogether? These are the types of things that you have to be thinking about.

What is the other thing that FPI has brought to Newfoundland? Even during the turmoil and the chaos in the fishing industry the one thing that the fishermen could depend on was fair treatment by the FPI company when it came to pricing, when it came to maintaining their operations, when it came to mean a business partnership with the company. That is the one thing that they could talk about. When I was appointed Minister of Fisheries in 1996, one of the things that was prevalent in the fishing industry was the cartel. Don't anybody in this Province say that it was not there because it was. In its own form, it was there. It is not there now to the way in which it was because of the system that we have in place today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Well, because of the price and because of FPI. The system that was put in place by this government in 1997 and the price negotiation system that we have today prevents the cartel from operating in the manner in which it operated previous to that. Is there a formula in that system now? Yes, there is. I am not arguing that there is not a system in place. They are manipulative in how they have taken over the fishing industry. One of the concerns that we have today - and we have had it for a long time as a government - is how many fishing enterprises these individual companies own, and when they have control of the fishing enterprises then they have control of the whole structure of how the fishing industry operates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all of it.

MR. EFFORD: All of it. It is just not good enough to say: well, we will see what happens six weeks, six months or one year down the road. Whether Vic Young is CEO of FPI is not the issue, or whether it is John Jones as FPI's CEO; because Vic Young is like all of us, he is getting older and at some point in time in the future the Board of Directors and the age and everything will cause things to change. What we have to be concerned about and what we have to ensure is that the fishing, the quotas, the marketing end of it, and the rights and the privileges that are given to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stays within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the company structure stays here! That is where we can take the greatest benefits from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Who is at the end of the table, and who sits around the boardroom table with me or with anybody in the fishing industry is not the issue. We have come a long way in the fishing industry over the last four or five years and we are at the critical stage now where a turn downward could cause a total - the word collapse is not right but it certainly could cause many problems in the future. What we have to do, that small growth that we have in the fishing industry, is keep that momentum going and ensure that in no manner whatsoever will we allow something to cause anything other than a successful growth in the fishing industry. I don't how it is going to be dealt with. I am not in a position to have a say anymore except through my right as a member here in the House of Assembly or my right as a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I just bring to everybody a caution of the possible seriousness of the impact on the future of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and what this could mean. I hope I am proven wrong. I hope at the end of the day it works out for the best interest of the industry but knowing what is happening up in St. Anthony, knowing the Clearwater attitude towards the industry and other things, I have great concern about the future of FPI or whoever is in around that boardroom table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me say in reply to - not in reply to but I suppose in concert with the Member for Port de Grave, that the position of this government is the same as it was in 1999. I want to emphasize one point that he brought up, and it is this: that it is a concern and it is a concern that you had better not jump in quickly, that you had better explore every option that is available to you. Now I have to say, at this point, that what we have is a declaration by those people that they intend to put somebody on the board of directors; and the word takeover is probably not the correct word. There is a fear that there might be a takeover of FPI, but it is of concern where the marketing arm of that company goes. It is a concern where the harvesting arm of that company goes. It is a concern who has control over the quotas. For those people who came to us in 1999 - and FPI was one of them. Let's not forget where FPI stood in 1999. FPI, as I recall, in 1999 came to this government and said: lift the cap.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh yes, they did. There was representation made to this government to lift the cap because private enterprise wanted to be the order of the day. It was there, and I think we opposed it at that time for the right reasons and I think we kept it in place for the right reasons. The truth of the matter is, that if you let private enterprise run wild in the Newfoundland fishery you lose the social side of the fishing industry. The real truth of the matter is, I suppose if you wanted to, you could put one fish plant in Newfoundland and process every bit of fish there is, and, I suppose, that is the ultimate end of private enterprise. You probably did not need either one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, that I have made the point to people. I have not argued for it but I have made the point to people that maybe we could catch all of it on factory freezer trawlers and ship it directly to market. If that was our sole aim; but our aim is to keep the kind of Newfoundland and Labrador that all of us have come to know, to help our smaller rural communities, in as far as it is possible, to survive. That is the danger when letting the private enterprise philosophy take over and govern the Newfoundland fishery completely. That is the danger, that if you aim for efficiency and effectiveness only then you have a problem with the social makeup and demographics of this Province. That is one of the things that governments have always said no to. That is the purpose, really, of the 15 per cent cap. That is the purpose of saying unless the communities themselves say: yes, okay - as we did the last time. All of us in this House said let's hear from the communities and what they have to say. When they said no, we said no. I have no doubt that they will say no again. Sure, it is a serious issue. It is always a serious issue when you start to try to change the demographics and the reorganization of this Province. It is a danger that you have to be very careful of and you have to weigh your options very carefully. You have to look at what is happening and keep abreast of it. I don't think, to be frank with you, that is was very hard to figure out when in late 2000, early 2001 of this year, we seen a number of people move to buy up shares in FPI; but that's allowed. You are allowed to buy up to 15 per cent of the shares in FPI. If anybody in this House has the money tomorrow and wants to go out and buy it up, they are allowed to do it. If they want to compete in public (inaudible) they are allowed to do it.

We have always said in this Legislature that we will protect Newfoundland and Labrador, and that position has not changed. We will protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That that has not changed. You have to keep your eyes open and be aware of it, and that is what we intend to do.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

This is a very important issue. First of all, let me say a few comments about it upfront. This is not about Vic Young or John Risley, or Tommy Toe, or Jane Doe, from our perspective. The leverage, if we have any, that protects and provides this Legislature and this Assembly with the opportunity to ensure of what is in the best interest, on this resource front, for the people in the Province - in particular, rural communities that are heavily dependent upon this resource. The reason we have leverage, the reason that this is an important issue now based upon what has come out publicly, goes back to the reason why the legislation was enshrined in the first place. The collapse of the industry, the reorganization of the industry in the 1980s and what came out of that reorganization, the restrictions or cap that was put on in this Legislature, by this Legislature, and, from what I understand, unanimously approved in this Legislature, irrespective of political partisanship, was unanimously approved because all of us - everybody here at the time and the debate that occurred in 1999 - understood the importance of that legislation and the leverage it gave the government to act in the best interest of the people of the Province. I will say: Yes, FPI has indicated, publicly, that they wanted the restriction lifted, but not carte blanche; not carte blanche.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, they did not, minister. Let me expand upon that for a second. They did not say carte blanche. The former minister was there to discuss -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am sure you were. Let me go through it and I will be specific about it. Discussions with government, this is my understanding, that took place at the time - and if I am wrong maybe the Member for Port de Grave who was there can correct me if I am wrong because I assume he was the lead hand on the file. The discussions took place and there were conclusions reached out of FPI's request to remove the 15 per cent. They were that FPI acknowledged that it would be difficult for the government to seek: general removal of FPI's 15 per cent share constraints from FPI's articles in the absence of a deal, specific business proposal, which could be assessed as part of the process of removing FPI's 15 per cent share with constraints. Two -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, let me finish.

Two, government acknowledged that should FPI propose a deal specific acquisition, merger, takeover, or growth opportunity which is, on the one-hand, in the best interest of FPI shareholders, from FPI's perspective, and in the best interest - here is the catch, and here is where we should be thinking only about, all of us here - of Newfoundland and Labrador from the government's perspective.

That was the conclusion, in my understanding, that was reached between FPI, in their request, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that requires the removal of FPI's 15 per cent share constraint from FPI's articles. Then and only then would the government look favorably upon a proposal from FPI. The onus, however - and again this is my understanding - would be on FPI to convince its shareholders - and this is what is important - employees, and the communities in which it operates, of the wisdom of removing the 15 per cent share constraints from FPI articles in such considerations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It might be after the fact, but the point of the matter is simply this: that the government reached the conclusion, and I assume it is stated here today and that has not changed, that the onus, the responsibility, the burden of prove, whatever way you want to put it, will be on the company to ensure that it is in the best long-term interest and viability of the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you said it about four times. I understand that, and I am concerned not necessarily with what you said but what you did not say. That is what I am concerned about, not with what you said but what was not said.

We have no interest in getting involved in a corporate scrap. The only interest that we have, as legislators in this House of Assembly, is to protect the laws, rules and regulations that have been passed and enacted in this Legislature. We are ultimately responsible, and our paramount responsibility is to ensure that the spirit and intent of the legislation is also enacted; that if there are opportunities that present themselves in any given set of circumstance - we did it on Voisey's Bay, if you will recall, the legislation that all of us unanimously supported in 1999 where there was a loophole - I believe the minister at the time is now the Premier - that was suggested in the legislation, that we, government, proposed legislation to close that loophole. What did we do on this side of the House, and what did all members do? We agreed that the spirit and intent of a former piece of legislation needed to be amended because there was an opportunity or a perceived opportunity, based on sound legal opinion from the Department of Justice, that we needed to amend it to ensure that we lived up to the spirit and intent of that piece of legislation. The same logic applies in this case - the exact same logic applies in this case - so we had better get our house in order on this issue quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, absolutely. This is not a time for knee-jerk reaction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not. It may be a time to reassert the will of this Assembly. It may be a time to reassert and endorse the spirit and intent of the legislation that now exists. That does not mean we are being panicked. It is a time, I suggest to members opposite, for the leader of the government, which is the Premier in this case, to stand up and be counted on what government's view of this is. This is serious stuff. This is not amending a piece of legislation because regulations do not work, not because that is not important. This is serious stuff, serious business that we are up to here. Every document or publication by government on a development strategy for rural Newfoundland and Labrador that has been tabled in this House, the most recent one tabled by the Minister of Development, when you look at a cornerstone or a fundamental underpinning of developing a rural economy, it involves the fishery. That is the reason we are here.

I appreciate the comments of the Member for Port de Grave today in terms of what FPI has been able to do - and not necessarily just FPI - but I would think in some part that the legislation that was passed in the early 1980s has had a great deal to do with how that company has operated.

This is a time for us to be very clear-headed, clear in our thinking. I can tell you now that we are not going to play partisan politics with it. We have no intention of doing that; it is too important an issue. You may laugh, but we are not. I am telling you now, putting you on notice today, that we are not.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the hon. gentleman to get carried away with the fact that I grinned across my face when he said that. The truth of the matter is that I believe the hon. gentleman has a lot of character. I really do. I believe that the hon. gentleman at times, like the rest of us in this Legislature, can put aside partisan politics. I ask him not to interpret a flinch of my face, or anything like that, that I am doubting his character or doubting his commitment.

MR. E. BYRNE: I accept your apology.

MR. TULK: It is not an apology, I say to the hon. gentleman. I know where he is on those issues. It is not a problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not speaking to the point of order. There is no point of order.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

 

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate that; it is fine. I gave him leave to do it, Mr. Chair, and that is fair enough.

What is critical here, we cannot underestimate what this is about. Let's not underestimate what this is about. There has been enough history in this Province to show what happens when a particular group has unfettered access and unfettered control of an industry. Prior to our time as a Province in Canada, that is pretty clear.

You know, all of the legislation surrounding the fishery, the quota system, processing, the harvesting sector, this has evolved the way it has evolved for particular reasons -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: - for particular reasons based upon our shared history and our history as a Province and what occurred in that history to the point we are now.

I concur with the Member for Port de Grave on this issue because his statements in speaking to it reflect the questions that were asked - that I asked - on behalf of the Official Opposition in the House today.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible) concur with what I said?

MR. E. BYRNE: I never said that I did not concur with what you said. I just referenced the Member for Port de Grave because it reflected the questions asked today and the concerns that were contained and inherent and fundamental in those questions. So let's keep our head about us here. We have to. If it comes to a point in time, which it may, the process will determine it, I suppose, but government has a statutory obligation on this issue unlike any other merger or acquisition or corporate takeover, whatever it wants to be, simply because we have a statutory obligation because of the legislation that was acted in this House, and the spirit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) of the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: - nature of the Province - but because of the legislation that now exists that provides some measure of leverage for this House to act in a way that is in the best interest of everybody. That is the obligation of the government.

I was happy to hear that an opinion has been sought by the Department of Justice. Obviously government must be concerned. They would not have sought the opinion in the first place if they were not concerned. It is very critical and I can, in the strongest possible terms, suggest to the Premier, to the ministers involved, the provincial Minister of Fisheries, and to every member in this House, that we monitor this very, very closely on behalf of all of us.

Thank you, Mr .Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue that is under discussion here now, and I think first of all we have to acknowledge that in this Province both constitutionally, politically and financially, we have, at best, a tenuous hold over our primary resource, the fishing industry. We have seen what happened last year when the Government of Canada gave away a part of our shrimp. We see what is happening even now, and I believe it was Gus Etchegary this morning reporting to CBC of a panel being formed by the Government of Canada now, an academic panel, to advise the Government of Canada -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Dhaliwal is doing this, I say to the Deputy Premier. Mr. Dhaliwal is doing this, not Mr. Etchegary, appointing an academic committee to give the Government of Canada advice on what criteria should be used in the allocation of Newfoundland fish stocks, Mr. Chairman. No Newfoundlanders on this committee, but we are talking about principles and criteria on which Newfoundland's offshore resources are going to be allocated. I do not know where the Minister of Fisheries provincially was when this was happening, but what we see will constitutionally - control over the fish quotas is in the hands of the Government of Canada.

We have some control over processing, some control over plant licences, control which is often as not being used in the best interests of the fishing industry as whole but rather to individual operators and communities from time to time.

That is why it is in this context that this issue here about FPI is so important. FPI is not just another fishing company. It has been described by a recent financial analysis that is available for a fund company, ABC Funds, which refers to it as one of North America's leading seafood companies. In fact, they say in November, 2000, as part of their updates on this particular stock, that it is a stock, a company, which appears primed for takeover. I will quote: With three seafood companies each owning just under 15 per cent of FPI, and only five shareholders owning approximately 64 per cent of the total shares, FPI appears primed for takeover.

That was on November 10, 2000, by financial -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Do you want a copy of it?

Mr. Chairman, primed for takeover. That is what we have happening here by another name.

The big fear a couple of years - let's recall back in November, 1999, the various interests who wanted to buy, using money at that point, FPI. That wanted to tear it apart. They wanted to cut up the pieces. The scallops were all going to go to Nova Scotia. The Icelanders were interested in the marketing arm in the United States, Clouston Seafoods. They were going to carve it up. Mr. Risley in Nova Scotia, Mr. Barry and the Icelanders were all going to take their interests and carve up the company and break it up. That was the plan at that time.

Now what is the plan? Well, we will just take over the company. We will not need to pay any money for it. We will not need to put any money in shareholders' hands. We will not need to worry about the 15 per cent. We will just become the Board of Directors. We will put in a whole new group of management. We will put in a whole new group of management who will answer to us. We will put a new CEO in place, a new management team, and the Icelanders, the New Zealanders, Mr. Risley and the minority group, they will be pacified one way or the other. The minority group of Newfoundland shareholders will be pacified with a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but the majority plan is still available for action, still available to carry out the plans to take FPI's success, take FPI's assets, and use it to the best interests not of the shareholders as a whole but of the individual shareholders.

Yes, they may pay money for it. They may actually reach into their pockets and buy a part of the enterprise. They may, in fact, be able to get it approved and get various approval through the stock markets and whatever else they have to go through, because the only principles that apply is whether the shareholders are getting what they are entitled to, or whether a minority is being oppressed. The interests of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be a consideration in the selling off of the assets of FPI if the group, whether individually or collectively, takes over FPI the same way the NEOS group wanted to a couple of years ago.

I think the Deputy Premier misspoke when he said it was a takeover by a company. I don't think he intended to say that, but I think there is some truth in what he says; there is either a company or an association of companies that have a plan.

How naive does the Premier think we are, when he says: All we know is that they are going to propose some directors - that is all we have been told - and they trotted away out of our office after they said that.

Well, how naive does he think we are? Does he think that we were born under a cabbage patch yesterday? Does he think that we can swallow that whole?

MR. J. BYRNE: Which one are we talking about, the one here or the one in Ottawa?

MR. SULLIVAN: He knows we can't.

MR. HARRIS: He knows we can't, says the Member for Ferryland. There is no doubt that there is more to this than what the Premier is saying. There is more to this than what the Premier knows, because he knows that this is an attempt by Mr. Risley, his pals and his partners, to take over what has been described as one of North America's leading seafood companies.

This is a company that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a great deal at stake in the future of. This company has been, as the former Minister of Fisheries has said, a company that has won the respect of the fishermen, fish harvesters and plant workers in this Province for its dealings with them both in terms of its being upfront, honest, straightforward, and also in terms of sitting down and negotiating collective agreements and not attempting to use the legal process to prevent workers from achieving reasonable collective agreements, wages and working conditions.

They have not obviously rolled over and given the union everything that it wanted, but they have a reputation of being fair. They have a reputation of being tough bargainers but, at the end of the day, insisting and accepting that the fish harvesters and the plant workers have a right to a fair share of the harvest and a fair share of the value-added that they add in the plants around this Province.

They have done a good job, Mr. Chairman. I don't think anybody can say that from going from near bankruptcy in 1990, going through the cod moratorium, making a success of this enterprise over the last ten or a dozen years, being in the position that it has been in, it is certainly a credit to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have caught the fish, who have processed the fish, and who have made the company a success from the fishing boat to the board room. They deserve a lot of credit for that success, having raw materials at this point from over thirty countries of the world supplying the harvesting and processing operations and adding value to the shares as time went on.

I have a question and I don't really know the answer, but I do want to know what percentage of Icelandic fishing companies are permitted to be owned by foreigners. I have a good question about that, and maybe we should find out the answer to that question. Would the Country of Iceland, with the importance of its fishing industry to its future and to its well-being and to its communities, be satisfied to see New Zealand, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia go and take over their largest fishing company without any concern, without any restrictions, without any action taking place? Is that permitted under the laws of Iceland?

Another question that needs to be answered as a part of this debate: To what extent - we have talked about the previous government's position on lifting the 15 per cent, and the question of the approval of the communities and the employees. That was the previous government's position, not necessarily mine. That 15 per cent provides a protection for this Province that we would be -

MR. SHELLEY: Did you vote for it? I thought it was unanimous.

MR. HARRIS: I wasn't here. I was not here for every vote in this House, I say to the Member for Baie Verte, only in the last ten years. Anything that happened before that, I do not take responsibility for personally.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise today to speak to the resolution and Bill 2, respecting Interim Supply to Her Majesty. I speak to the need for government to have Interim Supply today to allow us to begin the first quarter of the new fiscal year 2001-2002, to allow for health programs and stabilization that we have announced in the Budget, to also allow us to provide the pay increase to the home support workers, the pharmacy dispensing fee, to allow for the women's centres funding to occur, the community centres, our provincial roads, our municipal operating grants and our new infrastructure program. All of these, plus many other programs, are necessary and would need to have Interim Supply in order for those programs, as well as others, to begin the first quarter of the year. As well, this Interim Supply will allow for the payment of the seven pay periods required in government, and also to allow us to manage not only our current account but also our capital accounts, as we have identified between April 1, 2001 and June 30, 2001.

Particularly today we ask for concurrence on Interim Supply on this bill because in order to allow the people in Labrador to receive their social assistance cheques by April 1, we would have to put them in the mail tomorrow morning. It is certainly an issue that I am sure all hon. members would want to see complied with, and one that we hope will happen today. As well, it is important to note that all of the other programs and services are equally as important and we are anxious to allow that process to begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wonder if the Minister of Finance would mind if I asked her just one question in terms of the explanation why you need Interim Supply today?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Not at all.

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you saying that none of the cheques can be mailed to Labrador until you get that, even though there has been an understanding - we have never held up Interim Supply beyond April 1 - that the government cannot go ahead and process based upon the word of the Opposition House Leader and the word of this side of the House to allow members in this Legislature some more time and latitude to debate granting $1.2 billion for the government?

Again, I am only asking for clarification. It seems to be an extraordinary sort of explanation where we cannot go ahead and process and guarantee the usual transaction of government's affairs in this regard, and suggesting then that members on this side, if we hold it up beyond today, are somehow, in some way, shape or form, being obstructionists and not allowing people to get their cheques. That seems to a quantum leap, from my point of view, in an explanation. We are not going to hold it up beyond April 1. You know that. We have given you our word on that. We never have done it.

Surely, giving us, as the Official Opposition, the appropriate amount of time, up until it is prudent to do so, to allow us to debate the issuance of providing government $1.2 billion worth of money in terms of Interim Supply, surely that is not the case.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In response to the question, the cheques are cut and, in fact, they are ready to go. My instruction is, and the information that I have asked, and I have asked for clarification, that in order for those social assistance cheques to be released, the Interim Supply Bill has to receive Royal Assent by March 26, 2001. That is the information that I have. The reason is specifically to allow the cheques, particularly in the northern portions of Labrador, to have the time to reach the people who live in those areas. That is the rationale behind that.

In terms of the ability of the House to do that, my information is that, while the cheques are cut, they cannot be released until Royal Assent has been given on the Interim Supply Bill.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the past, we have given approval as late as a couple of days before March 31. Is there a particular pay period due on April 1, right on April 1? That is a Saturday. That, I doubt very much in terms of it. We have done it before. I am sure the cheques are not being mailed individually here from St. John's. I would assume they are been sent out to the offices in those respective areas and they are probably going to be dispersed from those respective areas there. I cannot see that as being a problem, five days before the end of the month, when we do not have a specific pay period that is due on April 1. Actually, I doubt it. The pay period is probably not due until the following Wednesday or even Friday, I would think.

If we give assurances here, even today, and got Royal Assent after 5:00 this evening, they are not going to be in today's mail anyway, I wouldn't think. They are going to be in tomorrow's mail. It is an issue that, if we are back here - and beyond Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day, we would not advocate going to the last minute on it, but at least why don't we have an explanation? Why, if it was passed tomorrow, can we not meet that commitment? We have done it on shorter notice in the past, when a pay period was due to come up very shortly. That is not the instance now, unless somebody can tell my why, if there is a pay period on April 1, that needs to be met.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I checked just as late as a few minutes before I came into the House with the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and I was informed that, specifically as it relates to Northern Labrador, they would need to have the cheques in the mail tomorrow morning. That is the rationale for doing it. We would require Royal Assent for those cheques to be released.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I rise today to take part in debate on Bill 2. Madam Chairperson, it never ceases to amaze me that this government, when they re-open the House of Assembly, there are always a couple of pieces of legislation that have to be done and have to be done within one or two days, or else it is going to be the demons on the other side.... I can hear the Minister of Finance now if, for some reason, we want to stand in this Assembly and talk about $1.3 billion of the taxpayers' money, if we want to stand here and raise some concerns and ask some questions, I can hear the Minister of Finance, come Friday evening, talking about the uncaring Opposition, how bad they are because the people on the Coast of Labrador, or somebody else, is unable to get a cheque which was struck by government.

I say to the Minister of Finance, and I say to the Government House Leader, it is about time that you look at your legislation before you call the Assembly together. It is about time that you gave the Opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, an opportunity to get up and ask about $1.2 billion of the taxpayers' money that you want a blank cheque for, that you do not want discussed, that you do not want debated, but you want passed on about the fourth day that we have had an opportunity to stand in this House and do regular government business.

Before I get on to that, I would like to say a few words, and I am going to keep them brief, about a topic that has been a great concern in this House here today. We talk about the activity in seeing an outside interest come in and try to control Fisheries Products International, a company that I know very well, a company that I put on my rubber boots and went to work for, for thirteen years of my life. It is a situation, and nobody should be surprised, I say to people here in this Assembly. Nobody should be surprised to hear of what is happening and to hear of this outside interest now making another bid to take over this fishing company. At some time somebody might say: Why are you so concerned? Why is this private company acting under legislation of the House of Assembly? Why isn't is allowed to proceed like every other private company? Madame Chairperson, there is a special reason for that. This company was constructed with thousands and with millions of dollars of taxpayer's money. When this company was formed in 1987 it was formed and the legislation was put in place to protect taxpayer's dollars and protect rural communities in this Province. If you are going to take over an industry you have to do one of two things. If you want to control an industry you have to control the market or you have to control the supply.

We all know of an attempt that happened back just a year ago when a similar company tried to take over Fishery Products International. We all know the way that they went about doing it. We should also be reminded of what happened a short time ago when there was a special bid made - I see the Minister of Justice looking over because he knows the situation very well - when certain people went out and said: we have the answer for Burgeo; a community that has been devastated by the closure of the ground fishery on the South Coast of this Province. They had the answer for Burgeo. They had the people in Burgeo - naturally, like everybody else the people wanted to go to work. They are good, hardworking people who saw an opportunity to provide for their families; saw an opportunity to be able to live in their communities; saw an opportunity to be able to continue with a way of life that they were used to. We saw an action, a direction made where this company put forward a proposal to go in and open up the fish plant in Burgeo, but there was a catch to it, I say to the Minister of Justice, and he knows the catch very well.

In order for this company to take over Burgeo they wanted to have access to a resource outside the 200-mile limit. They wanted to be able to harvest the product themselves and bring the product ashore, process it in Burgeo, providing many people with an opportunity to go to work. They thought they were going to split the fishing industry wide apart. They thought that they would have a big split; and the Minister of Fisheries knows this issue very well. I am not even sure were he was on this one. The former Minister of Fisheries knows it very well. They thought they were going to create a split in the boat sectors of this Province. They brought in the rules and regulations and said to certain harvesters that you do not have the capability of going out and landing a product that exists 200 miles offshore. How are we going to get around that? How are we going to prove to them that they cannot go outside of the 200-mile limit and land a quality product? So we are going to say, in order to harvest this product you have to have a refrigerated sea water supply on your boat. That is one way of doing it. We will supply the boats with the RSW system on it and we will go out and catch the fish because now we have the technology that will allow us to do it and everybody else will not be allowed to do it. In fact, there were boats in ports here in this Province that were bought - I do not know if they were paid for but I tell you what, they were landed and were put in ports in this Province right ready to go out and harvest that quota outside the 200-mile limit, but it did not happen. It did not happen because the fishermen and harvesters got together and said: hang on now, we are capable of going outside the 200 miles and we are capable of landing a good quality product. We are not going to allow processors in this Province to go out and take away our livelihood. That was another move, I say to the minister, to try to get in through the back door. That was another move.

I went out in the lobby of the building the other day and seen a couple of individuals. I wasn't surprised to see and read the story that I read in The Telegram today. It is obvious that this company did not go, in 1999, and spend millions of dollars in order to take over Fishery Products International and then walk away from the table. It is obvious there is going to be another bid. I serve notice on the Deputy Premier that if he is going to wait until May 1, if he is going to hold off and do nothing until the annual meeting of Fishery Products International, if he is going to do nothing and wait and see what the fall out of that meeting is going to be or see who the board of directors are going to be, then I fear he might have a big fight on his hands after. I tell you what, my phone has not stopped ringing today from people who are in fear of what might happen to the two plants that Fishery Products owns in my district. I am talking about Bonavista and Port Union.

The former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and our leader got up and talked the reputable company. I can only concur with that because I don't know of another company today that exists in rural areas that is so trusted as Fishery Products International.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about Clearwater in Burgeo.

MR. FITZGERALD: Tell us about Clearwater in Burgeo. The other question is: What is Mr. Risley doing with the shrimp that he is catching offshore today? What is Clearwater doing with the shrimp that they are catching off Greenland today? Where is it being processed? This one is on you, I say to the Deputy Premier. This is not one you can blame on your cousins up in Ottawa. This one is in your court. That is why it is important to make sure that you reach out and get the best possible advice that you can. If there are loopholes there in that piece of legislation don't wait until May 1, get it done now, because I can tell you that Clearwater Fine Foods, or John Risley, or NEOS will certainly not have a record in two years' time that Fishery Products International have had in the years that they served this Province and served the communities in the Province. I can tell you that I have not talked to many fishermen who have had a problem getting their paycheque from Fishery Products International. I have not talked to many plant workers who have been taken advantage of. I have not been talking to many people who are saying that we don't want Fishery Products International to look after the fish processing plant in our town anymore. It is always a situation where they know they have been treated fairly. They know that here is a company that has reached out. While they have never given them everything they wanted - they have never expected that - but at least they know that there is somebody there they respect, and respects those people as workers. I say to the Deputy Minister: Be careful of the way that this is unfolding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Deputy Minister?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Deputy Premier, I say to the lost minister down there who sits in his seat and occasionally speaks from his seat but never stands.

Madam Chairperson, it is a special need. I know your district, Madam Chairperson, has a large processing plant there, one of the biggest in fact, owned by Fishery Products International, just down the way at Harbour Breton. Those people, I am sure, that if you have talked to them - I know what they put forward before and I knew their concerns before and I don't think that has diminished any. I think they have great concerns today because they are in fear of what might happen.

I say to you, Deputy Premier, that when you meet with Mr. Risley again, ask him where he is processing the shrimp that he is catching off Greenland now. When you are finished with that conversation you can ask Mr. Vic Young where his shrimp is being processed, and you will find that there is a vast difference in the manpower, or the people power, the women power, that is used by Fishery Products International and by the plant workers that are employed by Clearwater Fine Foods.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the situation, Madam Chairperson. I say to the Deputy Premier to not sit back and wait for it to unfold, or not sit back and be complacent about it because it is something that needs to be done immediately.

Madam Chairperson, before I get off the fishery and talk about other things here, I took this picture when I was down in Bonavista. I went out by the marine centre this past summer, and here is a good indication of the rules and regulations that were brought in by your federal cousins up in Ottawa when they limit the size of a boat that fishermen are allowed to have in order to go out and harvest product here in this Province, I say to the members opposite.

As you know, if you have a licence today to harvest and take part in the -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I do not mind the hon. gentleman from Bonavista South standing up and blaming my cousins - as he calls them - in Ottawa for putting something in place that was wrong. Now, if he wants to say they have not corrected, I will agree with him, but the truth the matter is that both sizes in this Province were put in place by his cousins, not mine.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chairperson, I have never campaigned to have anybody elected in Ottawa who would bring about such draconian rules and regulations as I am about to show this House today, never. But I say to the member opposite that when I look over there I see many faces that were on the campaign trail for the hon. Brian Tobin when he was on the go, when he was a former Minister of Fisheries, and we had every right. He had every opportunity to stand in his place and change those rules and regulations.

We heard the former minister, now Member for Port de Grave, talk many times about how he would like to see this regulation changed, but he has never gotten anywhere with it. His federal cousins would never listen to him. He tried to get up there himself. Maybe we would have better served if he had been up there because at least he would have been making a noise, I say to members opposite, not standing and being an apologist - to borrow a phrase from the Opposition House Leader - for the Primer Minister of the country.

Here is the situation, fishermen today are asking that they be allowed to go and operate their enterprise independently. Here is the situation today where fishermen are saying to government: Mr. government, get out of my pockets and allow me to reach out and purchase or build a boat that would provide me and my crew with some form of safety, some degree of comfort when we have to go out and take part in the fishery and deal with the unkind ocean, who this past year - and I don't want to tie this in with it. It was only this morning that I read, or heard on the radio, when they were advertising and putting forward what Land and Sea is going to be about on Tuesday nights. There have been something like seven lives lost this year by people having to go out to either retrieve fishing gear because of rules and regulations that were brought into effect at certain times rather than be charged, or had to go out fishing in a boat that was unsuitable for their needs.

Those fishermen are not looking for any extra quota, I say to people opposite. They are not looking for any extra species of fish. All they are saying is: look, allow me to operate independently. Here is the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, when he was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, believed in free enterprise, believed that you should not restrict people on what they are allowed to do. That is why he allowed truck drivers - if I wanted to buy a truck and go hauling asphalt or hauling frozen product, the minister said I should be allowed to do it. It is a job to argue against that concept, but how do you, on one hand, say we are going to open up the trucking industry, open up other businesses in this Province, and still restrict fishermen with the size of boat that they are allowed to be able to go off to sea in, in order to carry out and make a living.

I have a picture here. Because of the size of the boat, and the restriction on fishermen, he had to go and make some modifications on his boat. This all has to be done and inspected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a boat that the fisherman bought. It is probably the biggest Newfoundland joke, the biggest Newfie joke, that you ever saw in your life. I am going to pass it around to show the people of the House how Archean your federal cousins - the rules and regulations they make, being made in isolation from the industry, and being made so far away - how out of touch they are with the industry.

I ask the Page if she would take this picture and give it to somebody to pass around the House. Here, we have a boat today with a square stem, by abiding by the rules and regulations that your cousins up in Ottawa say is the way it should be done, and we are not going to change rules and regulations in order to allow that to happen.

The minister has probably seen it. Pass it to the Finance Minister. I bet she hasn't seen a boat like this before. The minister is not looking at it because he is ashamed of what rules and regulations exist in this industry today.

MR. SULLIVAN: You don't know if the boat is going forward or backward, do you?

MR. FITZGERALD: You don't know if she is going forward or backward. That is only one. There are worse examples. It is just that I happened to have seen this particular boat while it was under construction in Bonavista.

Here is the situation: If we are going to go making rules and regulations, if we are going to say that we support an industry, and if we support the people working in that particular industry, then that is all the more reason why we have to be mindful of the rules and regulations that we implement and allow to be put out there as policy and regulation in this industry.

I have always said that the decision-makers are too far removed from the industry in order to make wise decisions.

MR. EFFORD: I withdraw leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: You did what?

MR. EFFORD: I withdrew your leave.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. member has withdrawn leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: That is alright, I will stand again.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The Member for Bonavista South - I get mixed up in the south and the north down there.

MR. TULK: He is not in the north!

MR. EFFORD: Not in the north.

Seriously, here we are talking -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your phone is not working.

MR. EFFORD: It hasn't worked for a few months.

Here we are talking about a major change in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that both sides of the House, as your leader said today, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, should not be playing partisan politics in any form whatsoever. We all have a right, standing in the House of Assembly, to make comments on what we see are the positive and the negatives, or the outcome of this happening, and here the Member for Bonavista South gets off on a tangent about the Temporary Vessel Replacement Program, and starts talking about our federal cousins in Ottawa.

There are a number of things that I would have thought you would have known the difference in, on how this all came about. First of all, members on both sides of the House, representing fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, have never, for the most part, agreed with this foolish policy. I am on record, as the former Minister of Fisheries, on eight occasions, of writing the federal Minister of Fisheries, arguing with the federal Minister of Fisheries, about the silly rule; but, who caused the rule to stay in place? Was it federal politicians? No. Was it provincial politicians? No. It was Richard Cashin.

MR. TULK: Supported by who?

MR. EFFORD: Supported by the FFAW -

MR. TULK: And?

MR. EFFORD: - and supported by many people in consultation around Newfoundland and Labrador involved in the fishing industry; and here is the reason why they said it couldn't be changed.

MR. TULK: Who was one of them?

MR. EFFORD: Our friend opposite, Mr. Taylor, representing now the Straits.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You were there. You were part of the FFAW at the time. Here is the logic - listen to it - on why they wouldn't change the Temporary Vessel Replacement Program regulations. We have just gone through a capacity reduction, they said.

That is the only logic they had given as to why it couldn't be changed: capacity reduction. In other words, we had reduced from several thousand fishermen down to 1,500 or 2,000 boats and, if we increased the size of the boats, that would cause an increase in capacity. Utter nonsense! I argued that with Richard Cashin at the time. The federal government and the science department sets the quotas; and if you, as an individual, have an IQ on crab, and you know how much cod you are going to catch, and you know what shrimp you are going to catch, and you are foolish enough to go to the bank and build a vessel the size of the Titanic, that should be your business.

So, it was not the federal cousins in Ottawa. Had we here in the Province recommended changes to the Vessel Replacement Program, it would have been done; but we as a Province, as the industry led by Richard Cashin, recommended that no changes be put in place.

Get your facts straight if you are going to talk about the Vessel Replacement Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and it is quite obvious that the Member for the Straits knows very clearly how this all had taken place. Even now, just a few months ago, even now today, they are still arguing; we cannot change the rules and regulations because of the capacity reduction that we went through, the buy-out program.

It is too silly to talk about. Yet, we will force people to cut the stem off their boat. I was down in Bonavista awhile ago and I saw the stem cut of a boat so she could meet the measurement requirements.

MR. FITZGERALD: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The former minister can wiggle and try to blame all he wants, but the former minister knows full well that the FFAW or the IFAW or the UFCW do not pass legislation. Those rules and regulations can be changed if your cousins in Ottawa have the will to change them. You know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: The Member for Bonavista South is right. Any government can change legislation when they want to; but in cases like this, in the example of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, what the federal government has been advocating for the last decade is consultation and working with the people in the industry to make the changes that the people in the industry want. When Richard Cashin was appointed to that board, that renewal board, he went around the Province and held meetings all over Newfoundland and Labrador and he sent the recommendations to Ottawa.

If Ottawa went against the recommendations that were sent up, then we would be up there condemning them for not listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot have it on both sides of the fence. Should they be changed? Yes, they should be changed. Should the people be allowed to build any size boat they want? Yes, within their own means and within their own financial obligations, they should be allowed to do it.

When you stand in the House of Assembly and talk about an issue in the future, get your facts straight!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a couple of comments. I will start with the particular issue we are debating now. I think we have advocated for some time, through our former critic here, that if people are given a specific quota to catch, why should you restrict the size of boat you catch them in? If you have to transport 2,000 pounds of fish, do you have to transport it in a pickup? If you want to use a flatbed or if you want to use a reefer to transport it, why shouldn't you? Who dictates -

MR. EFFORD: What about quality? You have to use a reefer (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Product. I did not say what we were talking about. If you wanted to carry in a fish box, 2,000 pounds or 1,000 pounds, in a container, fresh product, iced downed, is there a difference in carrying it in the back of a pickup for ten miles or on a flatbed for ten miles? Should you dictate that you have to carry it in a specific type? Of course not, provided - if it is a quality issue and you meet standards - you carry it in a proper manner.

A fisherman in Petty Harbour had to cut three feet off his boat. He got a boat that was three feet too long. Not only that; you had to get the boat and cut a three-foot section out and then put it back together, very similar to my colleague from Bonavista South.

If government was financing operations, they would put a limit on freezing capacity in this Province. No more loans to fish companies to increase freezing capacity, we have over capacity.

What about a company that wants to spend a million bucks of their own money - individuals - and increase their capacity? What can you do about it? We should not use government money.

Yes, if we have excess use of public money it is one thing. Okay, I will repeat it, in case the minister did not hear. I said, when there were limits put on the freezing capacity in the Province, and government are not going to fund anyone to increase their freezing capacity, and somebody wanted to spend their own money, if there is a limit on the size of boats and someone wants to spend their own money on a boat, or to buy a bigger truck to transport, or buy whatever the particular thing, within the specific quotas, they should operate that. If they want to have more space to do processing, if they are a little cramped in their facility and would like to widen the plant and make it longer, to have a little more space in their plant, probably make it more efficient, there should not be limits, and there have not been limits on doing that, to try to increase productively or maybe increase quality and these things, when you are spending your own particular money.

When you have a quota to catch, and if you can catch it in a thirty-nine-foot boat as opposed to a thirty-four-foot by eleven-foot, or a forty-foot boat, and it is safer to do it, and you are spending your own money - when you had competitive quotas before, people with bigger boats can go further afield, they can have increased capacity to bring in, but when you get into specific quotas, when you get into IQs, individual quotas there, why should someone be limited in that regard? We have addressed this in the past.

I just want to switch now to an issue that came up here in discussion. Fishery Products has been a hot topic today in the media. I think my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development did indicate, and I agree, to my knowledge, Fishery Products requested back some time ago to have the 15 per cent lifted without strings attached. They requested that.

Under the NEOS takeover proposal, they had a deal specifically lifting the 15 per cent. To me, what we have to do as a government, and the people of this Province, our job is to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If that cannot be done by lifting the cap, we do not lift it. Corporate interests serve their own corporate good, whether it is Clearwater or whatever the company happens to be, whether it is any industry, fishery or non-fishery related, corporate interests are out to enhance and make more efficient and turn a bigger dollar on the bottom line for their corporate interests. That is a normal process of doing business today.

If doing business today endangers the survival of Newfoundland and Labrador, jeopardizes the ability of communities to survive, and could end up with taking jobs out of our Province and putting them in Nova Scotia or some part of the world, we have a right as legislators, as a government, to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in their communities. We have to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Guaranteed. We are at a point now - and we cannot be jumping. To our knowledge, what has been in the media is that Clearwater Fine Foods, John Risley, is proposing, and maybe says that running the possibility of a slate or dissident slate, call it what you like, if they are putting forth - does that company have a right to have someone on the board? That is the question. Do Newfoundland freezer plants have a right to have someone the board? Does Sanford have the right to have someone on the board? Or do Icelandic fishermen have the right to have someone on the board? There are questions. If someone is on the board, we have a right, regardless of who sits there, who they represent, and I would like to see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that board. I would like to see people who are going to ensure that Fishery Products, what they process and what they catch, is maximized to the benefit of plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundland and Labrador communities. If having somebody out there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, regardless of who is on it someone on that board should have the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What control we have over that private industry is in legislation, and if that 15 per cent is a way to guarantee Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be the beneficiaries, we do not want the stocks raped off of Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of other people and we do not want jobs onshore in this Province, or whatever the case, going outside of this Province. That is a role of us as a Province. Every company and business today - I have been in business and lots of people here have in different ways. Businesses are in business to make money, to maximize their return, to cut down their inefficiencies and to be able to produce a better bottom line. That is the role of business. If they were not at that, they would not be very good at running business.

Government has tried to do that on many occasions and have not done a very good job at running business. They should get out of business. We have a job to regulate, to control business. I do not necessarily agree with government running business, but I do agree with them having regulation and control to protect the people we represent in the Province.

As I think was alluded to today in Question Period, in response, it is something that should not be done in haste. There is a lot of talk that has to go into this. We have to look at a maximization. We have to look at what resources are there, what quotas are there. We do not want quotas transferred from the hands that are getting the work done here and end up somewhere else where they are going to get the jobs. That is not acceptable to me as a member of the Legislature and I am sure to my colleagues, as members of the Legislature, or anybody there.

We have enough restrictions and constraints put on us in trying to develop jobs here in our Province. It is difficult. We have seen a lot of industries in our Province where the beneficiaries from the offshore oil, for example, are in refineries on the Eastern seaboard, and people getting jobs everywhere else. We passed up an opportunity when Leatherhead, England got the upper hand in engineering jobs. We have to develop expertise. We have to focus on policies that are going to help create jobs and sustain the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because what happens under consolidation of companies - now there is consolidation occurring all over the world and it is probably, they call it, more efficient in their operation, but if consolidation is detrimental to Newfoundland and Labrador that is companies' job to pursue their agenda. It is our job to pursue an agenda of what is reasonable to protect the interest of people in our Province. We have to weigh that. We have to weigh the ability of government not to frustrate business, but not to give business a free hand in terms of going for their goals. Our goal: we would like to see healthy businesses turn profits. We would like to see the Newfoundland companies, number one.

Fishery Products International right now, and even prior to these recent acquisitions, was not owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but it operated in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was owned on Bay Street primarily, in Eastern Townships, almost 15 per cent by Ontario Municipal Employment and Retirement fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

Here is the point, the difference in the FPI structure, where we have to be cautious - before, the owners of FPI were not fish companies, they were retirement funds from municipal employees in Ontario, for example. Their job, to the municipal employees, is to invest their money in a fund that is going to get them a return. Granted it did not get them a return as well as they wanted. So they wanted to get out of that and invest it where they were going to get a better return. That is their goal and their job.

Right now, the majority of FPI is owned by a few major companies, three outside of this Province, by Clearwater Fine Foods, Icelander and Sanford. They collectively own about 43 per cent. There is roughly 10.6 owned by a consortium of about forty or fifty Newfoundland companies under Newfoundland freezer plants -

MR. TULK: How many? There are not forty.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are four major partners in that, and under those four there are numerous plants, plus there are about another seven or eight plants in the other 20 per cent that own an average of two and three each.

MR. TULK: I thought there was only four principle shareholders.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are four principle shareholders such as, I think, Quinlans and Daleys and the Barry Group and the Penny group of companies. There is another consortium that has the other percent, many smaller plants, some of which are in my district and some are scattered, like Aqua fisheries, Cape Broyle Sea Products, Woodman's, I believe, and maybe Hiscocks and Janes - I am not sure - and numerous other plants. If you add up all of the fish pants in this other 10.6 per cent, there are about forty or fifty of them, I would imagine, operating here in Newfoundland and Labrador making up the other area. We have a responsibility here -

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? I will finish up in a minute or two, if I could.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have a vested responsibility here to protect the people that elected us to represent them, and they are the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. If what someone proposes is in the best interest of Newfoundland and we think it is in the best interest, we have a responsibility to move accordingly. If we think it is not in the best interest, when we see everything laid on the table, we have to be cautious because of the structure of FPI, which was a non-fishing owned company and is now primarily a fishing owned structure. We have to weigh that carefully in terms of what is best for Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishery Products probably sacrificed the return on their dollar. That is why OMERS got out of it. Maybe they sacrificed the return on their dollar to maximize jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe they did do that. That could be considered admirable for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. What basically happens in the future -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, yes.

I must say, I think we are at a very important point here in the Newfoundland fishing industry and we have to look at it very closely. I am sure government are certainly as much aware as we are what the playing field is, what is at stake here, and if we think they are, in any way, not doing that in the best interests, well, we will certainly be holding them accountable the same as any other particular issue out there in the Province today.

The minister knows full well that I, on this side, will be just as loud as the Leader of the Opposition and the fisheries critic and everybody else, on whatever the issue is -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, ready to go to that great chamber beyond.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know he did, but there was a point in time when you did not mind. He got kicked out once and the other minister over there got kicked out once or twice, but he will get back, and he is good and he behaves. He is a team player. The guy there is a team player and he might just get back in in that slot again. He might get that chance again, I would say. He might get back but he has to be a team player. He has to be a part of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying now?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I am saying that if Member for Port de Grave is a team player, plays his cards right, he might get back in that spot that is going to be created now in another little while, when someone goes up to walk on the red carpet in the supreme Chamber in Ottawa, that non-elected centre of democracy in Canada that has only a few little senators from this Province, dozens of -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I must say to the Member for Port de Grave, your words are going to be carefully monitored. You cannot be a thorn in their sides or you will not get back in. You have to be good and do what they tell you. I am sure you are good at taking advice and taking orders. You have done it well in the past and I am sure you will do it again.

Anyway, I am on leave here. I made the few points I wanted to make on this particular topic.

MR. EFFORD: I withdraw his leave, Madam Chairperson.

MR. SULLIVAN: I beg you pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I withdraw your leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask that my leave be withdrawn because I said I am finished up.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Again, to go back to Member for Bonavista South and now the Member for Ferryland, everybody is missing the point here. I should not say everybody, but certainly on that side of the House over there they are missing the point of the possibilities of the fallout of this possible FPI takeover, and the fallout that could occur in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Aside from the possible quota transfers, the division of a company where an Icelandic company could own the marketing end, someone else could own the shellfish end and another company could own the groundfish end of it, and where all those quotas could go - that is one concern - but there is another concern that has not been mentioned here this afternoon, and that is the concern of the fishing industry being in the hands of a small group of players here in this Province. If you get a company like Clearwater and a company like Bill Barry and the Barry Group of Companies, and they now take over the FPI industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador, can you imagine the power that they would have, the control that they would have of the fishing industry here in this Province, and what it could mean to the small plant owner, what it could mean to the individual, independent boat owners? I do not know how many are left but there are some independent fishermen in the Province.

These are the type of things that everybody here in this Province has to be concerned about, because that happened over in Iceland, where the companies now, for the most part, control the fishing industry. What is one of the things they do when they get control? One of the things that we have opposed here in this Province for years is ITQS, Individual Transferrable Quotas. The companies themselves are in favour of transferrable quotas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wouldn't they be?

MR. SULLIVAN: Why wouldn't they be? You are absolutely right! Here is what would happen. If the companies could get it in their hands, to be able to bring in and convince the federal government of this country that ITQS is the right way to go for the future, then in a very short period of time, they, then, would start buying up the quotas from individual fishermen. What fisherman is going to say no, when he is about ready to retire, to a company that is offering him $1 million or $1 million-plus, for his quota of crab, quota of shrimp, or quota of cod?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is happening now.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is happening now, but not to the extent it could happen if that policy was changed. It is happening now in the name of another fishermen. But, you are right! It is happening through the back door. It would happen much more quickly, and quicker, if two or three companies got control of the fishing industry. This is what it is all about, controlling the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Two or three people have this power, this greed, this want to get control, and that is what this is all about.

Imagine a company like FPI taking over, a company like FPI sitting down around the boardroom table with the CEO there who they tell what to do. Now you have all that shellfish industry, you have all that groundfish industry and that major marketing company - what is the name of it? It is called Clouston's, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: The marketing end of FPI.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clouston Food Groups.

MR. SULLIVAN: Clouston Food Groups. That turns a major profit on an annual basis. That is what the Icelandic group want to get their hands into, the marketing end of FPI.

It is just not a matter of somebody else sitting at the boardroom table, it is the fallout of what negative impacts it could have on the industry here in this Province afterwards and the impacts it could have for the long-term on the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I am one of those people here who would say that I listen attentively. I certainly am not disinterested, I say to the Member for Bay de Verde. I grew up on the Burin Peninsula and certainly the member for that area would know my connection to the industry. Of course, my family were boatbuilders. We didn't catch the fish, we built the boats. I am proud to say my father built 134 boats. So, I do have some connection to the industry. I never was fishing for a living in my life, but my family certainly were connected to it. I don't say that I have a great deal of knowledge of the intimate nature that the Member for Ferryland would have, whose family was connected to the industry and who himself owned and managed a fish plant. However, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - that is the thing with the Member for Bay de Verde over there. He kind of indicates -

MR. EFFORD: Port de Grave.

MR. HODDER: Port de Grave. I apologize to the member for confusing his district, but he certainly espoused well this afternoon when talking about the fishing industry, as we ourselves, our own caucus - this morning in our caucus we dedicated about forty minutes to discussing this whole issue. I listened with some interest because there is a concern, not just outside the overpass, but all over Newfoundland and Labrador. I have a great number of fishing people living in my district in Waterford Valley. There are captains who live there. Don't forget the impact that it would have on Donovans Industrial Park if we changed things. In fact, a study that I had done with the Mayor of Mount Pearl was precisely on that: the impact that the fishing industry has on Donovans Industrial Park, and I can tell you that it is significant. Therefore, to say that I have no interest in the fishing industry is not correct. I don't have the intimate knowledge that some members have, but certainly I am not a disinterested person.

We are here today to look at the Interim Supply measures. I noticed that the minister, when she stood in her place, did not take any time to talk about all the categories. I just wanted to look at some of those categories. In the Interim Supply, what we are debating here, we are supposed to be looking at putting up $72 million for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. Madam Minister did not stand in her place and give any idea of what they were going to do with that $72 million. In fact, during this debate no member on the government side got up and even addressed for as little as five minutes. Not for one five minutes has any minister or any member on that side gotten up and said: Well, this is what we are going to do with this $1,226,446,100. We, on this side, then are being asked to rush it through.

A few years ago I was in this House and the government came to us and said: we have to have Interim Supply by April 29 because we have to get the cheques out. We talked about it and we said: yes, that is reasonable. They need it a day or so ahead. We talked about it in our caucus and said: yes, we will let them have the Interim Supply Bill on April 29. Lo and behold, the next year they came back and wanted Interim Supply on April 28. Again, we debated it and hesitated but we listened to it, and this year they came back and wanted it on April 26. I want to ask: Why are we closing off debate? Why do we have this government and the minister standing in her place this afternoon - and really she has adopted closure. She wants to impose closure on this particular motion by another means other than by the rules of order. The minister stands in her place and somehow wants to blame the Opposition if she does not get this matter approved this afternoon. It is not our job to call this House together. If this was the issue why didn't the minister and the government call the House together a week or so early? They had the option if they wanted more time to debate the Interim Supply. Why stand here today and say to us: If you do not pass this, this afternoon, somehow some person who is in need in Labrador is not going to get their cheques? You and I know, and all members know, that the government can cut the cheques. In fact, the minister said off mike this afternoon that the cheques were already cut and are all ready to be sent out. It does not take much time for one to think the process through. If we were to send these cheques out to Labrador we, on this side, have said that when they become cashable on the first day of the month, April 1, that we will go and make sure that this motion has been passed. That is the guarantee we give. That is a guarantee given by the house leader on our side to the house leader on the government side, that when March 31 comes along and April 1 comes, that these cheques will be cashable and will be good. The motion will be made here and it is up to the government then to make sure that the Lieutenant-Governor has signed the appropriate authorizations.

We never heard the minister in her comments say anything about Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation needing $2,065,000. Not a comment from the minister or the President of Treasury Board, the Finance Minister or the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Not one comment as to what they are going to do with $2 million. Nothing at all. We would like for the minister to stand up and say what he is going to do about all those 800 requests that the minister sits on looking for some help for housing. Not one single comment from the minister in what he is going to do with $2 million.

Then, of course, there is the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs looking for another $44 million. That is a total of $46 million going to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he has not stood in his place and made one single comment as to why he needs that kind of money.

I would have appreciated it today if the minister had said: My ministers want to stand and give some comments as to why we need all that money now. We know that we need some money, but not a single minister stood up, not even for one single five minutes, and justified why they need this kind of money. Not a single justification at all. As a matter of fact, we know that the minister spoke for a few minutes the other day, I think about a minute-and-a-half or so, introducing this particular piece of legislation. She came back in today and said: Oh, by the way, if they don't get their cheques in Labrador, it is your fault on the other side. That is a lot of nonsense. That really should be filed in file thirteen in the garbage can, because it is not our job to get the cheques to Labrador. It is that minister's job to organize her department either by coming in here earlier and asking for this authorization, or take our word that we will make sure these cheques are honourable and are good when they are cashable, which is on or about the thirty-first day of this month.

Then we have here in education, $164,218,800. Again, not a comment from the Minister of Education.

MR. SULLIVAN: How are they going to spend that in three months?

MR. H. HODDER: That is right. How are they going to spend that in three months? What are they going to do with $164 million? The President of Treasury Board has not stood in her place, has not said a word, and yet when she comes in she says: I need that money now. I need it this afternoon. She has not given any justification whatsoever.

The other issues here - for example, the Public Service Commission even wants $791,000. Nobody said why.

AN HON. MEMBER: What Public Service Commission?

MR. H. HODDER: What Public Service Commission? We have not heard from them in a long time. I do know they exist.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not their fault though.

MR. H. HODDER: It is not their fault. They are ready and willing to do what the government wants to be done. We know that appointments get made through another method here. There is another methodology used by this government when it comes to making appointments.

Then we have other issues here. We have the Mines and Energy Division looking for $6,993,400. What for? So they can call Brian Tobin and say: Brian, what should we now be saying about this issue or that issue? Telephone calls do not cost that much for sure.

We have no justification whatsoever. For me and my colleagues on this side, asking for approval this afternoon is a little bit too much because we, on this side, want to give time to government members to stand up and give some justification as to why they need all that money. Thus far, we have seen no rationale whatsoever. We have only seen the minister stand in her place this afternoon and try to intimidate -

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - the Opposition by saying: If you do not give us the money this afternoon, we will be inconveniencing the poor people in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, there are many, many speakers who want to speak so I want to yield on this side - even though I have been given leave to continue - because one of my colleagues over here is really anxious to continue.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is always interesting to listen to my learned colleague from Waterford Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Deputy Premier, I will not repeat the speech I did before Christmas but I can remember that snowy day when I did not have a lot to do outside so I decided to sit down and watch the Liberal convention. I remember watching as the TV cameras moved around the Glacier and the hon. the former Minister of Fisheries was called to the stage and the Premier of the day was called to the stage and they scanned the faces of the supporters, and I am telling you there was a worried look on the Deputy Premier's face; a very worried look when they went up over the steps to that stage there in the Glacier.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was the Premier then.

MR. MANNING: Yes, he was the Premier then. I am saying the Deputy Premier today. There was a very worried look but at the same time, knowing the background of the Deputy Premier today and the former Minister of Fisheries, he would have been fitted in somewhere. I tell you there were a lot of worried faces on that side of the House. I watched with anticipation at that.

MR. TULK: Do you know why I was afraid?

MR. MANNING: Yes.

MR. TULK: I was afraid neither one of them was going to win.

MR. MANNING: No, that was not your worry, I say to the Deputy Premier. That was not your worry. All I can say, as I travel throughout my district of Placentia & St. Mary's, is time will tell. I think that I will find agreement in many quarters in this Province, that time will tell that you have made a mistake; but we thank you very much.

I would like to make a few comments if I could. I say to the Member for Port de Grave, it was an interesting campaign because when you stand up here in the House of Assembly or stand up in your caucus room and not have one member of your caucus support you, it would make you really - to know that he came within fourteen votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I say to the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West, she decided on the Friday before the convention to come on side. The Member for Burin-Placentia West felt the will of the people of this Province, felt the will of the delegates of that convention and the people there, the observers and everything else; but to come within fourteen votes against the party establishment, against the strength of then Premier Tulk, against the strength of all the Cabinet, against the strength of all the caucus, to come within fourteen votes of taking the title is a feat that is going to go down in the history of this Province.

It is interesting to watch as it unfolds. I am willing to bet today, on the knowledge that I have and after watching for a couple of months, that the present Member for Port de Grave would not be able to take a flight in this Province today. Anywhere the Member for Port de Grave wants to travel he is going to have to travel by boat. I know he likes to boat, and I say to him that he is going to have to travel by boat because there is not a metal detector in this Province that he will get through today. There is not a metal detector that the Member for Port de Grave will get through in this Province today. He would have to travel by boat in order to leave Newfoundland and Labrador because of the knives that are still in his back.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) funny today.

MR. MANNING: I am very serious, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters. What you have done to the soul of Newfoundland and Labrador with what you did in February - yes, you you can shake your head, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters, but you may not know what goes on outside the overpass. You may not want to know what goes on outside the overpass, but I say that your actions in the Glacier took the heart and soul out of Newfoundland.

Yes, you were a part of that. I know you didn't deliver your delegates to the person you were pushing for, to be leader of your party.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: That is what I am trying to say. Not with help from you, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters, but he did very well with regard to what he could do. All I can say is that it is interesting to watch it all unfold.

I have to get back, if I could, to a major issue that is on the table today, and that is the concern over FPI. I listened intently in this House of Assembly, not only today. I listen intently in this House time and time again to the Member for Port de Grave. I listen to the Member for Port de Grave because of his long history, not only as the Minister of Fisheries, but his long history as a person from a very well-respected fishing part of this Province, down in Port de Grave. When the Member for Port de Grave stands and puts up a flag and says, "Be very, very careful about what is happening", I think it is time for all of us to listen.

He may think that he is silenced. No, you are never silenced in this House of Assembly; not because you are sitting at the Cabinet table, not because you are sitting over here, or wherever, you are never silenced in this House. The Deputy Premier knows exactly what that is like, because he was up in the nosebleed section for a long time himself. When the Member for Port de Grave stands and says to us, to beware of what is happening with FPI, I think it is a lesson that we all should take.

The independent fishermen in this Province are becoming a thing of the past. The independent fish buyer, the independent merchant in this Province is becoming a thing of the past. The reason they are becoming a thing of the past is because the big companies are moving in, gobbling up the licenses and the quotas, and are coming to take control of the fishery. If we allow it to happen in this Province, we will allow a handful of people to control the fishery in this Province, an industry that has been around for 500 years, that has provided many, many hours of work, many, many dollars to many, many Newfoundlanders. If we allow it to happen under our watch, I would say that we will have a long, long time to try to correct that wrong, because it is going to be wrong if we allow it to happen.

It is very, very important that the Member for Port de Grave stood today, especially after the Question Period that we had, especially after the evasive answers that we had from the other side of the House - very, very shallow answers, I would say, from the Deputy Premier and the Premier himself in regards to this issue. They are very important issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised today, and to find that we have no straight answers and we certainly got no real solutions from that side of the House, to have it raised here today and be brushed off and have to - because of the Question Period, because of the concern that was raised here by the Leader of the Opposition, because of the concern that was raised, the Member for Port de Grave got on his feet and laid out what he thought were the concerns with this possibility of what may happen with FPI.

We sat here in December, 1999, and we went through the possibility of the NEOS takeover of FPI. It was a concern to all of us. The legislation was brought forward as in existence to protect these communities that we have, to protect the Province as a whole, but indeed the communities that have FPI fish plants in their communities, and the people who are in those communities and depend on FPI. We sat through that discussion here in the House. We, as a caucus, met with several people who were involved with that process. I am sure that the people on the side of the government did the same thing. The main concern was raised time and time again. It was raised here today, in some aspect, about the protection of the people who depend on the FPI plants, that depend on the resources that they bring in.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Port de Grave raised a couple of major issues today, but one issue that he raised is: What happens to the quotas? I do not know if people understand fully - I do not know if people in the House understand fully - about the quota system and what the quota system is doing to the fishery in Newfoundland. I will be honest, I do not understand it at all, but I do know that there is a major concern with the fish merchants. There is a major concern with the enterprise owners, the fishermen themselves, about the quota system and what will happen if a large company can come in and purchase a quota and then go down the road and purchase another, and continue through community to community to purchase up these quotas, and then they decide who catches what, they decide who catches what, when, and they decide how much they are going to pay for it. That is a major concern, especially for smaller communities.

We went through a transition where we see that the merchants were not running the fishery for awhile. We had an opportunity where independent fishermen could avail of resources from government, whether financial or other cases, and bring forward their issues and concerns and they were addressed in that manner; but now we have an opportunity here, or a possibility here, of the fact that we may have, we may be allowing - and I use this word lightly - we may be allowing a cartel to form. We may be allowing a cartel to be formed in this Province for the simple reason of, if we do not stand guard on what we have here in legislation today. I think that is a very major concern for everyone that is depending upon the fishery in this Province to make a living, whether it is the people who work in the fish plants, whether it is the people who work in the fishing boats in this Province, or whether it is the people who depend upon the fishing industry either directly or indirectly for a living. There are some major concerns.

I am pleased today to at least know that this issue is not gone on blindsided, that we are all aware of the issue here now, and certainly over the next couple of weeks that we are going to see that this issue remains in the forefront of the agenda of this Province, that it remains in the forefront of the agenda here in the House of Assembly as one of the major issues in the Province, and it will continue to be dealt with over the next couple of weeks. It is an issue that affects everybody. There are a lot of people in the Province who are not directly involved in the fishery, but I go out around the shopping malls or the car dealerships here in this city or wherever, and every time I go out there I run into somebody from my district who is in shopping for some type of goods or services here in the City of St. John's or Mount Pearl.

While I say time and again that people may not be or may not realize how important that industry is, last year a billion dollars worth of product left Newfoundland, over a billion dollars worth of product, a very large industry that employs a very large number of people. It is a major concern that we have to continue to address and make sure that it is kept here in the forefront, that the questions are asked, and most importantly that we keep an idea of what is happening here in the Province. It is very important that an issue such as any possibility of FPI being bought, of FPI being split up and FPI being moved around, especially when it comes to the quotas, especially when it comes to the marketing division, it is very important and I think we had better keep our eyes open.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to rise for a few minutes and participate in this debate with respect to Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31,2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Members on both sides of the House, particularly this side, have brought up very interesting and important points with respect to this bill, this bill which apparently the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board feels is essential that we do almost immediately without any notice and practically without any debate.

My friend, the Member for Waterford Valley, I think, raises a very important point when he questions the role of ministers, those individuals who are charged with the responsibility and are charged with knowing, supposedly, all the answers to the questions with respect to their particular department. The member raises an interesting point: Where are the ministers? Where are those individuals who are given that responsibility and who are given the mandate of ensuring, on behalf of the people of this Province, that they know full well and are prepared presumably to disclose full well to the public of the Province what the actual ingredients of these particular expenditures are all about?

When the member calls upon various ministers to give an accounting, and to give a justification, and to give a rationale for why we are spending in excess of $1 billion with respect to what is referred to in Bill 2, what we hear is absolute silence. The Member for Waterford Valley has, in fact, raised, I think, a very legitimate point when he questions members opposite, and in particular ministers opposite, as to why they have not stood to his or her feet to give an accounting to the people of the Province as to what these expenditures are all about.

Just look at some of these figures. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when, as part of this figure, we see close to $230 million - in fact, yes, almost one-quarter of a billion dollars being spent in a particular department and the minister being absolutely silent; not, in fact, even present to listen to this important debate and perhaps when his turn arises to give answers to the very important questions that have been raised. Similarly, Health and Community Services, almost one-half a billion dollars being sought by members opposite as part and parcel of the total, in excess of $1 billion.

It is a legitimate point, and I think it is a point that the Member for Waterford Valley has expressed very legitimately. It is a fair question, and it is incumbent upon ministers opposite to give an accounting and to be up front and to disclose fully to the people of the Province what this is really all about.

With that particular backdrop, I would like to refer very briefly to some points with respect to the economic performance that we are now experiencing in our own Province, at the very time coincidental with what is being sought in Bill 2.

The GDP growth this year is expected to drop to 2.1 per cent from 4.7 per cent last year as a result of softer U.S. markets. I say to the Minister of Finance: When seeking the passage of this particular bill and seeking Royal Assent on this particular bill, what is her assessment of the fact that the GDP growth, in fact, this year in this Province may drop as a result of the softer American market?

Crude oil exports have clearly been the principle driver of growth in the Province since 1998, accounting for over half of the growth in GDP. Without Hibernia, Newfoundland's economy would have grown at about half the national average, around 2.2 per cent, so we see a very significant reliance on that one particular aspect of that particular industry; namely, the development of the Hibernia project.

I am now joined by the hon. the Deputy Premier, and I am honoured to say to all members present on both sides that it is indeed an honour to be so close to the Deputy Premier of this hon. House.

Despite oil prices expected to average $24 a barrel U.S. in 2001, the volume of oil exports will not increase as much as previously expected, due, in part, to the delay in production start-up at Terra Nova which is now about a year behind schedule. This is a very important issue, an issue that we are still waiting to hear from the Minister of Mines and Energy as to why, in detail, this particular delay exists.

It is important, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, along with his colleagues in Cabinet who are charged with particular responsibilities and particular portfolios, to give an explanation and an accounting as to why, in this particular case, we are confronted with such a delay. Of course, from that particular point of view as well, we are confronted with a very important process

which is about to occur on the development of White Rose, namely the hearings and the proceedings that are about to take place before the C-NOPB, in particular on the mode of development, and we are also waiting to hear what the Minister of Mines and Energy has to say about that.

Other exports such as iron ore, newsprint and fish are also expected to weaken with slower growth in the U.S. economy. Again, we wait to hear from the Minister of Finance as to exactly what her assessment of that particular fact and statistic is in conjunction with what is being sought in Bill 2.

A Statistics Canada survey released in February, 2001, predicts that private sector investment in the Province will be down sharply from 2000, and it is these types of details, this type of information, that is being withheld by members opposite, the truth behind the numbers, the reality behind the Budget that was presented in this House last week. What is going to happen down the road is a simple question. I know there were questions that were asked of the critic in Finance and also the leader of the party this morning when they appeared on an Open Line radio show. One particular caller wanted to know what is happening at a later date. I believe it was either the Opposition House Leader or the Leader of the Opposition who said it was an excellent question because it exactly goes to the very issue of what budgeting is all about. We can give away the shop right now, I say, but we have to also be responsible in terms of what the reality will be in months and perhaps years to come.

Employment and population growth is out of sync with GDP growth. Newfoundland was the only Province to lose jobs and employment and population last year despite the Province's national leading growth in GDP, and the Province will continue to lose jobs and population in 2001 as the economy slows down. Over the past five years, this Province has lost an estimated 45,000 to 50,000 people. Since 1996, we have lost primarily young people, young families who have left Newfoundland to seek employment elsewhere, and the numbers are startling. We are not talking about a trickle. We are not talking about a mere few. We are talking between 40,000 and 50,000 young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who, as a result of simply through necessity, leave their homes, leave their towns, and seek employment particularly in Western Canada, particularly in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, in the Province of Ontario, in other Atlantic Provinces, in search of employment. That is a sad reality and, I say to the Deputy Premier, it is a statistic that the Deputy Premier cannot be proud of, because it is during his tenure, it is during when he played a major role as a minister in a government from 1996 forward, at a time when he was also Premier of this Province, that he is a part of that very sad, unfortunate statistic, the fact that almost 50,000 Newfoundlanders have left. I say that statistic is a tragedy. Our towns are being depleted, our young people are leaving, and it is now when we hear people leaving their homes, we almost take it for granted and the response of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when young people leave is: Well, what do you expect? They have no other choice. We accept it now as a reality, and that is the result of, over the past five or six years, an insensitivity by an insensitive government that has not fairly and realistically addressed the departure of so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just a few more moments, if I may, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I remember the Minister of Education, only a few days ago, referring to the fact that our school population has dropped significantly. In 1970 - and this is a statistic - there were almost 165,000 students in our schools in Newfoundland from Kindergarten to Grade XI. There was no Grade XII in 1970 so we had one grade less. That was a time, I would suggest, because it was around 1960 or perhaps even the late fifties, and the early 1970s that we experienced the majority of students dropping out of school. We had enrolled in this Province, in 1970, between 160,000 and 165,000 students, and as a result as a declining birth rate - perhaps it is as a result of an economic reality, but that is one factor - due to a declining birth rate and due to out-migration, we have today in this Province approximately 90,000 students from Kindergarten to Grade XII. So we, in fact, have added a year. We have lost approximately 75,000 students in thirty years, and that is with an additional grade being added on in our school system; 75,000.

If you look at what is being predicted by the school boards throughout this Province, the numbers go down in huge numbers, like 3,000 and 4,000 and 5,000 a year, when you total what we are going to lose in our school population throughout the various school districts. We now have ten boards, but when the number are added up they are in the thousands. Next year we are down to about 85,000; the following year it is close to 80,000 or 81,000. After a period of time, it obviously levels off, but we are losing a school population is such sizable increments that it is hard for us to realize and fathom. It really is.

I say, Mr. Chairman, the challenge is to all of us. It does not make any difference if we are on that side or this side, but right now it is that side that perhaps can do more about it, I would say. The challenge is to somehow create an economy, create an environment, create a Province where young people can work so that when they graduate from school their option will be - at least included in that option - the possibility of staying at home. That, as I see it, is perhaps the greatest challenge that faces all of us, giving young people that option, rather than by necessity having to leave their homes and go to some other part of this country in search of employment to make a living and in many cases to pay off student debt which is so insurmountable that even perhaps if they had a low paying job in this Province in reality is not an option because they have to go to Alberta so they can make $24 an hour to help defray their expenses with respect to a student loan which is almost insurmountable and impossible to pay.

That is our challenge, I say, Mr. Chairman, and we have to work together to ensure that when young people are seeking work and seeking employment, they have a choice. If they want to go away, we should not stop them, but let's give them the option to stay in Newfoundland so that they can live with families, with friends, and make a living they can be proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure today to get up and speak on Bill 2. I just want to make a few comments on some of the issues that concern me, and the importance of some of the things that I have recognized the past little while, particularly after last week, Mr. Chairman.

I see a very important thing happening to our people in our Province today. There is a sickness around our rural communities today. It is a sickness beyond any other sickness that we have seen in the past. There are a lot of things that we do as a government that affect the people and the reaction of people in the Province with respect to what they do in rural Newfoundland, with respect to how they are going to make a sustainable living in the communities of rural Newfoundland.

The sickness that I see today is discouragement. I see discouragement throughout this Province like I have never seen before. I have seen young people discouraged in dealing with the problems that they have, in trying to find employment, in trying to live in the communities in rural Newfoundland and take care of their families, to provide for their families and provide for their parents who are getting older and need someone around to take care of them.

As I was going through the Speech from the Throne, I could point our a lot of things that I can compare situations with throughout the Province today and see what type of reaction people are giving to some of the things that are being said.

There is another story in this Province other than a good news story that I know is the government's job to present to the people of the Province to the best of their ability, a good news story so that they will look good, particularly when there is an election in the air, but there is another side to the story, a side that we must tell. There are two sides to every story, and it is our responsibility to get up here, when we get up to speak, when our turn comes to speak, where we have to present that other side of the story. It is not all a good news story. It is a story that sometimes is so disheartening that it makes you think: Why do we stay here in this Province?

Some of the things that people tell me when I go around to my district in particular - and I do visit other districts throughout the Province. I have been in almost every district in the Province in the past couple of years and I have talked to a lot of people. The government's good news story usually involves input of people in the districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been out to Robert's Arm?

MR. HUNTER: I have been out to Robert's Arm, yes, I say to my hon. colleague.

The input of our people - we do consultations around the Province and we talk to people, but it does not seem like the concerns of our people are being listened to or acted upon, particularly in my district when I look at the needs in our schools, when it comes to air quality and safety. It is our responsibility to make sure that government listens when it comes to our children, our students and our classes. We cannot put them in a dangerous situation. That is part of the story, the side of the story that we have to tell. It may not be a good news story, but it is the other side of the story and we must tell it.

We must look at what people are discouraged about. Young people, older people, our seniors, are discouraged because they cannot stay in their own homes. They cannot be sustainable and live, buy fuel and groceries, too - food. It is so hard for some seniors to stay in their homes and provide for themselves because most of them are just two people, or even a single person, living in a house and they have to provide heating fuel and food for the table. They are so discouraged that they are at a point where they do not know what to do. They do not know where to go and who to go to; but, because we are elected politicians, we are responsible to listen to their concerns and we are responsible to act on their concerns.

This year, being the International Year of the Volunteer, I see a lot of people who used to be volunteers, who are discouraged now because all the work they did in the past in volunteering, to make our communities a better place to live, a lot of this work they have been doing now has just gone to the waysides. Our volunteers are sitting back and saying: What is the use of doing this? What is the use of me putting all of my time into these organizations, to make life better in our communities?

That is one sector of our Province that is discouraged, Mr. Chairman. The talent that these people have, these individuals, these volunteers, who make our lives better, make our seniors' lives better, is going unnoticed in a lot of cases. We have to recognize that sickness is there; that sickness of discouragement is in our volunteer sector today.

We must keep the confidence built up in our people, particularly with the people in our rural Newfoundland areas where we depend on our volunteers and we depend on the younger people to take care of our seniors, to do the work, to supply the needs of our people. It is hard for them to do that today when their biggest concern is: How am I going to find a job? What am I going to do? How am I going to pay for my education? With big debt loads, trying to sustain a family and feed a family, it is hard to do that. That is a side of the story that we have to tell. That is the side of the story that comes under the discouragement. There are ways we can correct the discouragement aspect of that, but it is going to take a lot of work, a lot of money.

We must, today, recognize the services that are needed in our communities in rural Newfoundland. People deserve certain services. We have to make sure that these services are provided and done to the best of our ability and to the best of the people who are supplying them. It is more than just education. We have to supply the services from our health care boards and from our education boards. When it comes to energy, Mr. Chairman, we have to make sure that our energy services are supplied, and that they are done to a point where we do not have to be waiting a long time to get the services that we need. The services must be readily available and they must be done in a very efficient and professional way.

We see, in the last little while, with the services provided on the Northern Peninsula, with respect to the Hydro cutbacks up there, it is important that we have people readily available and ready on the spot to provide those services in the case of a discontinuing of electrical services on the Northern Peninsula. It is important that people are ready to go, people are in place and it is important that no disruption occurs, particularly in the winter months. That is the time when we really cannot do with electrical services. Mr. Chairman, if you take away any part of that chain that supplies that service, then there is going to be a weakness in that system and in that service, that some day we are going to be caught with a major storm, the people are not going to be in place, and it is going to take a lot longer to get everything in place to make sure that those problems are fixed. So I think we have to be very careful about what we are doing when we decide to cut back on essential services, particularly when it comes to areas of the Province that do see a lot of storm-related disasters. There are a lot of discouraged people in that part of the Province who are afraid that some day they are going to caught without the services.

Mr. Chairman, I just commend our colleague from the Northern Peninsula, from The Straits and White Bay North, and my colleague from St. Barbe, for the work that they are doing in trying to ensure that hydro services stay as they are for the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman, I was at the airport a few days ago when I dropped off my nephew who was on his way to Toronto to look for work, and there were four young people from my district leaving for the mainland. It was so sad to see that, to see these young people going away to find work. One particular young fellow called me aside and told me he was in my district and he had quite a clear message to send to the government. He said: You tell the Premier and the government - I cannot repeat the words he said exactly, it was not nice, but he told them to kiss a certain part of his body and that he would never be back in Newfoundland and Labrador again. That is very sad, when you hear that from our young people leaving this Province looking for work.

Another guy was there and the only place he could get a job at his trade was in New Jersey. He went to school and got trained and it cost him a lot of money. He had a big debt load, Mr. Chairman, and he could not stay in Newfoundland. He could not find a job and he was very disheartened and very upset that he had to leave. This was only within a time frame of about an hour that I spoke to these four people who were leaving this Province. So, over a period of a month how many of our young people are leaving? How many people are leaving this Province to find work, to work on their dreams, to let their dreams come true? They cannot do it here in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: I only just started, Mr. Chairman. By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: I grant the hon. member leave, but I just wanted to make this point: it has happened in this session and probably in others that when a member is given leave, it is only meant to be a short time. It is not meant to carry on as long as the previous speech was. To respect the House, when somebody gives leave, it is just to give the hon. member time to clue up, it is not to carry on for ten minutes. I just bring that point to the attention to all members. So, I give the hon. member leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure I will get another opportunity to continue, but I could clue up and just say, some of the issues that concern me with respect to the problem as I see it in our Province today, that disease and that sickness that is spreading right through our Province, that sickness of discouragement, I know we can correct it and make things better for the communities. But we must do certain things. We must reorganize, we must rebuild, we must retrain, we must retain and we must look at the ability of the people we have left and enhance the young people's abilities; train them for certain trades and train them for certain areas in our Province that we are going to need for the next few years. It is a problem today when we are having a job to find trained tradespeople for different jobs that are coming up.

If our economy is going to turn around and if our economy is going to get better and our rural Newfoundland areas are going to get better, then we need to be ready and have a lot of tradespeople in place. That would be an encouraging sign, if we could keep our young people trained and ready to go when our economy does turn around, Mr. Chairman. In order to go that, we must make a good investment into their future. We must have them trained and ready to go, but with very little debt load. When we do train them now, in the past few years, we train them and send them out of this Province, people who we need to continue on with our economy; well trained, but with heavy debt loads, and they have to leave our Province to find work to pay off that debt load.

Mr. Chairman, it is a very serious problem, this sickness of discouragement. It affects every person in our Province, from the youngest to the oldest. Even children are encouraged today, because they cannot have certain things or their families are too poor to give them the things they need. The long bus rides, that is a reason for them to be discouraged. Then you have our older people who are discouraged because they cannot stay in their own homes. They cannot afford to buy food, heating fuel or pay their light bill too. That is an area of discouragement that I see.

I know that it is not a good news story but it is the other part of the story that has to be told, as I said earlier. If we do not tell that story, then it would go unnoticed and very little would be done about the problems, as I see it, in our Province.

With our resources, Mr. Chairman, I see so much discouragement in our resource sector with our resource workers, particularly in the forest industry where a lot of the forest industry workers, silviculture workers, are discouraged because they do not know if they are going to get the work this year or not. They do not know where they are going to be going and how long they are going to be working. People have been in this field for many years, and they deserve to know when and where they are going to be working and how long. They deserve to know, with the investment they made over the last number of years, that it is going to continue on and that the job that they are doing is going to be recognized and is going to be continued into the future so that we can have a sustainable forest and have jobs there well into the future with our forest industry.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill and I have many other issues that I would like to talk about. I think this discouragement syndrome is going to continue for a while and I think I am going to have to speak more on it at a later date, and let this House know that it is not only the people on this side of the House whose districts are effected by this sickness, it is everybody's district. The sickness of discouragement that is right through our Province from one end to the other affects every person in the Province from the youngest to the oldest. The good news story, the other side, the government side, certainly does not outweigh the other side of the story. The sickness story, the discouragement story, is certainly a lot heavier than the good news story. So wherever I go, people say: Yes, they do appreciate what government is doing in certain areas. That is government's job. They deserve to get credit for the good things they do, and I got no problem in giving them credit. It is our responsibility -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: No, that was when you asked me to cross the floor and I said: No way. I will never be over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with that. If the minister would like to ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: A standing ovation (inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: No, I was standing all the time, so how could I give you a standing ovation. I was not even asked to sit at the front with you, so I could not give you a standing ovation. Besides, when you came in there you were on cloud nine about the relocation program, so how could I give you a standing ovation on that when you were the only ones who were sitting. All the rest were standing anyway.

MR. TULK: You stood up and gave me a standing ovation.

MR. HUNTER: No, I never. I did say to you that I would not be crossing the floor. When you and the Premier now asked me if I would like to come across the floor, I said: No way, you would never get me over because when I go in Cabinet I want to be there for a long time, not a short period of time. We will leave it at that.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am glad to rise today to have a few comments on Bill 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I will take my time, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just raise a few points, just riding off the same points, actually, that my colleague for Windsor-Springdale was talking about today, and that is the real story in rural Newfoundland.

One of the ministers made a comment to my colleague, while he was up, that we are always spreading the bad news. Well, that is not totally true. I know the Member for Bonavista, or any member on this side of the House, when it is due time to give credit, we have done it, when it is realistic. As a matter of fact, on many occasions we were the ones who, as in the Blue Book, made suggestions in the first place. When the government did finally follow through on the Blue Book, we did commend them and remind them we were glad they were plagiarizing the Blue Book. We will write a second Blue Book, but the only problem this time is that the crowd opposite will not get a chance to implement it. We will implement it on our own, I say to the minister. That will be our implementation.

MR. TULK: Do you know what they tell me is going to happen to you?

MR. SHELLEY: Go ahead, tell me.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) nose bleed section.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chair, the minister knows very well what it is like to be in nose bleed section. Well, I am glad to see the minister is finally admitting that we will be over there. That is the first step - step one. Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well what it is like to sit with the doom and gloom on his face, way back in the benches. You could not even make out the frown on his face he was back so far.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I will have to correct what he just said. The truth of the matter is, when I talk about the nose bleed section he going to be sitting abut two rows behind the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. That is the nose bleed section on that side.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will correct his point of order. I will correct it to make it a point of order. Mr. Chairman, it does not make mathematical sense that if we are two rows back on the Opposition side we will have enough that we will be over there, so we will not be in the Opposition very long.

To continue on with some of the comments that my colleague was raising earlier about rural Newfoundland - and I have to relate my recent experience to encapsulate the whole idea of rural Newfoundland. That is in this beautiful month of January, the year 2001, around January 6 or January 7, in the new year, when we were looking for a new challenge, low and behold, the Premier of the day, who is now the Minister of Industry, had the guts and the gall to call a by-election; somewhere around January 6 or January 7, if I am not mistaken.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The only two he called.

MR. SHELLEY: The great legacy that the minister will leave. The Premier called a by-election of The Straits & White Bay North and St. Barbe - first of all, St. Barbe, of course, has changed a couple of times, but The Straits & White Bay North never changed. He had that much time and with the snap of a finger - but in all fairness to the minister, just think about it the way he was thinking now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Premier.

MR. SHELLEY: The former Premier; that is right. The former Premier had good thoughts - just think about it, heading into the new year, new leadership coming, all the big buzz on the leadership over there, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: The day before our leadership closed (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, you add all of the points. The former Premier, the last Premier we had, the Minister of Industry right now, had all the ducks lined up. He said: Good, we will have a leadership coming, we will take Danny's steam away. The day after Danny is going to be announcing, what a smack we are going to have at him, Mr. Chairman; the day before he is proclaimed the Leader of the PC party, two losses on the Northern Peninsula. We will flatten him before he even gets started. We are going to knock the wheels right off the train.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We are going to have another three or four yet. Mr. Chairman, you have to picture this. The legacy he was going to be left with, the picture on the front of The Telegram, the legacy he was going to put up in his new office, two arms, right there, walking up through the middle with the Premier, the interim Premier, the caretaker Premier, as people call him, the man who called the election (inaudible) words. Shameful! He had it all lined up, but what happened? He wasn't talking about any train coming through this time.

MR. E. BYRNE: Our leaders name was mentioned more at their convention than the three (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is what we couldn't get straight. We couldn't figure out at the time who was really running in the by-election until we finally put our candidates in place because the name Danny kept coming up. We were not sure if he was talking about the former Danny. Danny Dumaresque, I don't think it was that Danny. The one who was referred to by my former colleague, Nick Careen from Placentia, said he was about as sharp as a bowling ball. The last Danny.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Who told you? There is one thing about it, he can admit it. I guess he can admit it. I spent a fair bit of time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Listen, make sure you read Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, I can still remember the Premier - I have to call him the Premier because he was the Premier for the time I am talking about - the Premier at the time, when the by-elections were called and people were saying to us: Don't bother even to go up to the Straits of White Bay North. Don't even set up a headquarters, they said.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The minister, the former Premier, just admitted right here in the House: It was a total mess. We sort of feels bad for him, sort of. It is like we almost feel bad for him; but he had it all set up. He was basically telling us and the Liberals that I would bump into: boys, you are not going to actually set up a headquarters in St. Anthony? You are not going to actually set up a headquarters in Plum Point? Forget it, you haven't got a chance. Then lo and behold, the days as the by-election unfolded - just like back in 1999 with former Premier Tobin. Just a couple of days before the writ was coming down they felt they were slipping in the polls. What did we see? Another second Apocalypse Now. The helicopters were coming in over St. Anthony and dropping ministers all over the place. Lo and behold! You talk about a backfire. If there was ever a definition of a backfire, of a backdraft, was the day that we were in Conche. The big news over in Conche, a great community with some great athletes there - as a matter of fact, I should mention it. We were talking about athletes in the House today. This community has produced some great athletes on the provincial and national scene in different sports, and so on. The Minister of Tourism talked about it today. Lo and behold, just a few days into the by-election, in the dead cold of winter, in this small community of Conche, they had the good news that they were designated as the provincial champs and would be going to a national tournament. We said: Right on! Good job! They asked us for some help, and like I told them, right at the door one night to of one of the player's parents. She said: What do you do? We are looking for something from you guys? I said: Why is that? She said: We just got a call from the Premier's office. I said: Good, good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier at the time, the Minister of Industry, the Chief of Staff actually at the time. I said: Oh, I am glad they helped you. How much? I figured, you know, $100, $200, $500, maybe $1,000 with an election on. Ten thousand dollars dropped on one team. They asked what was the normal in my district, and I am sure a lot of the members here - if there is a team travelling on a special occasion, or to provincials or something like that - you cannot do it for every single team - but you give a donation of $50 or $100. That is a normal donation to a sports team that is travelling somewhere; but $10,000! Do you know what?

MR. J. BYRNE: What happened?

MR. SHELLEY: What happened? We went to the door the next day and we thought My God, this is going to be something now. They are really going to be jumping up and down about this. Ten thousand dollars, we can't handle that. I told the lady right at the door: If you were in my district, I have to be honest, I will give you $100 maybe $200 because you are going to a national tournament, but that is typical. I think most members will say $50 or $100 for a team donation. Ten thousand dollars! Of course right away, thinking politics the way it is - and it was a staunch Liberal community - I said: my God, they really have this community sewed up. But the next day we went back to Conche again, and guess what the people on the team was saying to our candidate, Trevor Taylor? Do you know what they were saying? Thank you for the $10,000. Do you know what? They knew there was one reason they got a $10,000 cheque from the Premier's Office; because of the pressure that was put on by the candidate that made such an election out of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Because there wasn't any more. The broomball team from Conche today are still thanking the member for the pressure that he applied on this government to come through with a $10,000 cheque. The current Premier and his relation with sports, I am sure he would have liked to give a donation,; but I don't think it would have been $10,000. So we thank the minister for that.

At the end of the day, remember who we thank. The candidate at the time for putting the pressure on during the by-election - that they thought would be a walk through. They thought it would be easy, because who owned the district before? The myth - I am trying to find a name that we can use here in this Chamber. The myth of the former Premier, Premier Tobin, who owned this district. That was their member.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can you use bluff?

MR. SHELLEY: No, I don't think we can use bluff so I will not use it.

The former Premier who walked in there and had this district - and before that who was the member? The Minister of Education, the former Minister of Health, these people have been represented by the top. The Premier, the top minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who won Conche?

MR. SHELLEY: Do we want to go back to Conche again? I do not remember the final count on Conch. I just know that it was so ridiculously high that we cannot repeat it again. We cannot repeat how much we won Conche by.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) was it?

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, not half as much.

They remembered the former member and the member before that; high profile, either a minister or a Premier of the day. This is the point I am trying to get to in my last couple of minutes to stand today because I am sure I am not going to get any leave now.

The point I am trying to get to today when we talk about rural communities - like the Member from Windsor-Springdale was talking about. It was a real eyeopener to be in the District of St. Barbe and the Straits for as often as I was during this by-election. From what I believe, and all my colleagues believe, is that the Northern Peninsula is in great shape. We have never heard about a road that was not paved. I did not know that there was any gravel road on the Northern Peninsula. I did not know that the hospital in Flowers Cove is not wheelchair accessible. Can you imagine if you were the member for that district and found out that the hospital was not wheelchair accessible? Do you think you would have the question on the floor on this House? I would have ran in to get the question on the floor. We did not know that. We did not know that twenty-four communities out of thirty-three did not have drinking water. This was in the Premier's district. I mean they could not have been let go for that long. We did not know that there was 51 per cent unemployment. We did not know that it was the highest out-migration in the Province. We did not know that it was the second lowest income per capita in Canada region. We had the Premier and the Deputy Premier -

CHAIR (Ms M Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Premier. The Premier said yes. He is the boss. I got a straight answer from the boss. Go ahead he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The fact that it is a rural district and we have not heard the real issues come forward but we are hearing them already, from these two members we have here today because they know their first job is to represent the people and the issues, and that is going to be done firsthand. These two members went through an entire campaign of twenty-one days, door by door. It is a real lesson because we have all done it here. I respect all members for having done that, going door to door because that is when you really hear - not on Budget Day when you have all the cameras here on you and everything is hunky-dory and everybody is talking about GDP. Do you know what GDP means to people on the Northern Peninsula? I do not think that is parliamentary either, so I can't say that - but GDP means absolutely nothing to the people on the Baie Verte Peninsula too. The Burin Peninsula and the Northern Peninsula, in these two by-elections, these two members heard firsthand and got a firsthand education on the real issues that have been ignored in rural parts of Newfoundland. That is what they got. They know firsthand their job and why they are sitting here in this House of Assembly today and proud to do so. It is because people on the Northern Peninsula sent a strong message. Sometimes they like to forget it on the other side but we do not forget it and the people up there do not. It was a significant message sent on January 30, 2001. It was pivotal in the history of this party and this Province because it is the beginning of the turn. Every member over there knows it but they like to put it off and glance forward and have a big leadership. They were hoping to have this big leadership and everybody would forget about it but everything backfired, from the $10,000 in Conche through the entire leadership and the big charade they had over there - that is not over yet - right on up to the two by-elections on January 30. The members know over there and they try to scoff it off time after time but the reality is that it has begun. A lesson is about to be learned by the members opposite, that you cannot ignore the people one-on-one. You can set up all kinds of rhetoric and send out public relation schemes and tell everybody how great it is but you get it at the doors.

I remember one minister - and I will not even mention the minister's name. He is not here anymore.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It was not the Northern Peninsula. He told me himself that during the last provincial by-election he spent eight or ten hours up on the Northern Peninsula going door-to-door. He got so much flak that he packed up and moved back to Corner Brook. He sent up his executive assistant and stayed there because he got so much abuse and flak at the doors. He finally went back and it all came home to roost. That is what happened, and it is going to happen many more times.

Speaking of by-elections; I just heard a little word from the back that reminded me of something else. By-elections always ring a bell. The Member for Trinity North, who was also involved in that by-election. I was there. Oh yes, at the doors, I say to the Member for Grand Falls. I was at the doors and heard the same thing, but it was a little bit different then. I will tell you two major differences then. The difference in that by-election is that it was called very close to when the government got their new mandate. It was very close to it so there was not going to be too much change going on yet. They were not ready for change yet but of course, when the election was called, the polls showed the governing party way ahead. We did not have chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Hold on now.

We were very close to election so they were not going to change. The second most important one - and the Member for Trinity North knows this better than anybody. There is a member on that side of the House - and you can guarantee it and he can tell you - there are members on this side who can tell you that there is one reason he is sitting up in that seat, one main person, and that is the Member for Baie de Verde.

AN HON. MEMBER: Port de Grave.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Port de Grave is the reason why he is sitting up in that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) got more votes.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, you are right. You got more votes.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is another reason, too. He did not deliver his delegates. That is why he is back up there, too. He might be down farther.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Trinity North knows that the Member for Port de Grave singlehandedly delivered his seat to him, and that is why he is sitting there today. We know because we were there. We were down in the rural spots of Trinity North that day and seen all these other ministers around, but do you know what? As we were going door-to-door we did not hear about the other ministers - who was the Minister of Fisheries at the time, the Member for Port de Grave. The Member for Bonavista is shaking his head, he knows. I am just wondering how many delegates he really delivered? I wonder how many delegates from that district?

MR. SULLIVAN: From where?

MR. SHELLEY: From the Member for Trinity North, I wonder how many delegates were delivered? How many followed him up the road? Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that is another dandy one, but we will not go into that one. We are only on by-elections today. We are just talking about by-elections today but the Member for Trinity North knows full well. I do not have to tell him. I will not mention it again, he knows why he is sitting back in that seat. I hope at some time in his life he can pat the Member for Port de Grave on the back and say: I know why I am here. It is because of you - and he did. He worked hard for him out there. I know he did. He was out there a number of times - and we did get it, by the way. We, as members out there, tried to help our candidate. Murdered at the doors. That the Minister of Fisheries was a great asset to the Member for Trinity North in that particular by-election. Without those two - I forget what the majority of the margin was at the end of the day. It was just over a couple hundred votes, after coming down by twenty or thirty percentage points, in twenty-one days, just won a full majority, brand new Premier. He was still there then. He was still going to negotiate Voisey's then, the same fellow. He was still there then. He was saying: We will have Trinity North, no problem.

The truth is, I think it was 200 votes, or 220 votes was his final margin. Can anybody remember Trinity North? It was close enough. The two things that saved him were the closeness of a majority and the still Premier sitting in the chair at the time, Premier Tobin, and the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

MR. E. BYRNE: One hundred and ninety-two.

MR. SHELLEY: One hundred and ninety-two votes. Yes, there wasn't much of a difference.

All of those things come home to roost when you talk about rural Newfoundland, but here is the message that I will end off with today, what I will end my few words with. I want to remind hon. members opposite that everybody will be facing that soon, maybe sooner than you think, but you have to remember that in rural Newfoundland, as well as in urban parts of Newfoundland, your constituents are your boss. They are the ones who tell you if you are performing, if you are serving them, if you are representing them to the best of your ability. They are number one; your party and your government is number two.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true in urban Newfoundland, too.

MR. SHELLEY: It is true in urban Newfoundland, and we saw that first-hand.

The two colleagues from the Northern Peninsula, who went through twenty-one days in the middle of winter on a tough campaign, proved what a lot of people in this Province have wanted to say. As a matter of fact, even people in my own district said they wished they could have voted in that particular by-election.

Madam Chair, I will sit down. I think there is one more colleague who wants to have a few words.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to say a few words on the issue of Interim Supply, that we are here for today. I am glad that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is here in the House to listen to my remarks, because I am hoping that she can respond to some of my questions. I did note with some positive note, along with many others in the Province, that the government did fulfill the pre-election hints of the Premier in increasing to a certain extent at least the rates to be paid to home care workers in the Province. What the Premier did not say, and what the minister did not say in her Budget speech, was that it was the government itself which, for the past four or five years, has actively suppressed the wages of home care workers in the Province, starting with the home care workers strike on the Southern Shore back for the six months in 1996 when the Southern Shore home care workers were organized under the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees and attempted to increase their wages. They were employed directly, as it were, by a volunteer agency with all of the funds, 100 per cent of the funds, coming from the Province of Newfoundland, from the government, to provide the service of home care workers. The agency was just that, an agent for the government in delivery of the service.

Day after day in this House, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women got up and said that the government had no responsibility for the home care workers' wages in this Province, no responsibility for the women who were employed at wages one-half of what people doing similar work in institutions were receiving. This went on for many months. For six months this group was on strike to try to convince this government that they had a responsibility for the wages of home care workers.

I guess if the Minister of Finance is listening, she is probably the only one listening to my remarks here today. I wanted to move from the changes in the rates, which are welcome, to the changes that we are hoping to get in the not-too-distant future to bring them up closer to the people providing institutional care, the LPNs in the public health care institutions, Hoyles-Escasoni and the others around the Province, who receive a far better wage, in the $11 or $12 range, which is what this type of work demands.

I want to ask the minister if she could respond to this question about the status of workers' compensation for home care workers. Home care workers in the Budget speech of the spring of 1997 were promised to be put in the position, with the support of government - the $1.5 million was set aside at the time for this project - to provide home care workers in this Province with workers' compensation benefits.

We all know that women primarily, but also some men, women who work in the home care field, just as LPNs in the hospital - or as the minister would know herself from her previous life as a nurse and nursing instructor, people working with patients in hospitals or in home care are prone to injuries, and these are injuries, back injuries, which are debilitating. Luckily, nurses, nursing assistants, LPNs, who work in the health care field, who are working in hospitals and institutions, have the advantage of workers' compensation if they are injured on the job.

We have a situation in this Province where upwards of 3,000 people working in home care, in private homes, have no access to workers' compensation. This government has changed the law. They went to the extent of changing the law to make the recipient of self-managed care the employer for the purposes of receiving home care. They are also the employer for the purpose of workers' compensation, but they are not covered under the workers' compensation act and, in fact, the only way that an employee in those circumstances can receive compensation for any injuries that they receive is by suing the employer, suing the person that they are actually providing the care for, suing the elderly person, the disabled person, and saying that I am suing you because your actions or your negligence caused my injury, or your direct action, for example, somebody who may have Alzheimer's, somebody who may have a disability which forces them or causes them to act in a manner which could injure a person providing them care. That person has to be sued directly by the home care worker in order to get compensation for injuries.

The whole workers' compensation scheme was put in place, as the minister ought to know, to avoid that very circumstance, where, in fact, under workers' compensation you are not permitted to sue your employer. You are not permitted to sue your employer nor any other legal body or employer that is covered by workers' compensation; you have to go to the workers' compensation fund. That is considered to be a very positive step for social legislation like workers' compensation to provide for this.

I want to ask the minister, in her appropriations that she is asking for today, the $1.3 million, does that include the money that was set aside a couple of years ago, the $1.5 million or more that might be required to provide workers' compensation for home care workers? Can the minister get on her feet today and assure the home care workers of this Province that they will be, by the government's actions, covered for workers' compensation when they work, when they are providing care to a patient or an individual who needs personal care in their home, who is involved in self-managed care, will that person, will that home care worker, be covered by workers' compensation if, unfortunately, they suffer an injury in caring for the person in their home? Can the minister tell us that when she responds to these remarks here today?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chairperson, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Now that I have some of the attention of the House, I wonder if the Minister of Finance, before she seeks to get this Interim Supply bill passed, whether she is prepared to answer a question about worker's compensation for home care workers in the Province?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

With respect to the - and the member opposite knows - with respect to worker's compensation, when that was identified as something that government wanted to provide, it was based on the fact that -

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: I have a motion on the floor, but I can withdraw it, I guess. I am not sure what the procedure is here, and I look for direction, but if hon members agree, I can just withdraw the motion and the minister can carry on, if all members agree.

MADAM CHAIR: Is it agreed that the Government House Leader withdraw the motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave of the House.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

As I was saying, the hon. member opposite knows that the whole intent of putting in workers' compensation was there so that we were able to administer it in an appropriate way. Where we have been able to administer workers' compensation, we have put it in place. We have spoken to a number of people in the pre-Budget consultations as well as across the Province trying to find a way to put in the workers' compensation for all the other groups, but as the member opposite also knows, it is much more than $1 million, it is closer to $6.5 million. So we will continue to work to try and find an appropriate way to put in workers' compensation, in a way that we are able to implement it and evaluate it and able to do all the necessary components when people are injured on the job and getting them back to work on the job as well.

Mr. Chair, I move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March31, 2002, the sum of $1,226,446,100."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, seeing that it is close to 5:30 I ask if hon. members have agreed to stop the clock.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole on Supply reports that the committee has reported progress and that it has adopted a certain resolution and asks that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service,"read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER: Just for the information of hon. members, His Honour will be here shortly.

Admit His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 2)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I thank her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.

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