MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; and the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the recent accomplishments of seventeen year old Megan Buffett, a student of Bay d'Espoir Academy and resident of St. Alban's. Megan has been awarded $38,000 in scholarships for her tremendous musical talents and academic achievements.

Mr. Speaker, Megan competed in the Kiwanis Music Festival earlier this year and was awarded a Kiwanis Music Festival Scholarship valued at $2,000. In addition, Megan has received a $12,000 entrance scholarship from Mount Allison University and an additional $24,000 music scholarship from the university.

Mr. Speaker, Megan is very dedicated to music in her school and community. Megan directs her own private choir and a local church choir. She accompanies a number of others including the Bay d'Espoir Academy choir, the dolce choir and the Conne River Choir. This is just a few of her musical involvements.

At seventeen years old, Megan still finds time to study and time to spend with her friends. As she finishes Level III this year, Megan has managed to maintain status as an honours student. After high school, Megan will attend Mount Allison University working towards a Bachelor of Music.

Mr. Speaker, I join her parents, Ray and Louise Buffet, staff and students of Bay d'Espoir Academy, and all residents of the Coast of Bays region in congratulating Megan on her tremendous musical and academic achievements. I am certain we will hear much more about the accomplishments of Megan Buffett in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past week the winners of the School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Male and Female Student Athlete of the Year awards were announced. The awards are presented to male and female students in their graduating year, who best combine athletic and academic success and sportsmanship.

I am very proud to say that the Female Student Athlete of the Year for School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador is Kirsten Harris of Glovertown Academy, and Bradley McCarthy of Glovertown Academy was the runner up for the Male Athlete of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, as one can imagine, it is a great honour just to be nominated for this very prestigious award. To be recognized from a large province wide group of Grade 12 students is quite an accomplishment; to win the award is even a greater honour.

Mr. Speaker, Kirsten Harris is now the seventh student from Glovertown Academy to win this title. Some previous winners are: Nancy Moulton, Cheryl Brooking, Scott Moulton, Valerie Moulton, Jennifer Sparks and Kirk Bartlett. This year's recipients will be awarded at the AGM Banquet on Friday, June 2, in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join with me today in congratulating Kirsten Harris as Female Athlete of the Year and Bradley McCarthy for a terrific second place finish, and certainly extend acclamations to all those students who were nominated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 12 in Grand Falls-Windsor who recently were presented with the national special recognition award awarded by the Canadian Cancer Society for support they have given the society over the years.

The hall attached to the Legion on Queen Street in Grand Falls-Windsor has been offered to the group free of charge on numerous occasions. As a result, the Canadian Cancer Society has been able to hold gala events that include dinners, auctions and dances without having to worry about space and cost.

Mr. Speaker, Branch 12 also extends open arms to the Central Cancer Survivors' Choir - the only group of its kind in the country - by allowing them to host potluck dinners, singalongs and other social events at the Legion. As well, the Legion has hosted the survivors' reception during Relay for Life. Legion staff give freely of their time in setting up and dismantling decorations, tables and chairs for the hundreds of survivors who attend the reception.

It is for these reasons that the local unit of the Canadian Cancer Society decided Branch 12 would be a deserving recipient for the special recognition award and decided to nominate them. The national committee of the Canadian Cancer Society echoed the local unit's sentiments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 12, in Grand Falls-Windsor, who recently was presented with the Canadian Cancer Society National Special Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 13, I attended the awards banquet of the 209 Great Eastern Sea Cadet Corps. While many awards were presented to very deserving young men and women, I would like to acknowledge the awards presented to Petty Officer Second Class Melissa Pynn.

Melissa is a Grade 12 student from Green's Harbour and was the recipient of the Newfoundland and Labrador Sea Cadet of the Year, for which she was presented a plaque and certificate and the National Medal of Excellence.

Some of the criteria to be eligible for the National Medal of Excellence are: achieving at least 80 per cent attendance to meetings and functions, setting a good personal example, and good citizenship. Nominations are submitted from throughout the entire Province to the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Navy League and reviewed by an awards committee. There are only five of these medals presented each year in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Melissa is a remarkable young lady, having been involved with school fund-raising, youth groups, the Poppy Campaign, the Janeway Hospital, the Kidney Foundation, and Cadets Caring for Canada. As well, she volunteers catering with the Legion, is involved with church activities and teaches Sunday School. Mr. Speaker, Melissa so selflessly gives of her time and energy to many worthwhile causes.

Mr. Speaker, Melissa has also been nominated for the National Sea Cadet of the Year. I would ask that all members join with me in congratulating Petty Officer Second Class Melissa Pynn as the recipient of the National Medal of Excellence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate six youth from my area.

Victoria Ralph, Melissa Somers, Andrea Noel, Eleanor Hobbs, Mickey Hearn and Wesley Saunders were recognized at a special awards ceremony by the Carbonear Recreation Commission for their athletic accomplishments throughout 2005. These youth have been involved in events such as swimming, wrestling, basketball, soccer, badminton, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, Junior Female Athlete of the Year was awarded to Victoria Ralph, runner up Melissa Somers; Junior Male Athlete of the Year was awarded to Mickey Hearn; Senior Female Athlete of the Year was awarded to Andrea Noel, runner up Eleanor Hobbs; and the Senior Male Athlete of the Year was awarded to Wesley Saunders. All of these individuals have won numerous awards in a variety of sporting events - far too many to mention.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Victoria Ralph, Melissa Somers, Andrea Noel, Eleanor Hobbs, Mickey Hearn and Wesley Saunders for their athletic accomplishments in 2005 and wish them all the best in their future athletic and academic careers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to acknowledge the academic achievement of Andrew Critch of Hillview, Trinity Bay. Andrew graduated from Clarenville High in June of 2004 and, in a record-setting twenty months of study, he will be convocating from Memorial University on Friday of this week with a Bachelor of Science degree with Honours in Mathematics.

Upon graduating high school, Andrew received the MUN Alumni Entrance Scholarship and the Trinity North Electoral District Scholarship and, through scholarships, has been able to fund his entire university education to date. As he graduates from MUN, he will be receiving the MUN Medal for Academic Excellence in Mathematics as well as receiving the Governor General's Undergraduate Studies Medal for having achieved the highest academic standing of all undergraduate studies.

Mr. Speaker, Andrew is a high academic achiever as well as a well-rounded student. I have risen in this House many times to talk about his achievements in music and public speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I think it worthy of note that during Andrew's time at Memorial he was one of two members of the Mathematics Team, along with Neil McKay, and, for the first time in ten years, MUN won the Atlantic Provinces Council on Science Competition. As well, Andrew received honourable mention for his participation in the North American Putnam Mathematics Competition, the largest competition of its kind in North America.

Andrew is now working as a researcher with the University of Toronto and has received a full scholarship to enroll in the Masters Program in Mathematics starting in September of this year, and he is expected to complete that Masters program in less than a year.

Mr. Speaker, Andrew's future plans include the completion of a Ph.D. in Mathematics and pursuing a career in research and in writing.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members in this House to join with me today in congratulating this brilliant young man on his achievements to date, and wish him well as he goes forward into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to Statements by Ministers, the Chair would like to welcome President Wayne Ruth of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, who is the gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members about the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities Annual Symposium, held May 11-13 in Gander.

The Federation of Municipalities' mission is to assist communities in their endeavour to achieve and sustain strong and effective municipal government, thereby improving the quality of life for all people of this Province. This year, the NLFM focused on two themes: (1) Municipal Government and Economic Development, and (2) Community Sustainability Planning.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities on such a wise choice of themes. I had the pleasure of attending on Saturday when the theme of Sustainability was explored. Sustainability of communities around our Province is a central focus of my department and the entire provincial government. For this reason, I felt great pride in being asked to address the symposium and speak of our recent initiatives, programs and departmental successes.

Mr. Speaker, sustainability of rural communities and towns can be achieved when funding initiatives and programs are enacted effectively and efficiently. The Department of Municipal Affairs, together with the NLFM, continues to ensure that funding and investments are strategically allocated in the best interests of the provincial municipalities. Mr. Speaker, we have worked to provide the availability of financial and administrative tools for sound municipal government - as well, we continue to promote financial stability and viability in all municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, aside from promoting previous departmental successes at the symposium, I announced new funding for the CCRC. The Community Cooperative Resource Centre operates under a mandate to research the state of a municipal sector and encourage greater regional co-operation as a means of making municipal governments more economically viable. The CCRC has undertaken many worthwhile endeavours including: (1) municipal planning and sustainability, (2) formalizing regional co-operation and (3) understanding and acting upon the needs of ever-changing municipalities province-wide. My department has committed $75,000 annually for the CCRC to continue its valuable work.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities on the success of their annual symposium. I also wish to comment President Wayne Ruth and his organization on such hard work, dedication and professionalism in providing for the betterment of our communities. They continue to find great successes in their efforts of valuable leadership and guidance for communities, councils, and people province-wide.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement before coming to the House. The minister talks about the symposium that the federation held in Gander on May 11-13, that has become an annual thing. I will say to the minister and to the Federation of Municipalities, that if we are looking to have sustainability of our communities, especially those in our rural communities, then there will need to be a very strong and a vocal voice from the Federation of Municipalities.

In the third paragraph, the minister talks about: "funding and investments are strategically allocated in the best interests of provincial municipalities." I am not really sure what that means. I do not think, for a moment, the minister means that there is just going to be strategic infrastructure in the large urban areas and the smaller rural communities not having a part. I did not think that would be the case but it is a little bit ambiguous as it is in the particular statement.

However, I do agree with the minister on the Community Cooperative Resource Centre. That is a great program, and if we, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the rural parts of the Province, are going to succeed, if we are going to become viable entities as communities, then there has to be more regional sorts of things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. LANGDON: There will have to be more regional co-operation, not only as far as infrastructure but, I think, also as far as administration is concerned. We have seen that in the past. I think that in the future that necessity will become a reality and they will have to find more ways of working together so that these communities, as I said, can be strong and viable in the rural parts of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank President Wayne Ruth and all of the other councillors who voluntarily serve their time on municipal government in our Province, making our communities a better place to live.

Many communities, Mr. Speaker, are faced with a serious challenge today, particularly those that are represented by the fishing industry and others in our natural resource sector. It is, in the future, going to require more co-operation between municipalities as we have seen around this Province now where communities come together to share services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: - and to work closer together.

So, I wish the Federation of Municipalities and President Wayne Ruth the best success as they go forward into the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I rise today to talk about our dynamic literary industry. I had the great pleasure of attending the tenth anniversary of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards hosted by The Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador last Thursday at The Rooms.

I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that Joan Clark won the Fiction Award for An Audience of Chairs and Janet McNaughton received the Children's Literature Award for Brave Jack and the Unicorn. I would also like to acknowledge the other finalists, Michael Crummey, Lisa Moore, Ed Kavanagh and Kevin Major. The fine work of all these writers have placed us firmly on the literary map.

Of course, the many accomplishments of our writers are a direct reflection of the Writers' Alliance which has nurtured and encouraged literary talent for the past twenty years. It is through their efforts that many of our writers are faring so well on the literary scene. We, as a government, are proud to help support the Writers' Alliance and their various programs and activities.

No area of opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for business growth is more exciting than our Province's culture sector. That is why we are investing over $3 million to further develop our cultural industries under the new strategic cultural plan. This includes a new Publishers Assistance Program, which will put $200,000 a year into the publishing sector.

Under this program, Newfoundland and Labrador publishers will be eligible to apply for support towards resources for editing and design work, marketing, and professional development.

This means, Mr Speaker, our publishers will be able to reach more national and international markets and to participate in more book fairs and trade missions. It means publishers can hire professional editors and designers. It also means publishing companies can participate in more educational workshops and training programs, therefore boosting the level of local expertise in the field.

The literary sector, Mr. Speaker, is one of the fastest growing cultural industries. We need to build on that momentum. We want to give our writers the opportunity to be published at home and to give our publishers the opportunity to compete nationally and internationally. We hope that this new program will strengthen the literary industry overall by encouraging more synergy and collaboration between the writing and publishing sectors.

I invite all members to join me, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating Janet McNaughton and Joan Clark, the recipients of the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement.

We too, on this side of the House, would like to join with government in congratulating the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador for hosting their annual awards, and particularly to congratulate the winners, Joan Clark and Janet McNaughton, and also the finalists.

I am proud to see that I have a finalist here from my own District of Grand Falls-Buchans, Mr. Michael Crummey, and also the other finalists Lisa Moore, Ed Kavanagh and Kevin Major.

It is true, our writers are definitely getting on the literary map. We, as a people, have a greater appreciation today for our own writers and that is evident by the boost in book sales all over this Province and outside.

I do have to agree that, by putting more money into this industry, we are definitely going to get a better return from it, and it gives writers a chance to compete worldwide.

I would like to say to the minister, in conclusion, the other part of your portfolio, tourism, I do hope you will convince our Minister of Finance to lower the gas tax so we can have a better summer in tourism this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, in the New Democratic Party, certainly want to join in congratulating Janet McNaughton and Joan Clark on the receipt of these Newfoundland and Labrador book awards, and also recognize the very important work of the Writers' Alliance in Newfoundland and Labrador in supporting new writers and existing writers. It is a forum where writers such as these mentioned, including Michael Crummey, Lisa Moore, Ed Kavanagh and Kevin Major, they also help other writers come along.

These awards are very important. They give recognition to writers, and encourage others to do so, but also give opportunities to invite new readers to join the growing number of fans of Newfoundland and Labrador books.

These writers, all of them, in fact, have received awards and recognition on a regional and national level as well.

I want to also, while I am on my feet, mention the Percy Janes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: The minister and I were both at the Arts Council Awards recently and the award to David Hickey, who happens to reside in my district, who received the Percy Janes First Novel Award, is another important award that encourages the writers in this Province. As has been mentioned before, we have an awful lot of them and they are of very high quality indeed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier finally realized that we have significant problems in our fishing industry and, as a result, he called a summit - it has later been called a town hall or a forum - because these issues need to be addressed. Since that time we, in the Opposition, have received numerous calls from all over the Province asking if they could attend this summit or town hall.

I ask the Premier: What criteria was used to select the invitees? Who chose these representatives? And, will others be permitted entrance if they show up?

For example, the Mayor of Burgeo just called us; he would certainly like to be able to attend the summit. Who better, I say to the Premier, than the individual who has seen quotas taken from his town and shipped to Nova Scotia for processing, and who has watched the devastation of what happens when a one-industry town that depends on the fishery goes down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite knows that when those quotas left Burgeo, and left that town, they were in government. We were not at the time, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, this is not a week for partisan bickering, fighting and confrontation. This is a week for trying to find solutions to the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we have done, Mr. Speaker, together with the federal government who have agreed to come and join us for this particular discussion, we have attempted to work out a list. What we are trying to do is get as many people in the room for that meeting as time will accommodate, and that is exactly what we have done.

We have gone to the various associations, the various groups, the Federation of Municipalities. Even the Chair of the Federation is in a difficult spot because, obviously, there are only limited numbers we can bring into the room. We cannot even bring all the MHAs into the room, because we cannot ask one group to bring a certain number and then leave it wide open for everybody else to come. So, choices had to be made and there are representative groups from all over the Province coming: representatives from the unions, representatives from the processors, economists, scientists, members of the Aboriginal community, representatives of women's groups. We have tried to be as broad in the representation as we can.

This is not, Mr. Speaker, a public relations exercise. You know, there has been some discussion today about the media not being invited. Well, this basically is a genuine attempt to have good, meaningful discussion among people who can speak frankly and openly but not in a grandstanding manner.

This week is a week about trying to find solutions for the serious problems in our fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue surrounding the fishery is of utmost importance to a lot of people in a lot of regions of this Province and they want to be able to hear, or at least see, what is happening in those meetings, if they are not invited.

I ask the Premier: Why is the session hidden from the public and the media? Why can't the media attend so that the rest of the people in the Province who would like to have attended the meeting will at least be able to see what is going on there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is no intent whatsoever to hide this from the public; but, as I said before, it is not a public relations extravaganza. It is not all about getting our faces on television and putting on a great show, and showing how passionate we are and how much we believe in the fishery. It is about sitting down and talking to each other to try and come up with solutions that we can reach by consensus, or to find a direction in which we can go long term in the Province given the very, very serious problems that this fishery faces, which are completely beyond our control.

The fact that cameras are not in the room, that might bother the hon. gentleman opposite; they are of no concern to me. The all-party committee went around. I was in Marystown. You saw some of the problems that could have arose. There was a point in Marystown where there nearly was concern that there could have been disruption in the crowd down there, because people's emotions are running very, very high and they want to show their emotions and everything else, but this is about sitting down with the stakeholders in the fishery, as many as we can accommodate in one day, with both governments present, there to listen.

The hon. gentleman opposite, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, other officials from parties will be there. There will be ample opportunity for them, after the fact, to discuss with the media exactly what went on in that room.

There is nothing covert, there is no hidden agenda; but, as I have said, it is not about public relations. It is about finding solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: So what the Premier is saying is that he does not trust the average citizen in this Province to behave himself or herself in the summit tomorrow so they are not invited.

Mr. Speaker, we had been told that plans were in the works, by the way, to have a similar meeting in Plum Point on Friday to discuss fishery issues on the Northern Peninsula. As a matter of fact, we have been told that the Premier and his Minister of Fisheries have been invited.

I ask the Premier: Will you be attending a similar forum in Plum Point on Friday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who told the hon. gentleman what. The fact of the matter is that the development association up on the Northern Peninsula commissioned a study on fisheries issues on the Northern Peninsula several months ago. That report was presented to government, with a recommendation that government host and co-ordinate a fisheries forum on the Northern Peninsula. That is what is going ahead on the Northern Peninsula on Friday, a fisheries forum that was arranged and co-ordinated by the development association.

Yes, I am attending. I do not even know if the Premier was invited to attend, to be honest with you, but I am certainly attending, on behalf of the government. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, is attending. My colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, is attending, but that has nothing to do, nor does it flow out of or grow from, the town hall meeting that is being held tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it from that answer that the Premier will not be attending that summit on the Northern Peninsula on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, government has finally brought forward legislation for changes to the FPI Act; changes that do not go far enough to strengthen the act, in our estimation.

I ask the Premier: Why did you wait so long to bring forward these amendments, when we have been watching disaster after disaster unfold with FPI in the last two or two-and-a-half years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite is all over the map on this, and over the course of this debate we will show what he said over the course of the last three or four years. He is on both sides of the argument day after day after day.

We were working to try and find solutions. We have said we are keeping all options open. Last week he did not want us to change the act. This week he wants us to change the act. He is saying we are too late, we are too early. When he was in government himself, he criticized us because we were asking for changes in the act and he was asking for time so he could work out solutions with the company. That is exactly what we have been trying to do. We have been trying to work out solutions with potential possible purchasers, with the company, but there are lots of problems in the fishery. It is not just about FPI. It is not all about FPI.

This summit tomorrow, this discussion tomorrow, is going to be about the multiple problems that are going on in the fishery. There is more to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador than FPI. What has happened with Daley Brothers is a reflection of what is going on out there.

With regard to FPI, we are looking at the governance. We are looking at the way that this company has behaved. We are looking at an action that they took in their annual meeting, whereby they are continuing to restrict their Board of Directors to gain control of the company and we are responding to that as quickly as is necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, absolute hogwash. We have been asking you for over two years to deal with FPI and it started before they closed the plant in Harbour Breton. It started before they closed the plant in Fortune, and it certainly started before they closed the plant in Marystown and laid off 650 people.

Mr. Speaker, we still have not seen the legal opinion that says government cannot control FPI's quotas and where these quotas must be processed. I ask the Premier: Has a legal opinion been drafted on this issue and, if so, can we see that legal opinion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, your colleague, the federal Minister of Fisheries, will be at the summit tomorrow. Are you going to ask him for his authority to take control over FPI's quotas so that you can determine where those quotas are going to be processed this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are miles ahead of the Leader of the Opposition. We are miles ahead of the Opposition party. We have already been to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and said: We have heard you say publicly that your policy is use it or lose it. In other words, if you do not use the quota that the Government of Canada has assigned to you, you have no right to expect to keep that quota and sit on it. That is the policy that we support, but that can only be implemented by the Government of Canada. That policy, while supported by us, cannot be implemented by us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you may be miles ahead of us - that is what you say, you are miles ahead of us - but we still have six fish plants in this Province that are closed today. That is where you are, and your government.

Mr. Speaker, in the current FPI Act, it states that a company cannot sell all or substantially all of that company. The new wording, if passed, will state that a substantial portion of the company cannot be sold without permission of government. In light of last years conflicting legal opinions as to what constitutes a substantial portion of the company, why isn't government amending the act so that no part of the company can be sold without the approval of government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the hon. gentleman's preamble, there are fish plants in this Province today that are not operating, that are closed. There were fish plants in the Province that were closed and not operating when he was last Minister of Fisheries. That is not a new phenomena in this Province, unfortunately it keeps happening.

In terms of the amendment to the act. The legal advice, Mr. Speaker, is that we have substantially lowered the bar by this new amendment from all or substantially all, to a substantial portion. It is the advice that we have been given, that FPI will have a much more difficult time getting over that definition, that wording in the act, than they would have - according to the legal advice that was given last year - getting over the wording of all or substantially all.

That is the advice, Mr. Speaker. The measure will be if and when the legislation is tested, but we are very comfortable that we have substantially lowered the bar in terms of what this company can do with its assets in this Province and elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Lowered the bar?

MR. RIDEOUT: Lowered the bar, yes.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister about his preamble, I can tell him one thing, no FPI plant closed under our watch - not while I was minister, not while I was in the government. FPI did not close plants under our watch.

Mr. Speaker, government is bringing forward changes to the FPI Act which states that the company cannot dispose of a fish plant in this Province without the approval of government.

I ask the Premier: Why isn't government including a clause which states that the company cannot close a plant in the Province without permission of government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite knows that it is only so far that we can go with interfering with the management of a company. We are trying to walk a very fine line. I must say, our officials in the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Justice have spent a lot of time on this, giving us very, very good advice. We have not only gone within the Department of Justice, we have gone outside the Department of Justice to confirm the opinions. If, in fact, we get involved with the management of the company, then we have a situation where we are actually expropriating shareholder value, which means that the shareholders can come back to government and seek compensation. Now, the privative clause may cover that in Newfoundland and Labrador but it will not cover it outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also need to remind the hon. gentleman opposite of a comment that he made on VOCM Night Line, November 24, 2004: We all agreed as a party, as an all-party committee, that we couldn't put into the legislation that you couldn't lay off people. That is closures. He now has changed his mind. He is directly contradictory to a position that he took years ago. He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it is convenient, as usual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to be selective in what he quotes. Under that I said it should not be closed unless there were extensive consultations with the union and that the union agreed to it. I do not see that in what you have just allowed to happen in Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes of FPI focus only on the assets in this Province under clause 7. I ask the Premier: Why isn't the government including FPI's assets outside the Province and requiring that the company receive approval to dispose of, for example, the American marketing division, the plant in Danvers, Massachusetts and the brand new plant that they bought for $40 million in the U.K.? Why is it, in this legislation that you are putting forward today, the amendments to the legislation, are you only talking about plants in Newfoundland and Labrador when they own plants and assets elsewhere?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in the legislation refers to assets of FPI, Fishery Products International. It does not say the asset in Marystown. It does not say the asset in Burin. It does not say the asset in Port au Choix. It does not say the asset in London. It does not say the asset in Danvers. It says assets of the company. We, Mr. Speaker, believe that that means all of the assets of the company, all of them in their totality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is putting forward legislation here this afternoon and I do not know if he has read it, because it does talk about assets in the Province and particularly, plants in the Province. It does not say anything about a plant in the U.K. or a plant in Danvers, Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government is only requiring FPI to receive approval to dispose of fish plants in the Province. I ask the Premier: Why aren't you including other assets of FPI, such as the sale of their quotas or the possible sale of their fleet, their boats?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think we have clearly answered the question as to why we are not including the sale of their quota. The quota - we just do not have the jurisdictional authority to be able to legislate in that regard. That was the legal advice given to the previous government when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was minister. He knows that as well as I know it. That is the legal advice that has been given us by our own in-house legal team and, of course, as the Premier has indicated, we have gone outside and sought legal advice as well.

On that particular matter, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clear to any and all who are listening that we are prepared to legislate in areas where we have jurisdiction, we are prepared to tighten the Act in areas where we have jurisdiction, but what foolishness would it be for us to legislate in areas where we clearly don't have jurisdiction and have it all blow up and be of naught when it is thrown out when somebody challenges it in court?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Still no mention of the boats that FPI has, the fleet that they -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, you forgot about them. I guess you forgot about them in the legislation too, I say to the minister, because they are certainly not mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province have raised concerns that John Risley is, in essence, controlling FPI even though he is a direct competitor of that company.

I ask the Premier: Why isn't government ensuring that no direct competitor can sit on the Board of Directors of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that John Risley and others were able to facilitate their entrance into FPI while other people were in power. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to contain this and to make this work as best we can by amending the Act in this House, as we are up to now.

Mr. Speaker, the wording in the Act is that, where there is a conflict then there is going to have to be a test as to whether or not those people are allowed to sit on the board. Now, we don't want to bar people who have expertise in the fishery or in fisheries management. We don't want to tell the Board of Directors who they can or can't have on the board, but we want certain defined parameters, and if certain people don't fit in those defined parameters because of conflicts or other reasons, then obviously the legislation speaks to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He talks about how we over here brought John Risley into the Board of Directors of FPI. What I say to the minister is, at least we controlled John Risley once he came to that board. John Risley did not close plants or sell off assets of FPI while we were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: He did that since you took over, I say, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, government is expanding the Board of Directors to thirteen people of which the majority have to be resident Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask the Premier: Is he willing to ensure that of the thirteen members some of these members would be appointed by government so that they can oversee the day-to-day operations of FPI? Then we wouldn't need an investigation into FPI to determine, for example, if they were exporting unprocessed fish out of the country for processing and the government not even knowing about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite has absolutely no idea whatsoever of the legal implications of what he is talking about. Governments cannot interfere and step in and tell shareholders who are they going to put on the Board of Directors. There is no precedent for it in corporate law. The same way with the whole conflict of interest situation. Under corporate law it is done on a transactional basis; the director discloses exactly what the conflict of interest is.

We cannot turn around and tell FPI who to put where and who they can sit there, and if they can own a fish company or they cannot own a fish company, because they have shareholder rights and there will be actions against this government that will reflect on us right across the board in absolutely everything we do across this country.

He should not be asking questions about legal matters about which he knows absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, the Premier cannot get away from attacking the person instead of the argument.

I will tell the Premier something, in case he has not read all of the FPI Acts. The original FPI Act had members appointed by the government on that in 1984. It was the current minister, when he was minister in 1987, that removed them, I say to the Premier. Maybe he should read all of the acts.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries touted cross-subsidization as a way of strengthening the FPI Act. We all heard it: opening the House, changing the legislation to force FPI to cross-subsidize its ailing groundfish sector. This would ensure that the more profitable wings of the company, like those in Danvers, Massachusetts, would support those on the Burin Peninsula and along the South Coast.

I ask the Premier: If your government was committed to strengthening the FPI Act, why was this option dropped from your agenda?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If this government owned FPI, if it was a government-owned company, and the government had the ability to cross-subsidize between the marketing arm and the operational arm, then it could be done.

If this government imposed cross-subsidization on that company, this government could be sued by the shareholders for loss of shareholder value, which means that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be liable for a lawsuit. If they could not get it under the privative clause, they would then sue nationally and could seize possible assets of Newfoundland and Labrador on the mainland. So, quite simply, we were not prepared to expose the people of the Province to that solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the answers I am hearing from the Premier. It was his minister who talked about forcing FPI to cross-subsidize its ailing groundfish sector, not us over here. It was your minister.

When you are talking about suing the government, we put a privative clause in that act in 2002, I say to the minister, that prohibited FPI from suing the government. That was still in there until you removed it last June when FPI wanted the act amended, not us, but when FPI wanted the act amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just to get off the topic a little bit, last week in this House of Assembly we asked whether a company that owed $500,000 to workers' compensation fees was receiving favourable treatment from the government. At the time, the minister stated that all companies were being treated fairly.

I ask the minister responsible for workers' compensation: How is it fair and equitable treatment when one company is harassed for owing money, as little as one penny, while others who owe $500,000 are getting away with it?

I have a letter here from a young lady on the West Coast who is being harassed because she has a bill from workers' compensation for one cent, I say to the Premier. Is that fair and balanced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is always concerned about money being owed to government. The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission is a separate entity from government. It is not reported on the books of our Province. We are not responsible. They run their own affairs. They move to collect their own debts in the way that independent board decides. We do not interfere. It is not an entity. Nor do we intend to interfere with an entity that is not a reporting entity to our Province on that basis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He talks about an independent board. Who selected the board of directors if it was not the government opposite?

Mr. Speaker, how long did these two companies, namely Ice Cap and North Atlantic Shellfish, owe workers' compensation $500,000, and what efforts were made on behalf of workers' compensation or the government to collect those fees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are actually right, I do not know, because I did not know until the Leader of the Opposition raised it because it is not an entity that reports to us. It is not on the books of our Province. We have no legal obligation to pursue and collect it. That is the prerogative of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, and they will carry out their business in a manner they see fit, independent, and collect the revenues, set fees, collect compensation costs. They deal with those efforts here and we do not, in any way, interrupt or take action on behalf of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe what I am hearing from the Minister of Finance. Here is an individual, along with his Cabinet colleagues, who picked the board of directors of workers' compensation and you say you have absolutely no control over them. I ask the minister: Who controls them, and are they making an effort to collect that money?

Mr. Speaker, maybe he can answer this one: When employers do not pay workers' compensation premiums, are the employees of that operation covered should a workplace accident take place and leave them unable to perform their duties?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is an employer-funded organization and yes, the employees are covered, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, I say. After asking it twice in the House of Assembly, we finally got a response.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does Daley Brothers, or any of its subsidiaries or associated companies, owe money to workers' compensation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of anybody owing money or what their debts are, or any creditors out there. The Workplace, Health and Safety Compensation Commission is not an entity of government. It is not under our reporting umbrella and therefore, I would not have an answer to that; anymore than I would know what his personal finances are or some other independent business that has no direct dealings with government there. We set the legislation by which it operates under and they deal with their own fees. They do their charges. They operate it separately. I, or even the minister, do not interfere in that process whatsoever, that is their responsibility. We honour and respect that, and we follow the laws pertaining to it.

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.

For the third time in four years this House has before it amendments to the FPI Act, with both government and Opposition trying to have the proper influence and control over this public purpose, private corporation. Will the Premier not acknowledge that the hostile takeover of FPI has brought a different agenda to the corporation, one that his government cannot control by merely amending the legislation and leaving the company in private hands, hands that appear hostile to the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. gentleman opposite for that question. I would agree that the company, in our opinion, is in hostile hands. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That is why we are reacting the way we are. That is why we are looking at the amendments.

The reaction of Mr. Risley today, or of course over the weekend, is indicative, I think, of the fact that he is now smarting on the basis of the fact that we are starting to take action. So, he is out there now and he is starting to react because we are starting to exert control and influence on the company. So, what we are trying to do is strike that delicate balance between reining in the company and trying to have some influence on his Board of Directors without crossing the line and permanently tainting the reputation of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an old expression, that you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. The Premier knows that his government will already be accused of interfering with a private company that is publicly traded. If the public purposes of FPI are so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are, why doesn't the Province seek a controlling interest of the company and then do what needs to be done to ensure this company operates in accordance with the public purpose, including the marketing needs of the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman opposite is aware, there has been one proposal already for the possible acquisition of the Newfoundland assets. There now is a second proposal before our government which would deal with the acquisition of the Newfoundland assets. Our concern then would be that the FPI Act would have to be dropped in order to allow that and then the marketing arm would be exposed.

What I would like to see during the course of discussions tomorrow would be a proposal that would come from people in the industry. For example, if people in the industry were, say, to just get together and the processors, other than FPI, were to get together and the union was to get together and various interests in the fishing industry in the Province were prepared to look at a cooperative to take over that marketing arm, coupled with an acquisition, possibly of the Newfoundland assets supported with some possible financial assistance by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government, that would be an interesting proposal. So, all options are open tomorrow and perhaps there is a manner or a method where we, as a Province, can possibly take over this whole company in one form or another. That is the kind of solution that I would certainly like to consider and I know our government would certainly like to consider it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the issues raised today, the issue of quotas, the issue of cross-subsidy and, of course, the important issue of marketing, none of which can be totally controlled by this government by remote control amendments to the FPI Act. Will the Premier not acknowledge - I think he has acknowledged - that there are options which include the takeover of FPI that would deal with some of these issues on a permanent basis?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes that the question be repeated.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the issues mentioned today, the issue of control of the quotas, the issue of cross-subsidization and the important issue of marketing may not be able to be controlled by remote controlled legislation from this Province. Will the Premier not acknowledge that a more permanent solution may well be found in combining FPI's interests, and particularly its marketing arm, with other proposals that might come forth in this hearing tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is exactly what I am saying. Part of the frustration that Cabinet had, of course, when we were dealing with this matter, and again with the sound advice from the Department of Justice and others, is that there are certain things within the parameters of the act that we cannot do as a government, or should not do because it will expose us to liability. A solution to this would ultimately be, as I said before, to this being completely a Newfoundland owned and operated company.

Now, I also said before, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not want to get in the business of operating fish plants. I just do not think that we could give the time and the attention and the expertise that would be necessary to do proper justice to it in a very difficult market. However, having said that, if there was a sophisticated Newfoundland operator or operators who wanted to operate the other Newfoundland assets then the marketing division would be kept intact. It could be used for the marketing benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What I would love to see would be a co-operative that could basically take it over with the assistance. So, it could be a form of restructuring of FPI without the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actively going in and running it. It could be run by people who are proficient in the fishing industry, who could manage it properly in the best interest of the stakeholders who are people with invested interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a different petition today. It is one by some workers at the Duck Pond Mine site just outside of Millertown. It is a view, I guess, contrary to what we have been hearing in the media. It is workers who work at the mine site, and they are from all over Central Newfoundland. This petition is signed by almost 200 people and it speaks to the permanency of work sites at the Duck Pond Mine.

Now, that is contrary to local people in the area. Local people in communities, and mayors, thought by this project going ahead at Duck Pond, communities surrounding the mine site would benefit from the economic activity and that people working in the mine site would actually live in communities like Buchans, Buchans Junction, Millertown and Badger. So, this is exclusively from the workers who commute each and everyday, from people in Green Bay, Robert's Arm, Baie Verte, La Scie, and even in close proximity. There are even people there from Buchans Junction, Millertown and a few from Buchans, but it is a view that is contrary to local communities in the area.

I have to, on behalf of my constituents - even though they have a different view than mine even, I have an obligation and a responsibility to bring this petition forward because they are in a position now where they are living and working everyday at Duck Pond and they are commuting to and from their home areas in rural parts of Central Newfoundland. They would like to be able to stay in their home communities and actually live in a camp at the mine site, but it is a view that is not widely shared. In fact, when the environmental impact statement was done, the commitment at the time by Aur Resources was that they would erect temporary camps only at the mine site and that they would not be permanent in nature.

So, this is a view that is entirely contrary to local communities in the area. It is not one in fact that I favour, but as I said originally, I have an obligation. Part of my constituents put forward this view so that government will see this side of the issue, as well as the issue that is already in government's purview. In fact, the Mayor of Buchans has already been to see the Minister of Natural Resources for the government. He, on behalf of his community, and others in Central Newfoundland have impressed upon our Minister of Natural Resources that they do not want to see a permanent woods camp at the mine site. In fact, they would only like to see a temporary one and they would hope that people working in the area would take up residence in surrounding communities. So, Mr. Speaker, what I am doing today is bringing forward a different view, a view of the workers in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I wonder if I could have co-operation from members opposite just to revert to Tabling of Documents? One of my colleagues needs to table a document but was otherwise engaged with another colleague, so, just for a moment, to revert to Tabling of Documents to provide the opportunity for a colleague to table a document from his department.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is money that we want spent in 2007-2008, a year down the road. You will see that in the Budget next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Reverting to petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to a petition on behalf of my constituents; in fact, on behalf of the people on the entire Burin Peninsula. It has to do again with FPI and what has transpired particularly in Fortune, and the closure of the plant there. That has resulted in hundreds of people being put out of work, people who now are trying to find employment in other parts of the country because, of course, they need to be able to provide for their families. As much as they would like to stay in Fortune, regrettably that is not an option for many of them because, of course, while they sit and wait and wonder whether or not they are going to hear from this government with respect to any kind of employment program that would help carry them over the difficult spots, they are still having to make mortgage payments, car payments, provide food for their families, transportation, clothing, and everything that you and I have to do in the course of a day. Unfortunately, their employer acted in a very callous manner and closed the fish plant. I guess they got notification of the actual closure and the laying off of employees with a letter in the mail on a Friday afternoon. Of course, they all knew that I guess there was a chance that this would happen but they continued to live in hope; hope that some of the suggestions that were forthcoming from the government, whether it was Cooke Aquaculture or whether it was a quota for Cooke Aquaculture to carry them over until the aquaculture part of the company was up and running, they were living in hope that something would happen that would enable them to find employment in their hometown, and for those involved in communities outside of Fortune that they, indeed, would again find employment in Fortune.

That has not been the case, and today we are seeing hundreds of people leaving those small communities. In fact, if you were to drive through Fortune and Point au Gaul and Lamaline and Point May and Grand Bank and Garnish and Frenchman's Cove, you would find that there are so many homes that have been boarded up or have for sale signs on them. What I am being told is that these are people who are leaving and taking their families with them. In the past, when they would go alone, they would always come back because their families were there. That is not the case any more.

The prayer of the petition is, in fact, that the government would do everything it can to ensure that the quota of fish traditionally processed at the fish plant in Fortune will continue to be processed there. I guess that is what we are discussing today in terms of who has the authority to ensure that happens.

Because we have a summit coming up tomorrow where the federal government will be represented, this is a golden opportunity, I think, for the federal Minister of Fisheries to stand up and take account of and be responsible for the authority that he has in terms of how those quotas are assigned, and ensure that FPI is not allowed to leave with the quota that was traditionally processed in Fortune. Those, according to Minister Hearn - in the past I have heard him say that fish is a common resource and, in fact, they are given to companies to be processed for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In our case, our Province. What we would do today is call on both levels of government to ensure that continues to happen, that the quotas do not remain with a company like FPI. He can take them and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not want to disappoint members of government by not getting up and giving this petition on the Buchans Highway; so, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand again today and give this petition on behalf of the residents of Central Newfoundland.

It is interesting, the petition I gave previously, about five minutes ago, talked to the fact that workers at the Duck Pond mine site are concerned about the highway conditions and the safety threats of driving over that highway every day. That is only one of the reasons that we need upgrades to the Buchans Highway.

I was encouraged last week, Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Premier announce that he was giving additional duties to the Minister of Transportation and Works. The Minister of Transportation and Works is now Acting Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Now that he is sharing those joint portfolios, I am sure that he will be able to see, first-hand now, that works hand in hand with Transportation and Works. I know the Premier gave him that portfolio to try and soften him up and say: Transportation Minister, look; what we will be doing with the Buchans Highway is, indeed, economic development now. If you can see this by handling the two portfolios, I might be able to switch you around now in a couple of months' time.

Really and truly, this is a serious matter and it demands government's attention. What we are looking for is a road that we are going to feel comfortable driving over, 100 kilometres that we can drive over with great certainty that it is in good repair. We do not want trucks going over that highway with the shoulders cracked and very little room there to pull off on the side of the highway. We do not want that to happen. We do not want to see a school bus overturned up there on the highway from Buchans Junction, or Millertown going to Buchans. That is not what this government is all about, I am sure.

This government has made all kinds of expenditures, and every expenditure has a priority attached to it. It was only this afternoon that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation stood up and said how proud he was with the investment in the cultural industry in this Province, and I agree with that as well, but you also have to look at the number one investment in our Province, and that is the safety of our residents. Whether it be on our highways, on our waterways, in the air or whatever, we have to ensure that the residents of our Province are safe and they have a good road that they can commute back and forth to work on. This is sadly lacking, and it is rural Newfoundland communities that are affected here today.

Tomorrow there will be a summit in this Province and we are going to be talking about the fishery. When you look at the road in Buchans, that is going to be able to contribute to the Treasury of this Province of 250 permanent jobs in goods and services, I think they have a stake in this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be up again tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

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

I want to move to Motions first.

Motion 1, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House, under Standing Order 11, not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 23, at 5:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 23, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 4, to proceed with the introduction and second reading of a bill, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education." (Bill 21)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce into the House today the new Council on Higher Education Act. As well, I am introducing amendments to the college and Memorial act to allow for joint appointments to each of the boards governing these institutions.

This New Council on Higher Education Act stems from government's White Paper on Post-Secondary Education which was released in July of 2005. Twenty-eight directives were outlined in the White Paper as a result of thorough consultations and research. The White Paper directives included a reconfigured Council on Higher Education recognized in legislation, and amendments to the legislation governing Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic. We want to ensure these institutions continue to work together to ensure greater collaboration in the services they deliver as they play an important role in the social and economic development of the Province.

Over the past several months, both Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic have worked closely with the Department of Education to discuss their needs and work on an appropriate legislative framework to implement the White Paper directives. With this legislation we will build a more robust post-secondary education system that will not only support the level of cooperation between Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic, but also improve the level of services available to students throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

In these changing times, we must make strategic decisions. This New Council on Higher Education Act is an integral part of the provincial post-secondary plan and is consistent with government's approach to long-term planning, accountability and sound infrastructure planning. Both institutions working together as a united post-secondary education system will best serve the interests of our students. In addition, the MUN and CONA Acts are being amended to allow for three members to serve on each of these boards.

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea behind the Council of Higher Education is something that is not necessarily new for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have certainly had councils on higher education in the past, and it is on the experience of these councils and the role they play that we feel it is necessary at this time to bring forward the legislation that we are looking at in order to make sure that the Council of Higher Education is enshrined in legislation and it does have a legitimate role to play within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a Province we are blessed to have Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic. Both of these post-secondary institutions are shining examples of what high quality post-secondary institutions can do to a Province. Mr. Speaker, the graduates of Memorial University of Newfoundland are known not just in this Province and throughout the country but throughout the world for the expertise and the high quality of education that they bring, and they bring it to whatever they do whether it is to work or the analysis they provide and the skills, as I said, throughout the world.

In addition to that, the College of the North Atlantic is also a post-secondary institution that has played a very important role in this Province and will continue to play a very valuable role, and a heightened role, Mr. Speaker, as we move through some labour market changes. Specifically, the whole idea of the skill deficits that we are going to experience in the skilled trades is something that is extremely important. The College, with its seventeen campuses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, needs to be able to grow, needs to be able to expand and needs to be able to respond to the challenges that we are going to see in the labour market.

We also have to recognize that these two highly credible and high quality institutions need to be able to work together. They are absolutely distinct and separate but there is certainly some overlap in services and we need to make sure that we serve the students and the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the most effective way possible that we can to ensure that they have a high quality education.

In many communities we have the College of the North Atlantic and the university working side by side. In many cases, particularly in St. John's, we can see how the institutions are physically structured so that they operate in the same city, as we can also see in Corner Brook. They are even in very close proximity as well in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, there are also other connections because there are many university courses or first-year courses that may be offered at campuses, but in addition to that, Memorial University has often used the campuses to be able to offer Distance Education or teleconference courses. The links and the fact that we use these educational institutes and we cross some of the boundaries has been set up.

We need to be able to work together, Mr. Speaker. At Memorial University there is a Board of Regents that governs the university, as there is a Board of Directors with the College of the North Atlantic. In order to strengthen some of the ties to make sure that these institutions work well together, this legislation will ensure that there are some people who serve on the college board who also serve on the Board of Regents. In this way, there will be some consistency in the approach to ensure that we are able to make some links and be able to grow these institutions or bring them together in areas that do not affect academic freedom.

One thing that is also important to recognize as we establish the Council on Higher Education, that there is no role more important to this council than the role of the students. Students will be involved in the Council on Higher Education. There will be a student from both the College of the North Atlantic and, as well, a student from Memorial University of Newfoundland. The way that students are often selected, and will be for the purposes of this council, is that we connect with the Canadian Federation of Students, who then, in turn, because they represent all students, all students in our public post-secondary system become members of the Canadian Federation of Students. They then, in turn, appoint people, will be able to appoint representation, both from the college and the university onto the Council on Higher Education.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this particular year and the budget we passed, highlighted education. This particular act and legislation continues to show how important education is in Newfoundland and Labrador and how, as a Province, we have a population of approximately or just over 500,000 people. We need to work together to make sure that at whatever level we are talking post-secondary, whether it is the college or the university, that we are able to provide the most appropriate services and the highest quality education. In order for us to be able to do that, we certainly need to be able to make the links between these two institutions to allow people to work together.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly looking forward to the debate on this legislation because I think it is a piece of legislation, as I said before, that is not necessarily new or unique. Some elements are, in that we are strengthening the ties, but the Council on High Education is something that this Province has had for quite some time. As we grow and as we change we certainly need to strengthen this, and I think that this legislation will allow us to do just that.

Thank you.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and respond to the Minister of Education on Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education.

I had a chance to review this particular piece of legislation and find out what is being removed and what is added and so on. It is interesting, when you look back at the formation of this particular Council on Higher Education. This was formed in 1992, the year of the cod moratorium. It was formed as a permanent body and operates under a protocol agreement with a mandate to provide advice on province-wide policy and planning issues and develop a mechanism and process for enhanced coordination and articulation among and across sectors of the public education system - not the private education system, but the public education system. I am sure that in 1992 it was a huge concern, with the collapse of our fishery in 1992, that we had to turn our attention more so on education and see what we could do as a Province in educating our young people, looking at education as being the key to a successful career and so on.

Now, there are some changes indicated that will happen with the make up of this board. Mainly, from what I can tell from looking at the old legislation and the new, is that formerly there was a department of youth services and post-secondary education. That does not exist today with this new government, so there is going to have to be a shake up in the board and a reconfiguration. The only people I can see staying in place like they were before - the Deputy Minister of Post-secondary Education, well, that will be the Deputy Minister of the Department of Education now, and they will have the President of Memorial University and the President of the College of the North Atlantic, so these three people will stay in place, but the other people who will be on that particular board will be different.

They were, more or less, in the past, from within government: bureaucrats, officials, and representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Directors of Education and different bodies connected to education. What we are going to see now is the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, and the Department of Education; however, there is going to be an opportunity to add more people to the board from the outside.

I am noticing that students are going to be appointed, which is a good thing, one from Memorial University and also another one from the College of the North Atlantic. There will also be an opportunity for three more persons as members of the council. I am not certain what expertise these people will need to have. That is not indicated in the piece of legislation that is before us. It says, "...for a term that the minister may establish." I do not think that is carved in stone yet, so I do not know whether that will be a one-year term, two or three or five, or whether the minister will be in a position to appoint these particular people when this legislation is enacted.

She talked about the Federation of Students. Well, I must say that the Federation of Students were a very close and integral part of the former government because they were used many times as the sounding board for some of the things that we wanted to do in our Province to improve education for our young people in this Province. In fact, the young people in this Province had many occasions where they met with the national body of the Canadian Federation of Students and exchanged ideas, and that would account for many of the changes that led to the overhaul of the Student Loan Program in our Province in 2002.

Some of the new objectives, as opposed to the older ones, would be talking about student credit transfers from among the university, the college and other accredited provincial, national and international post-secondary educational programs. That is a good thing. In the College of the North Atlantic in Grand Falls-Windsor, we have a first-year university program and we have been very successful. In fact, I would think that we take the lead in the numbers attending for the first-year university program. Any of these credits are transferrable to MUN, and it has worked out excellent for Grand Falls-Windsor, I must say, this first-year university program, although I was disappointed with the White Paper work that was done last year in 2005.

I expected to see some mention of the Central University Committee for education in Grand Falls-Windsor. The fact that their proposal was not even acknowledged led to a great deal of disappointment, particularly for former Mayor Walwin Blackmore. He has been leading that charge, along with Howard Barnes, for many years. Prior to the switch in government, we more or less had a great understanding with Axel Meisen, the current President of Memorial University, that we were going down a road together that would bring more status to the College of the North Atlantic in Grand Falls-Windsor, and develop it over a period of time into a degree-granting institution.

Now, we were always looking in Grand Falls-Windsor for some speciality that we could excel in. Business seemed to the norm. Our Business Program in Grand Falls-Windsor had always a huge take-up in students who wanted to go to our university in Grand Falls or our College of the North Atlantic, so we were looking for some centre of excellence that could attract students not only from our Province but all over Atlantic Canada and within Canada and abroad. We were looking for something that would be unique to our particular area and would serve as a great attraction.

So far, we have not had the acknowledgment from this new government, hardly, that the university committee exists, but I notice that, after seeing former Mayor Walwin Blackmore in the paper a couple of weeks ago, in his mind it is not dead. In his mind it is certainly not dead, and he is interested in pursuing the matter. I hope that this government will lend an ear to the Central University Committee and have a look at their proposal.

In fact, there was a great deal of money spent, I would think it was probably in 2002, through ACOA and through the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, helping the Central University Committee develop a good proposal based on real facts, that there was a need for building on the relationship between the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University, and in fact looking at adding programs to make it a second and a third year, and finally, to a degree-granting institution. I hope this government will not sweep the matter under the rug and that they will give the committee a chance to hear their proposal. I know they do have it on file, they submitted it during the White Paper consultations. We are certainly supportive of such a move in Central Newfoundland and I hope that the minister will consider it.

It is interesting that one of the issues discussed by the Council on Higher Education is our math program. The math program in our K-12 school system is a problem. You only have to turn on Open Line and you will hear parents all the time phoning in and saying how the math in our schools is an issue. I guess it is disappointing when you look at the money that is spent in education and still the concept of the actual teaching of our math program is a real issue for students across this Province. It is not only an issue in K-12, because one of the items that came out of some of the meetings held a couple of years ago on the Council of Higher Education was actually the failure rate of first-year math students at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, which continues to be a major concern.

What is going wrong with math in our schools, right from K-12? If you don't have a good base when you graduate from high school, how can you deal with math at the post-secondary level? This is a subject that is of great contention, and I imagine it is a nightmare for parents who try to lend help to their students with homework.

I heard a lady a couple of weeks ago call in about having to go over math with her student in elementary school. She said the focus was not whether the answer at the end of the problem was right or wrong, but that the process used was the right one. Now, anyone from the old school knows you had to make sure that the answer was right, you had to memorize, you had to get the answer and there was a process to go through. Apparently that is all out the window now. As long as the process is right the answer can be wrong.

There is definitely a problem in our math in our schools, particularly when you look at rural communities, because many of the advanced math courses in rural communities are taught by distance education, where you sit into a monitor and you talk to somebody who is teaching math for maybe ten or twelve, or more than that, schools throughout our Province. So, if you are getting into distance education and you are trying to grasp a concept of advanced math, you are already doomed for failure unless you are particularly bright and you like that particular subject. How can our young people succeed in the world at all if they cannot grasp the concept of math?

This is one of the challenges that have been around for a long time, probably as many as fifteen years - I know I have heard it - that math has been a problem. It still has not resolved itself into making it any easier for our students in K-12, and it is a real problem once they attend university and post-secondary.

The Council of Higher Education meet probably three or four times a year, and they will go over whatever issues come to the surface at that time. Their idea of meeting like this is to give a broad overall umbrella focus of education matters in our high schools and universities in this Province. They serve a valuable purpose, there is no question about that. They have been around since 1992. I am pleased to see now that the original mandate of having the President, the Chairperson of the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University and the Deputy Minister of Education involved is a good thing.

There are not too many negative things I can say about it, except that I would like to leave with the Minister of Education the issue on the White Paper study as it pertains to Central Newfoundland, in particular Grand Falls-Windsor, and I would like for her to let his House know if there has been any success in dealing with the issue of math in this Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education.

The public post-secondary education in this Province is extremely important to young people and to the Province as a whole. I think the last time I had a reason to look up some of these numbers was, I believe, that we have graduated from our university, since it became a university in 1949, some 70,000 young people, most of whom, I would say, probably 98 per cent of them, are from Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it will be remember by some that the first act of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature after Confederation was an act to incorporate Memorial University College, as it then was, as a university, indicating the importance with which the then government and then Premier regarded education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think this is an important bill. The role of the university is important, as is also the role of the College of the North Atlantic. Now, we have had a lot of chances in the structure of post-secondary education in the past fifty-five years. I remember the time that there was the creation of the fisheries college. In fact, it was across the street from where I lived that the first fisheries college was created, and we lived across the street from the old Memorial University campus on Parade Street. I well remember the creation of the fisheries college. In fact, I think I can even remember the name. It was a big, long name. It took half the building to write it, the college of fisheries, marine - no, I can't remember.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics. That was the full name of the fisheries college when it was first created by the Liberal government back in the 1950s or probably early 1960s. That institution, the former trades college, the district vocational schools that we had around the province, all of these were attempts of one way or another to provide for post-secondary education and trades training for young people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and sometimes not-so-young people, people who had decided that they needed a better education than they had, even thought they were in the twenties or thirties or in some cases forties and fifties, so these are very important institutions. They are probably as important or more important today then they were then. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, by certain people a few years ago, that twenty-five or thirty years ago if you had a high school education in this Province or any other province that you had it made.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) Grade 10.

MR. HARRIS: That was your entry level education for most jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Bellevue says Grade 10, and I know he was involved in vocational education or adult education as well in the past and he would be well aware of some of the programs for which Grace 9 was the entry level, Grade 10 was the entry level in some, and Grade 11, and now Grade 12, but that has changed, Mr. Speaker. The world has changed. Technology has improved and the expectations of young people have improved, and that is a good thing.

In order to make these two institutions, the now College of the North Atlantic and the university work better together, this legislation is designed to foster a level of co-operation that we have not seen before.

This is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, I say, Mr. Speaker, because across this country the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada have, together with their counterparts in various provinces, tried to devise a set of standards and rules to allow for the transfer of credits, for example, so you could go to the College of the North Atlantic and take certain courses in Early Childhood Education, or whatever courses you were doing, Business Administration courses, and then transfer some of those credits to a university. This has been happening across the country and is being encouraged at the highest level of governments at both the university and the public college level.

This is another element to that. I did have some concerns about it. I read through, very carefully, the composition of the boards and the powers of the board. The powers of the board, generally speaking, are to make recommendations. I did have a concern, and I have a concern because of my long association with Memorial University in particular over the years, the Faculty Association, and the notion of academic freedom and the independence of the university.

We have had debates here in this House over the last number of years, often about the involvement of the Auditor General in the auditing of books in the university. I remember Steve Neary, a former Liberal Leader, who wanted to have the books of the university on the floor of the House so he could find out what they were spending their money on, and whether they were spending their money properly. I think that was resisted, Mr. Speaker, for good reasons. I would certainly resist that. I was not here when he was, but I do remember, as an outsider to the political process, hearing those kind of debates in the House of Assembly, and certainly we had them here. When this government was in Opposition, certain members who are not with us any more were very anxious to see this House dissect the books of Memorial University and, by inference, have something to say about issues that the university felt were within their purview as an autonomist institution.

The academics, I will say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that those in charge of academia at the university have a strong belief in the freedom of the institution, and a strong belief in what is known as academic freedom, and that is the ability and the right of professors to engage in research that is of interest to them. That is a very important freedom that the university has had since their establishment some many hundreds of years ago.

I will say, too, Mr. Speaker, that I have criticized the university in the past. We, as a people, spend an awful lot of money on the university. We spend, I think now it is - the minister can upgrade the numbers - but something in the order of $160 million, $170 million to support the university and its work, both in the St. John's Campus and in the Grenfell College Campus in Corner Brook and other programs that exist in other parts of the Province supporting first-year programs in various places. That is a very good investment, I say, and we, as a people, are entitled to have a return on that investment in the sense that we want that university to be relevant to the needs of our young people. We want that research to be helpful to the problems that we face as a people and we would like to see all those brains be put to use for the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think I have said on previous occasions, probably in a not too sophisticated comment, but nevertheless, I think I said we pay these people to do our thinking for us. I say that it was a bit of tongue in cheek, that, in fact, the university researchers have that role to do research and be involved in the community, as well as their teaching duties. We would like to see, obviously, some of that thinking help us out in many of the public policy issues and challenges that we face as a Province. That is, of course, in addition to doing the kind of things that they have been doing so well in terms of cold ocean research and engineering faculty, the Faculty of Medicine; the Faculty of our Arts and Science, generally, in providing and producing some of the people that we honoured today, talking about literature and expression of our culture.

If you look at a woman like Janet McNaughton, who just got a prize for her most recent novel, this is a person who is writing about Newfoundland culture in a way that is extremely appealing to young people and also extremely literary in nature and one that is deserving of the kind of awards that it is getting and the recognition that it is getting here in this Province and across the country. Well, these individuals, who participate and learn about our culture through the university, are also playing an important role in that. But, it is important, and I think it is becoming increasingly important as we see demographic changes take place in our Province, as we see the need for training, the need for education and the need for a compatibility between these programs to have a greater degree of co-operation. Who better to make the recommendations about the kind of co-operation that makes sense, than the people who are in the leadership roles of these institutions?

I know it is fairly weighted with government involvement, as well. The minister herself or himself, as the case may be, will sit on that board. I encourage the minister to be active on that board, as I know she takes a great deal of interest in her portfolios, and we will have an interesting time dealing with these people on ongoing basis. The minister and the deputy minister is involved, the president of both the College of the North Atlantic and the university, as well as the chairperson of the college board and the University Board of Regents. All of these are ex officio members, in addition a student, one enrolled at the college and another one enrolled at the university. I do not know if the minister dealt with this in terms of the appointment of these people. I am hoping that those appointments will be made in the same way that they are made to the Board of Regents that, in fact, they are more or less nominees of the student organizations that speak in public on behalf of students in the Province.

So, I think it is a positive step, Mr. Speaker. I hope the recommendations that come forth from this college will be practical and sensible and it will not be a place where we have turf wars taking place. I understand, and I spoke to the minister privately about the whole issue of academic freedom and was concerned that perhaps the university might see this as an encroachment. I received assurances from her that they do not feel that way, that is not the case. That this is something that is regarded by all those participating as a positive step and a way for the kind of higher level co-operation to take place in the hopes that, on a practical level, we will be able to see the kind of co-operation that is necessary.

We do not need duplication. What we do need is more opportunities for young people to get the kind of education and training that they need. We have seen, when we look at any statics about education and its effects on income is very clear, that those who have a post-secondary education, particularly obviously at a public college - and I will not go into the private college debate again today. I did that last week on the student aid matter, but this is a bill that can see the strengthening of our public college system which I am glad to see this government interested in doing.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation here at second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Education speaks now she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to speak to a couple of issues before I close debate at this stage - certainly brought to our attention by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the issue of academic freedom. This legislation will not affect or impede the academic freedom of Memorial University of Newfoundland and that is very important that we do not interfere with that process. I also, for the record, want to indicate that both Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic are in agreement with this particular legislation.

Two other issues I want to address that were brought up by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. One was: What will be the direction in the future between the links between the College of the North Atlantic and possible university level courses being offered in Central Newfoundland? The Council on Higher Education came into being in 1992. Then there were recommendations that came out of the White Paper, but in essence, the Council on Higher Education, although it probably came as a result of the moratorium, certainly provides very valuable input and feedback from Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we heard some questions about the future and what the plans would be in Central Newfoundland, the whole duty and the whole purpose of the Council on Higher Education is to - and I will go through the six points. One is strategic directions for post-secondary education in the Province. That is particularly important when we talk about areas like Central Newfoundland or Labrador, because we certainly want to have a strategy as to how we are going to work together, how we are going to offer post-secondary education and how we meet the needs of the students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another duty or another function of this is to look at the priorities to reduce the duplication of effort and expense in delivering post-secondary education in the Province. It is very important that if we can reduce duplication, we certainly need to be doing that. Nobody seems to be in favour of duplicating services in the Province. We want to be able to share all areas of student support services, whether that is library resources, career counselling, housing, et cetera. There are areas that do not interfere with academic freedom, but where we can come together as a Province in these institutions and certainly improve the services that students receive.

Student recruitment is another area, both domestic and foreign. We have duplication services in that right now as the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University of Newfoundland have their recruitment, particularly with international students. We need to be able to come together because we need to encourage people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and show them what we have to offer. We certainly need to be working together, rather than working against each other.

They will also provide feedback and recommendations on credit transfer and other related matters. Credit transfer and strategic direction will certainly hit on some areas that Central Newfoundland has questions about with regards to offering college level courses and transfer the credits from the college to the university. A very important piece of this particular legislation is that if we are able to offer some courses, and the credits can be transferred, that we should be acknowledging that students get the credit they deserve. There are other universities within Canada that accept credits from the College of the North Atlantic that are not necessarily accepted at Memorial University. So we really need to strengthen those ties.

Mr. Speaker, the only other issue I wanted to speak to is the math program that we have in K-12. Although it is not necessarily relevant to this particular legislation, when we look at it, they do feed into the post-secondary institutions. I guess we can make the links that way.

The math program came in, in 1999 in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is my understanding that it was well-researched and brought in following research within this Province, and that we looked at other programs that were offered in Atlantic Canada and throughout North America. It was felt that a problem-solving based program would come in.

Mr. Speaker, the students who started the program in 1999 are in Grade 6 this particular year, so the classes that are in Grade 6 have been the pioneers of the math program. It is a very different approach to how math is taught in the school system. It is very much not based on memorization or written; it is based on problem-solving abilities. They introduce concepts at a much young age than what we probably would have been used to in the system.

We will continue to monitor the program and, until we have some data on a longitudinal basis to be able to look at the program, I think it would be premature to take the program and eliminate it now. I am sure, in 1999, the minister who was involved in bringing in this particular program did some very thorough research and background before it was brought in. As a parent who has followed the program, who happened to have a child in kindergarten in 1999 when the program was introduced, I also have followed, as a parent, this year of pioneering the program, of being the first to look at the homework and wondering how to get through it. I can certainly understand some of the issues that parents have, because it is a very different way. I hate using the term new math, because I heard that when I was in school, but it seems like it is still ongoing today.

At a certain point the students are able to integrate the skills and they do have a better grasp at problem solving and being able to look at other areas of the math program, as I said, rather than some of the multiplication, division, addition and subtraction, and they get into a much broader base with regard to - well, geometry, for example, being introduced in Grade 6, has not been introduced for the first time but expanded on at this point.

Again, math is a very important subject. It is one that is required by all students when they enter the school system. It is certainly one where we need to make sure that there are skills developed at the post-secondary level because of the fields that people go into and they need a math program.

There are going to be no changes right now. We will continue to monitor the program as we move through it. It will be very interesting to see the group that are in Grade 6 now, as they finish Grade 12 and enter university, because they will have been the first class that would have done the new program from kindergarten right up to finishing Grade 12. It will be interesting to see the statistics as they move through university and as the students move behind them, because every year the program is offered behind them, whether it is in Grade 2 or Grade 3 or Grade 1. The teacher, at this point, has had now a number of years of experience of implementing the program so that the children now who are in Grade 1 have had the benefit of this particular math program, since the teacher has been delivering this program since September of 2000.

It will be very interesting, as we move through this particular math program, to see what results we are going to get at the post-secondary level, but I am confident that the previous Administration brought in this program with sound research and with good reason to bring it in, and that we want our students to avail of a similar curriculum that is available anywhere in North America, and that we will continue to monitor the program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 21.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education.

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education." (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 15.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 15 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 21 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 21 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall this bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave. Leave has been granted.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 21 without amendment, carried. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

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

I move third reading of Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK (Noel): A bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education." (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education," has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Council On Higher Education," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

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

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

Order 3, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act.  (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill 1.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.  (Bill 1)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.  (Bill 1)

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

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

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, Bill 32.

I think we will turn it over to my colleague, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act." (Bill 32)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in this House and to bring forward this particular bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Many of you would be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I brought forward the original act in 1985, and I believe history has shown that it was a prudent measure then taken by the government of the day. It was prudent, Mr. Speaker, because FPI have served our Province well for twenty-one years, as the flagship company of our Province's seafood processing sector. However, during those past twenty-one years the world has changed and the fishing industry has changed with it.

I had often said, when I was Minister of Fisheries back in the 1980s, that the biggest, single challenge I experienced on a daily basis was attempting to manage gluts. Mr. Speaker, that is no longer the challenge facing a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province today. Today we are operating in an increasingly challenging environment, with growing interest rates, a Canadian dollar that continues to increase in value, rising fuel costs and low labour costs in other jurisdictions that we simply cannot compete with in a North American economy.

During the last two decades, Mr. Speaker, our Province has weathered a cod moratorium, the impacts of which we are still seeing. There is a declining seafood resource, leaving less and less raw material to be processed in our plants. Truly, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation in which government has to act. In fact, it is not unlike the situation government was facing in the early 1980s when it was determined that it was in our best interest to create Fishery Products International Limited. At that time our Province had a number of large scale international, offshore seafood producing companies. Many of them went through difficult times in the early 1980s. Many proud Newfoundland companies suffered financial collapse. Some very substantial entities among them fell upon hard times and could not survive. We all remember the sky rocketing interest rates, for example, which was the big problem in those days. Interest rates, I believe, that peeked at something over 22 per cent. So this was the environment that we found ourselves in when FPI was created.

Mr. Speaker, FPI was started as a Crown corporation of the government. It was partially owned by the Government of Canada, they had the largest share. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had the next largest share and the Bank of Nova Scotia was the other third shareholder, but it was set up in the initial stages in 1984 as a Crown corporation. It was later deemed, as I said, in 1985 to be in the best interest of the Province to take FPI public. It was taken public only after the FPI Act was structured to protect the Province's strategic interest in the company.

For two decades, Mr. Speaker, that company served our Province well. Its sales and profits grew. The company diversified and provided meaningful, long-term employment for up to 8,000 people at a peak. Most of them, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As a true testament to the spirit of both the company and the people of our Province, FPI weathered the storm that was the cod moratorium. The company diversified. It survived and continued to be a profitable, global seafood company, despite the moratorium. Mr. Speaker, this is no longer the case today. Clearly, the FPI of today is facing many difficulties, both internal and external. The seafood processing sector is facing many difficulties as well. However, Mr. Speaker, the company has faced difficult times before and our government believes that the company has the capacity to weather the storms that it faces today.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always been a resourceful people. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the governance of FPI by its current Board of Directors has given government grave cause for concern. It was seen that the original spirit and intent of the company is no longer the key consideration of the particular board that is operating that company today. FPI is a company that was created first and foremost for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The intent of the current board seems to be to get the best possible result for a narrow group of large shareholders. The company is at risk of being managed and organized in a fashion that provides immediate financial results for a small group of investors.

Mr. Speaker, no investor in this company can argue that they did not know what the rules were when they invested their money, whether it is an individual, whether it is institutional investors. Nobody can make the argument that they did not know that this company was governed, to a significant degree, by an act of this Legislature. Nobody can make that argument. Nobody can say that this government, or previous governments, were changing the rules on them in midstream.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we can no longer sit by and let FPI continue on this path. Certainly, we cannot allow that to continue during this time of crisis in our fishery. Our government believes that the original strategy for the creation of FPI is still a solid one, and the need for a fish processing company that serves the interest of our Province first has never been more clear or more needed than it is today. We must act to ensure that the interest of this small group of shareholders is not put ahead of the broader interests of the people of this Province. The way our government has chosen to address the situation is by bringing forward the amendments that we are debating in this House today and over the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the specific amendments, let me say that the amendments to the FPI Act will strike a balance, a balance between ensuring adherence to the original spirit and intent of the original act, while allowing the company to remain competitive in a global business environment. This was government's overriding consideration in determining which amendments to make into legislation. While government does not want to manage the company, we are taking steps to ensure that it will be managed effectively for the people of this Province. The amendments will bring clarity and certainty for all stakeholders and the future of the seafood processing sector in our Province. This is critical at a time of so much volatility in the global industry.

The amendments proposed here today provide for a governed structure within the company that is more consistent with good governance for publicly traded companies. This is the critical step that needs to be taken in this Province for this company at this time. Under the proposed amendments, a lower threshold for the sale of FPI's assets will be put in place. No sale of a substantial portion of the companies assets, or a plant in this Province, will be able to take place without the approval of the government.

Mr. Speaker, on that point, let me elaborate on a question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, in Question Period today. We are proposing in this legislation in clause 1, section 7.(1) and 7.(2), a two-pronged approach to the assets of FPI. In 7.(1) FPI will not be allowed to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, grant or assume a security interest on, or otherwise dispose of, or allow or direct a subsidiary - notice the word, a subsidiary. Now, OCI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPI International. OCI is the marketing arm. OCI is the arm that owns and operates Danvers. OCI is the arm that owns and operates Burin. The facility in England is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPI, so 7.(1) strikes at every single asset that FPI owns, whether it is in plants, whether it is in marketing side -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) what the Premier said.

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. REID: (Inaudible) what the Premier's comments (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is quite capable of explaining what he said, but I don't think so.

Let me say, for clarity, that clause 7.(1) and 7.(2) are running parallel with each other, and every single asset of FPI, or FPI International, or a subsidiary thereof, is covered by the piece of legislation in 7.(1). Now, 7.(2) says: Notwithstanding section 1, the company will not do any of those things or dispose of a plant or other processing facility situated in the Province.

So, for greater certainty and greater clarity, whereas 7.(1) applies to everything that the company owns, 7.(2) makes it specific to plants and equipment and machinery in plants in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, this wasn't in any previous act in that kind of wording. So we believe, and the legal advice is that, we believe that we have structured those amendments so that we can protect - you know, you can never get around a creative mind, I suppose, but as best we can protect, all of the assets owned by FPI, whether it is in the company that we know as FPI or whether it is some subsidiary controlled by FPI.

I wanted to make it clear that we have attempted, as a government, to cover every eventuality, to cover every uncertainty, as best we can, to make sure that the assets of this company can only be dealt away, if, in fact, they are going to be dealt away, in any significant way, after the people's representatives, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, have had an opportunity to review and comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, government has concerns that FPI may be moving to sell its marketing division. If such a move is to be taken, it is critical that the people of this Province have a say in that through their duly elected government. As such, we are strengthening the legislation, as I just explained, to ensure that this is the case.

The legislation also introduces a requirement that the majority of members of a committee of the board be residents of the Province. This mirrors the Corporations Act, Mr. Speaker, which includes residency requirements for members of subcommittees of boards of directors. There is a precedent for it, and there is good reason for it. The FPI Act requires, or already requires, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of members of the board of directors be residents of the Province. This amendment is merely an extension of that principle to the committees of the board. We have a situation today where there is no CEO, a management committee of three people, two of whom have no connection, other than a business connection, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not prepared to allow that to be the modus operandi on a go-forward basis.

The management committee of the board, as I said, is made up of three individuals, two of which are outside the Province. The committee structure is not in keeping with the original objectives of the FPI Act and, as such, government it now moving to address that situation.

This new legislation, Mr. Speaker, requires that a majority of the board be independent of shareholders as well as of management. It will also require the board to have at least thirteen directors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why the number thirteen? Well, thirteen has been, I refer to it as the historic number. FPI has had a board of directors pretty well up until recent times that consisted of thirteen people. Then it was reduced to nine. It was reduced to seven not long ago, and the company, at their most recent annual meeting, sought approval to reduce it to five.

Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, if you are reducing the board of directors, you are concentrating real effective power in the hands of a smaller, smaller group all of the time, and that is not necessarily in the best interests of the people of this Province.

We will ensure, as a result of this amendment, that there will be broad and effective representation on the board of directors. FPI's board, Mr. Speaker, has become increasingly smaller and the power has become increasingly concentrated in the management committee of the board, and all of that in the absence of a CEO. We have not had a permanent CEO in place at FPI since, I guess it was December of last year. The gentleman who is now occupying that position is occupying it on an acting basis. This situation, Mr. Speaker, can no longer be allowed to continue if the company is to continue to meet the spirit and intent for which it was originally created.

The proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, will strengthen the privative clause to make it clear that no legal action can be taken against the government. This has been done to protect the public strategic interest in FPI.

Now, I heard it said here today, Mr. Speaker, that this government removed the privative clause from the FPI Act. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Removing the privative clause from the FPI Act would have happened if the amendments that this House approved last year had ever come into effect, had ever become law, but they did not because the Income Trust died as a concept and as a proposal and with it died the amendments that were approved by the House here last year. Those amendments where never proclaimed. Therefore, the privative clause was never taken out of the act.

What we are doing here today is making the privative clause, in our view, even stronger. The proposed amendments will strengthen the privative clause to make it clear that no legal action can be taken against government. This has been done to protect the public strategic interest in FPI.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, makes no apologies for acting in the best interests of the people of this Province, or for acting in the best interests of our fishery generally. Furthermore, FPI is not the first company to be deemed to have a strategic interest for the public, and we will continue to treat it as such. People should remember that it is not only the Government of Newfoundland who have acted this way in regulating a company that was formed out of the ashes of failure to be a flagship for the future of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not the only government in western democracies that have ever acted that way.

The Government of Canada, for example, in the privatization of Air Canada and CN Rail and Petro-Canada, these are examples of companies that had public policy requirements met even after they were privatized because the public had a strategic interest in those companies, Mr. Speaker, and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to have a strategic interest in FPI today and that it why this legislation is being tightened in the way it is today. The requirements being placed on FPI, therefore, are not unusual if you look at it in that context and in that regard.

Under the amendments, the minister will have the status of a complainant as defined by the Corporations Act. This will provide government with access to information on FPI that is necessary in order to ensure effective management of the company for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, FPI has left the government with little choice, other than to make legislative changes in this particular area. The company has not been co-operative in providing government with information during the Deloitte review of its shellfish or marketing operations. Once the review of the company's finances on the groundfish operations was complete, the company has become less than co-operative in the other matters. Yet, this company, Mr. Speaker, is critical to the economy of the Province and to the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

It is in the interests of the people of this Province that government is acting, and we need access to information on the company for this reason. The company has left us, as I said, with little choice but to legislate our right to access that information.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to take a moment to talk about some of the things this legislation will not do. Some quarters have called on government to legislate the removal of FPI's quotas. It would be inappropriate for a provincial government to legislate the removal of FPI quotas. Quotas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Any attempt to try and legislate in this area would be subject to a constitutional challenge either by the federal government or by some other source. This is clear in law and it is clear in the everyday practices of both levels of government. Certainly, it would be unconstitutional for a provincial government to try and legislate in this area.

I am not going to go into a constitutional lesson here, but section 91 of the Constitution Act makes it clear which powers are exclusive to the Government of Canada. One of those powers, under item 12, is seacoast and inland fisheries. There is no equivocation, there are no maybes or ambiguities, seacoast and inland fisheries are exclusively the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada in which to manage and operate.

Mr. Speaker, as it is in terms of banking and issues related to banking, anybody who is a student of history, let alone having a legal background, knows that in Alberta, coming out of the Depression in the 1930s, the Government of Alberta tried to legislate in the area of banking. They passed several acts related to regulation of banking, and each and every single act, when it went before the Supreme Court of Canada, when it was challenged by the Government of Canada, ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada, was declared unconstitutional, ultra vires, outside of your power to legislate.

So, it is no point of us trying to have people believe that we can act in a manner that we do not have the right to act in. The best approach is for the Government of Canada, as the federal minister has said from time to time, to push the policy of use it or lose it. If you cannot use the resource that belongs to the people of Canada, belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and has been given to you, if you cannot use it then you lose it, and if there is somebody else who wants to use it, it will be there for them to so do.

It has been suggested that government amend the FPI Act to force the company - we have said it ourselves - to cross-subsidize its more profitable components with the less profitable areas of the company. We would like to do that. We encourage the company to do that. It is something that the company has done in the past when there was different leadership at the company. While we certainly encourage the company to do it, we have determined that to legislate this, Mr. Speaker, would amount to expropriating shareholder value. Our government wishes to maintain a positive business climate in the Province and this certainly doesn't seem an appropriate thing to legislate at this given time.

Others have asked that governments nationalize FPI. Mr. Speaker, while all options are open for consideration nationalizing FPI is certainly not the preferred solution to the current problems we are facing. We have never said definitely that we wouldn't consider it, we have never said that it is not an option, but we have said consistently it is not our preferred solution.

There are proposals for FPI that are under discussion as we speak, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is only fair that these be given due consideration. Maybe some of it can fly. I mean, the Barry Group has been out there making proposals. We know that. We know that the Penney Group has a proposal before the board for consideration, the detail of which is up to the companies to make public. There may be others, Mr. Speaker, who are interested in certain assets of FPI. If there are, and if there is a consensus formed around one of those, then the government will do whatever it has to do to make that particular matter happen. Nationalization, I suppose, to use the old McKenzie King phrase, Mr. Speaker: Nationalization if necessary but not necessarily nationalization.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we maintain a positive business climate within the Province, and FPI be given every opportunity to continue to compete effectively in the global business environment. All of that being said, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to preclude government from taking further measures to strengthen the FPI Act again in the future, if such action is required.

This is very carefully thought out legislation, I say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are bringing forward here today. It goes as far as government believes we need to go at this time in our history. This is a call for FPI to become more cooperative in adhering to the original spirit and intent of the FPI Act. However, Mr. Speaker, should that cooperation not be forthcoming government can consider taking stronger measures at a later date. This government, Mr. Speaker, will not walk away or shrink in fear of considering any further legislation if we believe it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, while our government is striving to maintain a positive business climate and give FPI the flexibility that it needs to operate in a global environment, our first responsibility is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not hesitate to act in their best interests.

When FPI was created in 1985, it was intended to be a company that would be widely held and one that would not be unduly influenced by a small number of shareholders. It was believed that this would provide for a strong, self-reliant and globally competitive company. FPI was that, Mr. Speaker, for almost two decades.

As I said earlier, there is no investor, institutional or personal, who can say with any degree of credibility that they did not know what the rules of the game were when they invested in FPI. The legislation was brought into the House before FPI was changed from a Crown corporation and into a publicly traded company. The shareholding restrictions were on the company from the first day its first share went on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That shareholding restriction has not changed from that day to this day. It was 15 per cent when the company went on the market back in the 1980s and it is 15 per cent today. We have had to do some changing of the FPI Act - the previous administration and ourselves now - in terms of making it more meaningful to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador today. But, to say that the basic premise on which this act was structured and on which people invested, chose to invest their savings, their money, is not fair to say that has changed very little over the course of twenty-odd years, Mr. Speaker.

We believe that FPI must continue to fulfill the role for which it was originally created back in the 1980s. We believe that this legislation will be a way that the government can make FPI, or force FPI, whatever words you want to use - we do not like making, we do not like forcing. We like to deal with people on a friendly basis, but we also have to be mindful of the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - there continues to be a public, policy reason for FPI to continue to operate in this Province, or some form of FPI to continue to operate in this Province long into the future, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully that is what this legislation will achieve.

In that context, I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise as the member responding - for technical reasons - to the motion put forward by the Minister of Fisheries. That motion is to amend the FPI Act.

I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, since I came to this Legislature back in 1996, I guess I spent more time talking about FPI and the FPI Act than I have all other acts combined. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is I think that the FPI Act is of utmost importance to the people of the Province. That company is very important today, just as important as it was when it was established back in 1984-1985.

The minister, who just rose to introduce the bill, gave a brief history of FPI and when it was established. I would just like to add to that before I go on with the rest of my speech. FPI came about - I guess we started discussions on FPI in 1984. The minister said this afternoon that the act was brought in in 1985. I thought it was 1984, but -

MR. RIDEOUT: The company was formed.

MR. REID: The company was formed 1984 and the act came in in 1985. Yes, thank you minister.

The reason the company came about, Mr. Speaker, is that the people in the fishing industry of this Province were experiencing, at that time, many of the same problems that we are experiencing today, especially in light of the bankruptcy that occurred last week at three fish processing facilities in the Province with their doors closed and pretty close to 1,000 people without work; not to mention the impact that it may have down the road on our shrimp fishery and the ability of harvesters to be able to sell their product later this year. There were a number of companies in the Province who were experiencing severe financial problems back in the early 1980s. One of the companies, I guess, was the Lake Group of Companies on the South Coast of the Province and there were others, larger companies. At the time, they were experiencing such financial difficulty that some of them were declaring bankruptcy. The government, both federal and provincial, decided that it was time to step in and do something to try and lend some stability to our main and primary industry, that being the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk at length about how important the fishery is to the people of this Province. I think we will all agree that - at least for me, anyway - the fishery is our primary industry. It is what brought us here some 500 years ago and it is what will keep us here for another 500 years. Without the fishery, then you would have to guess whether or not we are going to be here for another 500 years, especially if we have to rely on non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas and other non-renewable resources.

At the time, around 1984, when discussions started and the federal government was involved, together, the provincial and federal government put together a funding package; the majority of which came from the federal government at the time, not saying that the contribution that the Province made was not a great one. We certainly put forward a great deal of money at the time - as much as we could afford, I guess, under such trying circumstances. We established FPI, and as the minister said today, the FPI Act was brought in in 1985. It was amended again, and under the original act the government did actually appoint the Board of Directors. I do not know - maybe the minister can clarify it later on because he was the first one to amend the 1985 Act - but I do not know if we appointed all of the Board of Directors, the governments of the day, but we certainly appointed most of them. Then in 1987, the first, I guess, CEO of the company was Mr. Vic Young who everyone in the Province is quite familiar with. Since that time, we have seen a lot of prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians go through that company in positions of vice-president and secretary and whatnot. They did do a fair job of managing that company through some difficult times following 1985.

The minister, as he said earlier - back in 1987, when they, what you would call, quasi privatized FPI, they no longer appointed a representative or a member of the board from the Province, or the government did not appoint any member of the board from the Province to sit with the others at FPI. I say quasi, it is a quasi private company, because FPI, as we know it, is not a private company as we know all others in the Province. For example, it is not a private company like Quinlan Brothers or Quincy. It is not a private company like the Barry Group of Companies for the simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no piece of legislation in this House of Assembly that has any control, whatsoever, on the Barry Group of Companies or the Quinlan Group of Companies or Breakwater or Beothic or any other fish company in the Province. This is the only company, that I am aware of, that I consider to be a quasi private or quasi government company, because we still have the Act and that is what we are debating here today and we have been debating for quite some time in this Legislature.

Anyway, it was amended back in 1987 and some of the restrictions that governments, both federal and provincial, had placed upon the company were removed because they were making it a quasi private company. That company operated and it did close some plants, I understand, Minister, when it was first established back in 1984-85, because I know that they owned the plant in Twillingate in my own district. I think it was 1987 or 1988 that they closed the plant in Twillingate, and I will tell you, that wasn't a pleasant day either. That was under the old Board of Directors, I think led at the time by Mr. Vic Young. They closed others about the same time. St. Anthony, for example, also went and others. Believe me, even though we have praised the previous Board of Directors of FPI for what a great job they did in running that company, there were people in Twillingate at the time who were not so complimentary and there were people in St. Anthony who were not so complimentary. The plant and FPI remained in operation under that Board of Directors until it was changed in 2001.

That is not to say everything they did was appreciated by the people in communities in which FPI operated fish plants, because I can remember, I think it was in 1990, when FPI, because of diminishing groundfish resources, closed Trepassey. They also closed Gaultois and they closed Ramea, sometime thereafter. I can remember at the time, that both levels of government got together and tried to do something for the people in those communities to help them out. I am quite certain that at the time, in dealing with the Mayor of Trepassey, Mrs. Rita Pennell, whom I had a call from this morning - she said: When you are discussing FPI this afternoon do not forget to talk about the forgotten ones like the Town of Trepassey, Gaultois and Ramea.

There were tough decisions to be made in the early 1990s as a result of the groundfish fishery and the depletion of the stocks. At that time, there was a fund setup for those three communities, at least to go out and see if they could entice other operators to come in and run other companies besides fish plants in those towns. I think if the Mayor of Trepassey were to have an invitation tomorrow to the summit, or the Mayor of Gaultois or Ramea or even the Mayor of Burgeo, who called this afternoon wondering if he could come to the meeting - his was not an FPI plant. His was a National Sea plant, by the way. That was another large company that was operating in the Province back in 1980s and the early 1990s. National Sea sold their processing facility in Burgeo to Bill Barry, the Barry Group of Companies. Shortly thereafter, the quotas that were attached and traditionally processed in Burgeo were shipped off from Burgeo to Canso, Nova Scotia for processing.

It is interesting to note that this afternoon the Premier talked about how there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time that this was happening. I remember well, Premier, what happened roundabout that time because I was working in the position of an Executive Assistant, with no authority of course. You know what Executive Assistants do. All of you Cabinet Ministers have one. I do remember what happened at that time, and what you forgot or omitted to say today is that we had a Tory government in Ottawa at the time, and I think it was the infamous Mr. Valcourt who was the Minister of Fisheries at the time. I know the hon. John Crosbie, as we all know, was certainly the minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador at the time, and there were many battles between the late Walter Carter who was the Minister of Fisheries for the Province and his federal counterpart, Mr. Crosbie, over not allowing Mr. Barry to transfer that quota to Canso, Nova Scotia.

I digress, but I just want to make the point that some of these individuals, if you really want to know and see what happens when the main industry, especially the fishing industry, and a processing facility goes down in a particular community, what impacts it has, what avenues are open to the people in those communities to establish other businesses whether they have government funding or not, as many of them did at that time - it was questionable as to whether or not they enticed the right types of businesses, but that was decision the people in the communities made. As a result, let's face it, we don't see a lot happening in Burgeo today, we don't see a lot happening in Ramea. All the same, I understand there is a processor who is about to go in there and do some whelk and a few other things. They are trying to get other industries up and running in the community.

In talking to a Mrs. Pennell this morning from Trepassey, there is not an awful lot that we can jump up and down and scream about and clap ourselves on the back, that is happening in Trepassey. In fact, she said, before long the only people who are going to be up there are senior citizens, like herself, as she said. I didn't think she was a senior citizen. I thought she looked much younger than that actually.

Anyway, the moratorium hit just after, and Trepassey and a few of those towns went down, and as you know every single fish processor in the Province, because cod was king at that time. There is no doubt about it. When the current day minister left the Ministry of Fisheries back in 1989, cod was king and caplin was, I would say, the queen or certainly the prince. That is where the money was. Crab was sort of secondary and there weren't very many people involved in it, and those who were involved in it weren't making the dollars that they made in subsequent years, following 1989 and when the moratorium started. As a result of the closure of the cod fishery and the groundfish fishery in 1992, we were in an awful predicament and so was FPI at the time. It was because of the ingenuity of the Board of Directors, I guess, at FPI, led by Vic Young and others - I don't know if Herb Clarke was there at the time, but they were a group of very intelligent, dedicated, patriotic Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As a result they did manage, through the moratorium from 1992 on, to sustain what they had left in 1992, and they did manage to keep plants like Harbour Breton and Fortune and Marystown open and active, even during the worst years of the fishery, even when there was no groundfish fishery, I say to those opposite, and it was difficult. It was very difficult.

If you remember, for example, I was told at one point, when the Total Allowable Catch for cod was 266,000 metric tons - that is what it was; 266,000 metric tons was the cod quota - at one point, Mr. Speaker, I was told that they were processing 60,000 tons alone in Port Union, in your own district. Just imagine, 60,000 tons. What groundfish quota do we have this year for cod? What is it, 15,000 or 20,000 tons in the entire Province? That is all we have.

They managed, I say, Mr. Speaker, to keep those plants open. You have to remember, in the early years of FPI, all of those plants along the South Coast operated for fifty-two weeks a year, as they did in Port Union. These were individuals who slogged to work every day and took their holidays like anyone who worked for fifty-two weeks a year - they get a certain portion of that year off - and they had to fight, basically, to get time off in the plant to take a holiday with their families. That was not just in Port Union but it was in Harbour Breton and Fortune and Marystown and those processing facilities.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that they managed to keep it afloat, even during the moratorium, and one of the reasons they did it is because someone was smart enough to realize that you needed a marketing division. What they did is, they bought a company by the name of Cloustons in the United States. It is located in Danvers, Massachusetts, not far from Boston, and I have had the occasion to visit that plant. When I visited, it was quite some years ago and it was - I tell you, if you think about what we have in this Province, and the state-of-the-art facilities, I was not impressed with the Danvers, Massachusetts, plant, because we have plants in this Province that are far superior to the one that they had down there - but, again, I digress.

What I am trying to say is that they invested in the marketing division and they invested in Danvers, Massachusetts, and by investing in the marketing division they were accessing fish from all over the world. Now, did they bring it back to Newfoundland and Labrador to process? No, they brought some of it back here, but they were buying fish.

For example, Vic Young told me at one point they were buying fish from Victoria Lake in Africa. Just imagine, a company located up here on O'Leary Avenue, buying fish in Victoria Lake in Africa and selling it somewhere else. Probably not doing any processing under the FPI banner of that fish, but the fact that they were buying it in one place, selling it in another, they were making a dollar on it. They were making a buck by buying it from one and selling it to someone else. You might be considered the middleman, but you are still making a dollar. What were they doing with those dollars that they were making off that fish? They were subsidizing their plants on the South Coast of the Province and the other facilities that FPI operated in this Province.

Around about the same time, right smack in the middle of the moratorium, what did they do? Who is the Member for St. Barbe? The Member for St. Barbe should know that. Around about 1994, 1995 or 1996, smack dab in the middle of the moratorium, what did FPI do? They invested millions of dollars in the shrimp processing facility in St. Barbe. They invested in the shrimp facility in St. Barbe. As a result, they employed hundreds - I do not know the exact number - hundreds of people in the shrimp fishery. Not only did the shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence who had lost their cod - they had made all the money - the harvesters in the Gulf traditionally made all of their money off the cod in the Gulf, as we all know. The minister opposite knows the big rackets we used to have over the fishery in the Gulf in the winter months, because they fished that fish in the Gulf in the winter. We, on the East Coast, fished cod in the summertime. There would be the biggest kind of rackets down in Port aux Basques.

I can remember in 1990, when they went down, there was a processor from the East Coast of the Province over with a pump, pumping fish out of a boat at the wharf over in Port aux Basques, and the people in Port aux Basques and up and down the Northern Peninsula said: We are not tolerating that, our fish going to the East Coast while we are left unemployed. Guess what they did? They fired the pump off the end of the wharf and said: If you bring another one back, that one is going in there too.

Now, they never made as much money on shrimp in the ensuing years as they did on cod prior to that, but it gave them a way to keep float and it gave some employment to the people on the Northern Peninsula who had traditionally processed cod.

What I am saying is that, because they made the right decisions, because they kept in the back of their mind their reason for being, and the spirit and the intent of the FPI Act, they were able to employ people in Newfoundland and Labrador, try to hold on to as many people as they always had, keep the plants open by doing things like building shrimp plants, by doing things like buying the marketing division in the U.S., in the plant in Danvers, Massachusetts.

All of that ran rather smoothly until 2000, and those of you who sat in the House of Assembly at the time, as I did, remember what happened in the year 2000. That was the year that the NEOS deal was floated. That was the year that the NEOS deal - I do not know where they come up with the name NEOS. I have always tried to figure out what that meant. I can tell you what I thought of it at the time, and am going to, and I can tell you what I think of it today.

The NEOS deal was that Mr. John Risley, who owned Clearwater fishery based in Nova Scotia, a large outfit, and Mr. Bill Barry, the owner of the Barry Group of Companies, who lived on the West Coast, and a group of Icelanders who were sort of in the background - we didn't really hear a lot about them but, as far as I know, they were the ones who were going to bankroll it. They were certainly going to put money into it. What they wanted to do is, they wanted to buy FPI outright because, under the act that the Minister of Fisheries put forward, the amended act in 1987, you could not own any more than 15 per cent of FPI. No company or no individual or group of individuals could own any more than 15 per cent of FPI. So, in order for John Risley, Bill Barry and the Icelanders to come in and buy FPI, they had to get permission from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because we control the act here in the Legislature.

At that time there were some, a very limited number, who thought maybe this would be a good idea, maybe this would be a good idea, but, Mr. Speaker, you were not one of them, I can tell you that now. You were not one of the people who thought that was a good idea. I do not think that the member who represents Baie Verte was one either. I do not think the member who represents Trepassey today in the Legislature, the Member for Ferryland, supported that idea, and I do not think the Government House Leader, who represents Kilbride and that area in the House, supported NEOS, Mr. Barry and Mr. Risley and the Icelanders buying the company.

As a result of pressure being put on the government of the day - because I never agreed with it, by the way. I said point blank to the Premier of the day, Mr. Tobin, I am not having anything to do with it. I am a lowly backbencher but, boy, if you are counting on my vote, I am not voting for it.

He did not have to ask me for my vote, as the Premier does not ask for the votes on the opposite side either, but most of us in our caucus said, no, we cannot let that proceed. As a result, it was pulled off the table because we told Mr. Barry, Mr. Risley and the Icelanders we were not changing the legislation, so they went away. They went away in 2000. They went away, licked their wounds and regrouped. Mr. Risley went back to Nova Scotia, regrouped, scratched his head, got his lawyers in - and I would imagine that he has some very professional and educated individuals working for him, educated in the sense that they know the fishery - and they had to figure out a way that they could come back and see if they could get control of FPI. And they did!

In 2001, Mr. Risley convinced all of those shareholders who had roughly 15 per cent of FPI - because that is all one company could own - to band together and elect its own board of directors. At that time, there was a company in New Zealand called Sanford - not Sanford & Son like the old show that used to come on, buddy who had the junk yard. It wasn't him. It was Sanford fisheries, a Mr. Barratt, in New Zealand. He owned fifteen -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eric Barratt

MR. REID: Eric Barratt is his name. He owned 15 per cent of the shares in FPI. Mr. Risley talked to him and said: Listen, will you come along with a dissident board that wants to overthrow the current Board of Directors of FPI, Mr. Young and group? Mr. Barratt said: Yes, we will come along with you. He went to Iceland because there was a group in Iceland that owned close to15 per cent, because you could not go over 15 per cent. He asked them to come alongside and they said: Yes, we will come. So that was 30 per cent. He owned 15 per cent himself, that gave us 45. Now, he still needed 5 more per cent. At that time there were a group of processors in the Province who also wanted Mr. Risley to take over the Board of Directors. They formed a group here in the Province known as Newfoundland Freezing Plants and they made up somewhere between 12 per cent and 15 per cent. When they had the board of directors meeting here in St. John's back in the spring of 2001, because Mr. Risley was successful in getting Barratt from New Zealand onside, because he was successful in getting the Icelanders onside, himself and this group of Newfoundland Freezing Plants - they called themselves - he had control of the board. So they ousted Mr. Young and his group and they established their own board of directors.

We all know, because those of you who now sit on the government side sat over here and there were all kinds of reasons why we should not allow that to happen at the time. The arguments were made by those who are sitting in the government today, saying we should not be too intrusive with the running of FPI. Well, when you were sitting over here, and I was the Minister of Fisheries at the time, you were saying: Don't let this group take over FPI. Stop them!

Now, just imagine! They wanted us, as the government, to say to the shareholders in FPI: You don't have the authority or the right to select your own board of directors. So we were left with two decisions. We were either going to look at Risley and his group and say: You are not, as shareholders in the board, going to be permitted to take over that board, vote for your own board of directors. My argument, at the time, was: What happens if Mr. Young and a few of the current board of directors die? What if they die? Can someone elect the board of directors? The answer was obvious. We could not stop the shareholders in FPI from electing its own board of directors at the time because that would be tantamount to nationalizing the company. But we did say to the board of directors, when they brought them in - and some of you will remember who those board of directors were. They were very prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Far more prominent than I was at the time, far more prominent than I am today.

One of the bigwigs on that board, who was going to be appointed or they were going to elect to take over after they flicked Mr. Young and group out was, number one, John Crosbie, Q.C. - everyone in the Province knew him. Another one was Mr. Woodward from Labrador. There was a Mr. Anthony from St. John's who owns a group of companies in this Province, a well-known respected businessman, and a Mr. Frank Coleman from Corner Brook, another well-known Newfoundlander and Labradorian. At the time, believe it or not, folks, we had another fella who was a well-known Newfoundland and Labrador businessperson that people were not saying as much negative about him then as they are today. Do you know who that was? Mr. Derrick Rowe. He was going on the Board of Directors of FPI and he was an individual who had made money at other businesses. I think it was the telecommunications business prior to being invited onto the Board of FPI.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stratos.

MR. REID: Stratos he owned, I think, at one time, a very well-known businessperson.

So, what they did was they took over the company. They established a board of directors, most of whom were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because the act states that the majority of board members have to be from Newfoundland and Labrador. They were prominent people. We called them in after they took over the board of directors and we met, for those of you who know, in the basement of the West Block. There is a big conference room down there with a big oval table. We put them all around the board and most of the Cabinet met with them at the time. I was the Minister of Fisheries, and we said to them: The commitments that you made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the people who work for you in your plants or on your draggers, but you made commitments to the people of this Province and you are going to keep those commitments.

We forced FPI's Board of Directors, led by Mr. Risley and group - actually, under the CEO Mr. Rowe - to honour those commitments. That was in February or March or April of 2001. We said you can be the board of directors because we do not want to take over the company but we are going to make sure that you live up to your commitments. That they did up until, I think it was early December of 2001. Just eight or nine months after they took over the board of directors, they announced that they were going to lay off 700 people in the South Coast plants, namely Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown. Well, at the time we said: Hold on here now, we have your commitments on paper - and I have a file up there that thick and I will show them to you if you want, the commitments Mr. Risley and Mr. Crosbie and Mr. So and So made, the commitments they made to the people of the Province. We said, we are holding them. So when they said we are going to close these plants, I said: Hang on here now, one of the commitments you gave to the people of this Province was: We are going to grow the company. We are going to employ more people, not fewer.

So as soon as they said they were going to lay off 700 people on the South Coast, what did we do? I know in discussions I had with the Premier of the day, Roger Grimes - do you know what he said to me? He said: Gerry, do whatever it takes with that act to stop them from breaking their commitment and laying those people off. As a result, we established an all-party committee of the House of Assembly, which I chaired. The member who represents The Straits & White Bay North was on it, the Member for Bonavista South was on it, the Leader of the NDP, along with my colleague, the Member for Bay of Island, and my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. We travelled to every single town in this Province where there was an FPI plant, an FPI operation. Boy, we had some raucous meetings.

The first one we held was in Marystown, 600 or 700 people - and I see the Minister of Transportation smiling over there because we were up in front. As soon as I hit the gavel on the table and said, meeting come to order, the place went into complete mayhem. Then right in the middle of it, of course, after Mr. Crosbie had his say and we told him to sit down, he was not prepared to sit down. He wanted to speak more and the place erupted. It was not a pretty meeting, but at the end of the day the people in the community, in the Marystown area, had their say and we listened. In fact, I can give you a transcript of everything that was said down there that night by every individual who did a presentation before the panel.

We went from community to community and we ended up - our last meeting, if I am not mistaken, was right back there in Grand Bank. I see the Chair nodding his head because he was on the bus and it was a cold winter. I guarantee you, one morning when we were just outside of Lewisporte ready to head down the Connaigre Peninsula, the temperature that morning was forty below at around 7:30. We were on a bus heading down to the Connaigre Peninsula, but we brought back amendments - and the thing about it, everyone on that committee agreed to the amendments. Every, single soul on the committee agreed with the amendments. We brought them before the Legislature and they were received and they were written in the FPI Act.

We did stop those people from closing those plants. We did stop FPI from laying off 700 people. We did stop FPI from laying off any number of people, as far as I know. There were no major layoffs while I was the Minister of Fisheries. There were no major layoffs with FPI when my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, took over from me. There were no amendments. There were no changes, no layoffs, no plant closures in FPI that I am aware of. Then, what happens? What happened with FPI since then?

I have to say to you opposite, if you only would do as you preached when you were in Opposition we would not be here today, because something seriously happened to FPI. They got away from you, I should say. That is what happened, they got away from you. You were not paying enough attention to what they were doing in the board room, whether that be on O'Leary Avenue or in Nova Scotia where Mr. Risley lived. It got away from you.

The next thing you know they are talking about closing Harbour Breton in the fall, late fall of 2004. That is what they were going to do, close Harbour Breton, lay 350 people off. If you do the indirect spinoffs, as the Minister of Energy did when he announced that Stephenville mill could possibly close - he said at the time, there were 300 employees, full-time employees, roughly 300, I say to the minister, full-time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and fifty.

MR. REID: Two hundred and fifty full-time employees in the mill in Stephenville, but according to your calculations, with the spinoffs, roughly 900 jobs, direct and indirect, associated with Stephenville. If you do that extrapolation on Harbour Breton, there were 900 roughly affected by the closure of the plant in Harbour Breton. Even if you do not do the extrapolation there were still 350 people who were told to go home in November of 2004, followed slightly thereafter, in January of 2005, with saying Fortune is closed as well.

What did we do? What did the government do? Not we, because we said what the government should do. What did the government do? The Minister of Fisheries - not the one today but the previous one - every time you turned on a radio or an open line show or read the news, he was talking about the competition from China, the devaluation of the American dollar, and as a result, all groundfish processors were in trouble. He never said that FPI should be allowed to close the plant but he insinuated and indicated that he could understand why. He did the same thing with Fortune. Then, all of a sudden, they would not change the Act to strengthen it, to stop them, called an All-Party Committee to go back on the road, have a look at this, seriously look at the books at FPI, seriously go talk to the people, and seriously amend the Act to prevent them from doing anything. What did they do? Nothing. Close Harbour Breton, close Fortune.

Then, all of a sudden, when FPI has the debt of the company gone from $70 million to $300 million, what do they do? They come in here and they ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, you opposite, if they could amend the Act to allow them to sell their American division, marketing division and the secondary processing divisions, spin that off into an Income Trust in the United States. If you remember what I was saying earlier, what saved those rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador back in the 1990s when the moratorium was on? What saved those towns? It was the American division, the marketing and processing division that exist in Danvers, Massachusetts where they are buying and selling fish all over the world and doing secondary processing down there and the profits were coming back into the country, namely Newfoundland and Labrador, namely communities in which FPI operates. What happened? They bring in an Act in here, they amend the Act to allow FPI to spinoff the marketing and value-added division in the United States into an Income Trust.

We argued against it. That was the famous debate of last June 5, I think, and June 6, and it was the biggest farce that I have ever seen perpetrated in the House of Assembly. It was going to be a free vote. At the end of the day, when all twenty-one or twenty-two on that side opposite voted in favour of it, the Premier got up in an hour-long address that he read, and I was saying, boy, he is going to vote to allow this to happen. He is going to vote himself to allow FPI to sell their marketing division and sell their secondary processing division in the United States. Guess what he said before he sat down? He had me led to believe that he was definitely in favour of it as the majority of his colleagues, those opposite, were, who voted by the way, the majority of you, in favour of letting FPI do that. And you wonder why we are here today discussing FPI. Anyway, at the end of the day the Premier got up and said, no, cannot vote for this Income Trust, because there were so many loopholes in it, he said, you could drive mac trucks through it. I think he even went so far as to say, there were more off ramps in the Income Trust portion than there are exit ramps on the 401. Anyone who does not know where the 401 is, that is the main highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, that runs from Montreal east right straight through Toronto, and there are quite a number of off ramps.

MR. BARRETT: That was approved by Cabinet.

MR. REID: That was approved by Cabinet and this government, to allow them to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supported by the members opposite.

MR. REID: Supported by the members opposite, one member opposite if I am not mistaken, I say. My colleague will certainly speak to that. She said on many occasions, at that time she should have spoken with her heart, but you have to keep in mind they had already closed Fortune. Do you know what they said they were going to do if they got the Income Trust? Rebuild the plant in Fortune. They blackmailed the people in Fortune into believing they were going to rebuild the plant down there, and how could the Member for Grand Bank vote against it when there was a hope? They were going to build a new plant in Bonavista, and how could the member who represents Bonavista vote against it? As the mayor said to me outside: Gerry, boy, look, if we vote against it, we have no hope. If we vote for it, we have hope. Even if they do not do it, we have hope now. That is how crazy that got in the House of Assembly here last spring.

By the way, when I said we amended, the All-Party Committee, amended the act in 2002, we put a clause in that act. It is called a privative clause that says regardless of what this Province does with FPI, we were not going to be sued, or FPI was not allowed to sue the Province. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker, in the Act that your government or this government changed last June? That took out that privative clause. They took it out. If that were proclaimed, we would not be here today talking about a privative clause. We would not be here today talking about Danvers, Massachusetts or the American division or the secondary processing division, because that would have already been spun off into an Income Trust over which we would have had no control.

Thank God for Ralph Goodale, because that is the only reason that did not happen. Ralph Goodale came out, shortly after FPI made the announcement that this government had given permission to spin off FPI into an Income Trust, and said: I have some various concerns about Income Trust, and as a result, we are not permitting any to occur in the country until we have a further look at it. That is the only thing, I say to the members opposite, that stopped FPI from selling off the Danvers, Massachusetts secondary processing and marketing division into an Income Trust. What would we be talking about here today? What would we be talking about? An FPI Act that did not have Danvers, Massachusetts involved in it, secondary processing or marketing. We would have an Act that did not include Harbour Breton, and an Act that did not include Fortune. What would we be left with? Probably would not even include Marystown. So, what would we be left with? We would be left with a plant in Bonavista, one in Port Union, one in Triton and one in Port au Choix. That is what we would be governing. Like I said, thank God for Ralph Goodale. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, I am glad that he put a hold on Income Trust at the time, because I think that was a bad deal for the Province, a bad deal for FPI. Whether it would have happened or not is another question.

Mr. Speaker, that sort of is the history, and what we have seen since then, since June of last year, is the further breaking of commitments that FPI made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They broke the commitments about not laying people off but hiring people, when they closed Fortune and they closed Harbour Breton.

Then, around Christmas, when we were hearing that they were closing all their groundfish operations, and we mentioned it publicly, God forbid, we were accused by the government that we were fearmongering, that this was not going to happen. The shutdown in Marystown around Christmas was normal. The draggers were in. They normally do a turnaround and people are off for Christmas and they have to go through refits. It is normal to close the plant for a couple of weeks during Christmas break. Well, guess what? That was six months ago since the plant closed in Marystown, and it is still closed. That is what we have seen from this crowd.

When we are here today talking about amending the act, I am in full agreement with amending the act, full agreement. In fact, I see nothing wrong with the amendments that the government is purposing, except for one thing: they do not go far enough.

I agree with the amendments. If this is the best we are going to get out of you, we are going to have to vote for them, I guess, but if you are serious about strengthening the act, let's look at it clause by clause, word by word. Let's look at it. If you are serious about strengthening the act so that we have more control over what John Risley and group are doing, let's do it. I am not asking you to change your amendments, I say, Mr. Minister. I am asking you to add some words, change some others, so that we are quite clear as to what this group are doing.

Here is the first one we are asking. I will just run through some of them. I am not going to do them all, but between now and when this Legislature closes on Thursday or Friday when we pass or defeat this bill, I will have another opportunity to speak. One of them is, under the current act it says: FPI shall not sell all or substantially all of the company - all or substantially all.

I made the argument last year that they should not be allowed to sell the value-added and marketing division of FPI because it would mean substantially all of the business, because that is where the money was coming from; that was the biggest profit generator, the American division. We know that the government got conflicting legal opinions. Some said it can be argued that they are selling substantially all of the company. Other legal opinions said no, it cannot be argued that you are selling substantially all of the company.

What we are saying, rather than have that ambiguity still in the bill, if you are serious about it, why change it? Because, what you are proposing to do is change it from saying substantially all - all or substantially - you are not allowed to sell all or substantially all of the company. That is what it says today. You are talking about changing that now, that they cannot sell a substantial portion of the company without government permission - a substantial portion.

Who is to say that in two months from now FPI might be back with their group of lawyers saying that they want to sell the marketing division in the United States but that is not a substantial portion of the business?

What we are saying is, if you are really serious about this, let's clear up the ambiguity, let's clear up the confusion as to what substantial means, and put it right in the act. Say: FPI will not sell any portion of its company without government permission. That is not a lot to ask for. Take out the word substantial so that there are not 500 lawyers out there who are going to get 500 fees for telling you 250 different opinions - 250 for and 250 against - what the word substantial means.

That is what happens, ladies and gentleman, when you get into a court of law. You fight and argue over what the word substantial is. Depending on what side of the issue you come down - if you want a lawyer to tell you that substantial means all of the company, if you are ready to pay him, he will tell you that. If you are going to pay a lawyer to tell you that substantial means very little of the company, he will tell you that too. All we are asking you to do in that first clause is take out substantial portion and insert the word any portion. That is one thing.

The other thing is, you are talking about - how many times have we heard those opposite, in the media - the Premier has even said it. The Premier has even said that he has a problem - I think he probably said it in the House - with the Board of Directors of FPI, in that they are in direct competition and he does not - he even said that Mr. Risley was not a friend of his. He said that to me in the House one day. He did not even want his name associated with his own. That is what he said.

They are asking now, because currently there are seven board members, seven people on the board at FPI, and you are wanting to change that now to make it go from seven to thirteen. Good idea! Good idea! Because, the more members you have on the board, the less chance that one individual will control it.

We are saying, if you are really serious about amending that portion, put down that the board has to be composed of thirteen members, the majority of whom have to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, resident Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but go a step further, just for clarity, and say that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should have the authority to appoint some of these board members. If the Cabinet could do that, just imagine what wouldn't have happened this spring. Just imagine what wouldn't have happened this spring if the government says tomorrow, if you are going to have thirteen members on a board the government has the authority to appoint some of them; one, two, three, ten. If we change this Act and put that in there, that the government is going to put someone on that board, we won't have the situation that we have ongoing right now in the Department of Fisheries, that being FPI is being investigated for shipping unprocessed fish out of the Province. If the government has the authority that we put that into this piece of legislation, that will never happen again. If we have the authority to put someone on the board, we know that we have someone who is going to be government's eyes and ears on the board. As a result of that, we won't be sitting around waiting for the 7,000 pages to be investigated as the minister said. We won't need the pickup truck. We will know if FPI broke the law because we will have eyes and ears on the board.

That is another clause that we would like to see changed, Mr. Speaker. If you are serious about it, I say to members opposite, you have the skeleton of good amendments there, but put some meat on the bones so that we are not back here next year or three months from now because someone is trying to weasel out of this piece of legislation, by hiring highfalutin lawyers and wheeling and dealing.

Another thing: Why don't you write it in the language that the people of this Province can understand, and say that there are going to be thirteen members of the board two of which, three of which, four of which, or four of whom have to be appointed by government. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with it?

There is another clause that says - listen to this - FPI cannot dispose of a plant in this Province. FPI cannot dispose of a plant in this Province! That means FPI cannot sell a plant in this Province without the consent of government. That is a new clause the minister is putting in the Act. No problem with that one, but if you are really serious about strengthening the Act say that FPI cannot dispose of any portion of its company without permission from government. There is no where in this Act today that says that FPI cannot sell their harvesting fleet. They have some brand new factory freezer trawlers and draggers built, out of the $230 million extra they have driven the company in debt. There is nothing in this Act that I am aware of. Now the minister might get up and argue later on that there is something in the Act. What I am saying is, why don't you make it categorically clear by saying that FPI cannot sell any of their assets. By the way, take out the word Province, because that is what it says here, FPI cannot dispose of a plant in this Province without the written consent of government. Well FPI owns two other plants I might add, FPI owns the secondary processing plant in Danvers, Massachusetts. Is this covered?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

MR. REID: The minister says its covered. All I am asking, Minister, is take our amendment and make it categorically clear to us, because we had a lawyer look at this last night for us, and that was not his interpretation. If what the Premier said in the House of Assembly this afternoon was correct, and we will get Hansard tomorrow, when I asked that question, why can't the plant in Danvers, Massachusetts and the new $40 million blunder that they just bought over in the United Kingdom, in Great Britain, how come that is not mentioned here - when I asked that question this afternoon in the House, do you know what the Premier said? The Premier said: We cannot do that under the Act, control assets outside of the Province. That is something I never knew before. It is something I do not believe by the way. I do not believe that, because if we control FPI, I think we control their assets wherever they may be on this globe.

Let's change the Act, let's change your wording, Minister, so that it is categorically clear. If you say it is covered already in the Act that you have here, make it abundantly clear so that anyone watching in television land out there today, who is not a lawyer or a learned person, because that is what you call each other - lawyers call themselves learned persons as if the rest of us are lunatics or uneducated. That is how they always refer to each other, as their learned friends and learned colleagues. They do not call us learned. What are we all, a bunch of dummies? Is that what they are saying? Put it there, so that we dummies can understand it, I say to the minister. If we are learned colleagues, put it there so that it states categorically in plain English that FPI will not be able to sell any part of that operation without written consent from the provincial government. Why not put it there, that they cannot sell the plant in the UK? Why not put it there, that they cannot sell their plant in Danvers, Massachusetts, that they cannot sell their secondary processing, their marketing division in Danvers, Massachusetts? Why not put it there that they cannot sell any of their boats, any of their draggers which are worth millions of dollars today, I add? Go downtown. There was one down there, the Newfoundland Lynx, tied up on the apron in the harbour for the last month. Go down and look at it and say to yourself: What is that vessel worth? Millions and millions of dollars. Why don't you put it there, categorically, that they cannot sell any of this and make it clear to the rest of us? Why can't you do that? The answer is, I do not know why you cannot do it. You want to make it so convoluted that FPI can weasel through the cracks again like they have been doing with us for the past two or three years since they took over that board.

There are lots of things, Mr. Speaker, that we can change, and all we are asking is to take these simple, straightforward - and we can even simplify them a bit more than this because we did have some legal advice on how to write them. I would prefer to write them in plain English, without the legal advice, so that they are even clearer and do (inaudible) FPI if you are serious about it. Again, minister, I am not saying that your recommendations or your amendments should not be voted on. What I am saying is, if you are serious about strengthening the act - and that was the purpose and the intent of being here, I thought, to strengthen the act - if you are serious about doing that, let's really strengthen it. We will just add a few words to the clauses that you have already put in there.

It wasn't me who, earlier this year, talked about amending the FPI Act. I have asked for it on many occasions: Let's go back into the Legislature, amend the FPI Act, so we can do something with this company to prevent it from doing what it has been doing to the poor people who work for it. It was the minister, the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, who got up publicly and said: Well, maybe we better go back into the Legislature and amend the Act, so we can force FPI to cross-subsidize its ailing groundfish fishery. It was the minister who said that, it wasn't me. After he said it, I might have agreed with him, but it was he who brought that to the floor of the House of Assembly and to the public of this Province. It was he who talked about cross-subsidization.

When I asked a question in the House of Assembly today of the Premier, where is the clause that the minister talked about? We were going to force FPI to subsidize its ailing groundfish sector. The Premier looked at me and said: We cannot do that. Do not be so foolish, boy. That is, basically, to summarize what he said. He said: We cannot do that, we cannot be that intrusive, and basically gave the indication that I did not know what I was talking about. He says that everyday, that I did not know what I was talking about. You cannot force a company to do that. It wasn't me who said it. It wasn't me who asked for the cross-subsidization. It was his own minister. I guess, when he said I did not know what I was talking about, you cannot do that, basically what he was saying was that his own minister did not know what he was talking about. That is basically what he was saying.

Ladies and gentleman, I am not going to belabour all of this. We are asking for, and we will submit a list of the proposals, of the proposed recommendations or amendments, that we would like to see added to the ones that you are putting forward, or change the words of yours so that they closely, or more closely, reflect what we are trying to say. Then we will be able to walk up to John Risley and the group and say, we are going to increase your board to thirteen, we are going to have some government appointed members on there, you are not selling the plant in this Province without permission, you are not selling any of the fleet without our permission, you are not selling Danvers, Massachusetts without our permission, you are not selling the UK without our permission, and you are not going to transfer fish and sell fish without our permission. We are going to have someone sitting in your board room with you, by the way, Mr. Risley, from here on in. He is going to be our eyes and ears, appointed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, but more importantly those who work for that company that we have learned over the years to somehow look at as the flagship of the Newfoundland and Labrador industry. I tell you right now, if there was ever we needed a flagship it is right now. If you listen to Mr. McCurdy, the head of the union, and you listen to other processors, what we need right now, more than anything else, is a strong marketing division. That is what FPI acted as for the past ten, twelve, fourteen years, the flagship for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to visit the largest fish show in the world. It is held every St. Paddy's Day, or close to it, in Boston at the Convention Centre. There are fish companies from all over the world. When you walk in there and you see booths on three floors of this huge convention centre - there is nothing in St. John's like it. Every floor is twice the size of our convention centre. They have three floors and every one of them filled, up and down the sides and up and down the middle, with booths from fish companies from all over the world. Guess which one was the largest one there the last time I was there? Guess which one? FPI. It made you feel proud that that company, that booth, was representing Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not to belittle the importance of the other companies because the smaller processors in the Province did not have the wherewithal to put a booth there and man it the way they did. The fact that we had one there showed that we ruled supreme in the seafood industry. It made me feel good. I have had my differences with the Vic Young's of the world and the people who ran FPI, but that is one time I can say I felt proud, when you walked through the door and it is the largest booth.

Growing up, Mr. Speaker, I was always told that we were the fishing capital of the world. We had more fish than anywhere else in the world. Now whether that is true or not, I do not know, but when you walked into that show in Boston, it certainly made you feel that way.

I think it is a flagship company, and I think that is the way that company should stay, I say to the minister. All we are asking is you adopt the resolutions that we are putting forward, or the amendments, so that we can strengthen that to let the company continue in the manner in which it was set up, as a flagship to protect those who depend on the fishery in the Province, and more importantly, those who work - I should say, those who worked for FPI, because those numbers are becoming fewer and fewer everyday.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down and let someone else have the opportunity to say a few words.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the next fifteen or twenty minutes to pass on a few observations about the act that is in front of us today, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

I think probably it is important to put things in perspective. I listened with interest to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. We can all stand up here in the House, and I am as guilty of it as the next person, on occasion, of blaming all the problems in the industry on the person that came before you or the person that came after you. Instead of taking that approach today, I will assume some responsibility for what we have in front of us today, because it is easy for me to stand up and say to the Leader of the Opposition: You were the minister when the new slate of directors took over the board and all this kind of stuff. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there was an all-party committee that dealt with the Fishery Products International act back in the spring of 2002. I was on it, the Member for Bonavista South was on it, the Leader of the Opposition was on it, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was on there, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was on there, the Member for the Bay of Islands was on there. I think that was all of us, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we proposed the amendments that were brought down in the spring of 2002. We all sat around the table. We all tramped around the Province. We all went to Marystown, Grand Bank, Stephenville, I believe, Port au Choix, Port Union, Bonavista. I cannot remember everywhere we went now, but we went to half-a-dozen or more places - Harbour Breton. Coming out of that , Mr. Speaker, we amended the Fishery Products International Limited Act. I think it is fair to point out here today, that all-party committee can assume no responsibility for the lack of layoffs or the lack of plant closures that took place or did not take place, whatever way you want to put it, in 2002-2003. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, yes, we amended the act. If we had caused Fishery Products International to maintain their operations at the 2002 level, then why would we need to be here today talking about amending the act again? Obviously, we had nothing to do with it.

Fishery Products International, the Board of Fishery Products International, the management of Fishery Products International at the time, changed their plans from what they initially stated back in December or January, or whenever it was of 2001-2002. They changed their plans from the time they announced that they were going to have a significant workforce reduction on their South Coast groundfish operations. They maintained the three operations and they maintained them at, essentially, the levels of employment that we saw prior to 2002. They did it because they entered into a deal with the Fisherman's Union, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union. There was a Memorandum of Understanding that covered about a two-year period, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker. A two-year period that resulted in the maintenance of the operations and the groundfish operations on the South Coast at the levels that we saw in 2001. We saw that in 2002, 2003 and most of 2004.

So, it had nothing to do with the amendments that were made to the Fishery Products International Act. The reason it had nothing to do with the amendments to Fishery Products International Act was because we all sat around a table back in the winter of 2002 - all of the members that I noted earlier, and the Leader of the Opposition noted them earlier also. We sat around the table, the big boardroom table down in the basement of the Petten Building, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We all sat around that table that winter on numerous occasions - too many times to think about right now, to be honest with you - and we debated back and forth what we could do with the Fishery Products International Act in order to force FPI to maintain operations.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and all the rest of us who sat around that table, based on the best legal advice that we could get and based on a little bit of common sense, I believe that - I suppose we all had some common sense. That is the trouble, as they say, with common sense, it is not all that common, but I think we all had some anyway. We concluded that we could not legislate Fishery Products International, the size of Fishery Products International's workforce. We could not legislate what businesses they operated. Sure, we can stop them from selling all or substantially all, we believe we can, of the assets of their plants, but we cannot force them to operate any one facility anywhere in this Province, not without some serious repercussions. Some of those have been articulated earlier here today by the Premier and by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but they were the same things that were told to us in the basement of the Petten Building four years ago. The exact same conversations were had four years ago as have taken place over the past couple of months around this issue at the Cabinet table, in caucus rooms and what have you, in this building and in this House, in this Legislature.

So to suggest that we can force Fishery Products International to keep a business open is pure folly on the part of anybody who suggests it, because we have already had that debate. We had it four years ago and we have had it over the past number of months. For all of the reasons that have been stated earlier, it cannot be done. What we can do is deal with the spirit and intent of the Fishery Products International act as it was tabled in this House in 1987. The spirit and intent of the Fishery Products International act at the time was that FPI would be a flagship company for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that it would be widely held, that nobody would own more than 15 per cent of the shares and that the shareholders could not act in concert, so to speak, and what have you. This is what the piece of legislation that we have in front of us here today deals with.

The change in the board of directors, the mandating of FPI to have a minimum of thirteen directors on its board, Mr. Speaker. That speaks to a governance issue, having the company widely held and having the board such that no one, or no few shareholders can exercise undue control over the Board of FPI. That is what that amendment speaks to. It speaks to, as opposed to going in the direction that the company has been moving in recently, down to, I think it is seven directors right now on their board. I understand that they wanted to go as low as five in recent discussions at the board level. We proposed to say thirteen, should this legislation pass today or tomorrow or the next day, or whenever it is we get around to voting on it. That is one piece.

The changes, Mr. Speaker, in the actual structure of the board of directors, and who can sit on the board of Fishery Products International, we are not stripping shareholders of their right to be able to appoint directors to their board. We can no more do that than the previous government. I am not even going to go there. I said I would not go there, and I am not going to go there.

The all-party committee of 2002 concluded that we could not do that type of thing. We had that debate in the spring of 2001 when John Risley and company came to town, put a new slate up at the shareholder meeting and got it elected as the board of Fishery Products International. We could not stop it then. I remember asking questions.

The Leader of the Opposition, at the time, the Member for Kilbride, asked the questions about: Could we stop certain shareholders, who are direct competitors with Fishery Products International, from getting on the board of Fishery Products International? I said that it was akin to the President of GM sitting on the board of Ford at the time.

That was five years ago that we made those comments, and it was concluded, at that time, by the government, by the all-party committee subsequently, by the Department of Justice here in this building, by whatever legal advice was available to the government and the various parties, the three parties here in the Legislature at the time, that it could not be done. Well, it could not be done then, Mr. Speaker, and it cannot be done now, but what can be done is a change in the makeup of the board of directors such that at least no more than 50 per cent of them will be significant shareholders or associates of significant shareholders.

Aside from this debate about Fishery Products International and competitor issues that people raise from time to time, and I have from time to time, I think this is something in this, I guess you can call it - and it is probably not a good thing to put in the same discussion - but post-Enron, in this post-Enron era, sometimes it maybe does not hurt for the board of directors to have more allegiance to the company than to the individual shareholders.

I am not sure if that sounded exactly right, but I think people get the gist of what I am saying. Sometimes what is good for an individual shareholder may not necessarily be good for the overall long-term interest of the company, and by having a diverse board of directors in any company, by having a board of directors that is at least 50 per cent comprised of people who are not major shareholders, it is probably good public policy regardless of the type of company that we are talking about. Because we all know what happened at Enron, or we think we know what happened, anyway. I guess the courts will figure all of that out in due course.

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating Fishery Products International today, and the changes to the legislation, but again I am not going to duck from what I have said over the past couple of years. There is a reality, and the Leader of the Opposition spoke briefly on this early on in his comments, about an hour ago. Port Union, Fishery Products International's operation in Port Union in the 1980s was running upwards of 60,000, as I understand it, that is what I understood him to say, upwards of 60,000 tons of product through it, 60,000 tons of raw material through that operation. Do you know how much groundfish we have available to the total Newfoundland and Labrador industry today, in 2006? Cod, turbot, hake, flounder, all of it added up, I believe, is 44,000 tons. I could stand corrected, but I believe it is about 44,000 tons. So, if you want to put it in perspective, 44,000 tons is about two-thirds of what Port Union ran through it in the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, as much we do not want to admit it, we do not have a groundfish industry left in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Total Allowable Catch - and the Leader of the Opposition alluded to this also - he said, was 266,000 tons for cod. I think that is what he said. In actual fact, it was 266,000 tons of Northern cod. That is not counting Gulf cod. That is not counting South Coast cod. That is not counting what was up in 2G and 2H up off Northern Labrador. That was just Northern cod off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Total Allowable Catch, the inshore allowance for Northern cod was 115,000 tons and now, Mr. Speaker, we have 44,000 tons of groundfish in total available to our industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a certain reality that goes with that, and I hear - I know of the comments that Vic Young makes about the industry today, and the way the industry is going and whatever. Again, I mention something that the Leader of the Opposition said about Twillingate, when the former heads of FPI closed down Twillingate. Well, I can tell you, the former heads of FPI are not going to get the welcoming mat rolled out to them on the way into St. Anthony any time soon. I understand why they closed down St. Anthony in 1993, because we went from 266,000 tons of Northern cod to zero. That is why they closed it down, but the people up there cannot understand why they took their crab licence and moved it to another community in Newfoundland. The people in St. Anthony have not forgotten about that yet.

The people in St. Anthony have not forgotten that, when the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company had two shrimp licences issued to it in the late 1970s, there were also two shrimp licences issued to Fishery Products in St. Anthony. Those licences today are on the Newfoundland Lynx, and she never sees St. Anthony, has never seen St. Anthony now for fifteen years, Fishery Products vessels. That is what happened.

There is nobody wholly in this debate about Fishery Products International. There is nobody who handled themselves perfectly well. It is like the Bible says: He who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, I suggest that there are not very many people without sin, myself included. The fact of the matter is, the water on the beans has changed substantially today from what it was in the 1990s.

As I said with the quota levels, where they have gone, people, you know, some members opposite - although, I must say, I feel a little bit vindicated today. Although there is no real pleasure in saying I told you so, I feel a little bit vindicated today, after reading the third page of The Telegram, saying that I told you so. Because what I have been saying for the past couple of years, the past three to five years, is coming true, unfortunately.

We can change the Fishery Products International Limited Act, we can change the Fish Inspection Act, we can change whatever pieces of legislation are at our disposal in this House of Assembly as it relates to fisheries matters, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the world around us has changed. We cannot do anything about the Canadian dollar. We cannot do anything about Chinese competition. If we had 266,000 tons of Northern cod, yes, we could do a lot about Chinese competition because we have a resource base. The unfortunate thing about it is, when Vic Young and when the new management at FPI took over in the early days, we were able to buy cod from Norway, from the Barent Sea, at about $2,000 a ton. I am not sure what the price is right now, but the last time I checked, which is a couple of months ago, I think it was running somewhere around $3,500 a ton.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is over $3,600 now.

MR. TAYLOR: It is over $3,600 now, the Minister of Fisheries says, so we have almost a 100 per cent increase in the cost of raw material. Why is that? That is solely as a result of Chinese competition. The Chinese have gotten so efficient at processing fish, and their cost structures are so low, that today they can outbid us for cod in Norway. They can haul it to China, they can process it, and they can put in on the shelf out at Costco on Stavanger Drive cheaper than the Newfoundland and Labrador industry can take if off the South Coast, put it through a plant here in Newfoundland and Labrador and put it on Stavanger Drive.

We cannot compete. Until we come to that conclusion, until we accept that reality - if you do not accept the reality - you know, it is like being an alcoholic. If you do not accept that you are an alcoholic, you are never going to fix your problem. That is like this. We have huge structural problems in this industry, and people have to come to grips with it. If we are going to have a rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if we are going to have fish processing on the Burin Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula and the Northern Peninsula, which I believe we should have, then we have to accept that, and then we have to structure our industry so we can compete. We also have to structure our industry so that we can compete with the other industries in Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

Why, today, is the workforce in the plants of Newfoundland and Labrador so old? Why are they having trouble getting workers in Witless Bay? They are having trouble getting workers in Witless Bay, they are having trouble getting workers in St. Anthony, they are having trouble getting workers in a good many places around this Province, in the fish plants, just like they have over in Souris, P.E.I., where they have a bunch of Russians brought in now to run the plant. They have a problem because the twenty-year-olds of today and the eighteen-year-olds of today, coming out of high school, coming out of post-secondary institutions, are not going to work in the fishing industry for $8,000 and $10,000 worth of earned income and unemployment insurance for the rest of the year. That is a fact. They are not going to do it. I would not want my son to do it. I did it, but that was twenty years ago. They are not doing it today, because there is too much at their disposal, there are too many opportunities open for them, and they have so many options today that we did not even have twenty years ago. They are taking those options, they are taking those opportunities.

I see Mr. Speaker is telling me I have two minutes left, so I will very quickly conclude.

Those are the things that we have to come to grips with, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow there is a forum down at the Fairmont. I hope that the discussion is lively, focused, and based in reality.

Like I said, people did not like to hear what I said for the past two years about the rationalization that is coming in this industry. I said at the time we can be masters of it or we can be victims of it. Right now, the people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador are becoming victims of it. They are becoming victims of it because for too many days in this Legislature and outside of this Legislature petty politics is what rules the day. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I stayed away from it this time. If we are going to do justice for the people in Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown, St. Anthony, Port au Choix, Anchor Point, then the political BS has got to end and we have to look at the fact that the industry needs to change, and the industry will change. When the industry changes so that young people coming out of high school look at the fishery as a viable option then we will be on the right road, but until that we will continue to lose the people from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, our industry will continue to be stymied and continue to be a victim of Chinese competition, the Canadian dollar and what have you.

Hopefully, tomorrow, when we all get around down at the Fairmont, trying to position our industry for where it needs to be in the next three to five years will be the order of the day. That will require a rationalization. It will require some assistance worker adjustment measures. It will require some boats coming out of the system and some plants coming out of the system. Sometimes you have to remove some in order to save some. That is the problem that we have right now, Mr. Speaker, that debate has been put off for too long. It is more convenient and more politically expedient to stand around and talk about the Fishery Products International Act than it is to talk about the real structural problems that are in our industry.

I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with dealing with the Fishery Products International Act. I obviously support it, I am up speaking on it right now, but, Mr. Speaker, there is a much bigger debate that needs to be had in this Province. If we do not have it soon, then I fear that we will have a lot more trouble than we have on our plates right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having listened to several speakers before me today, I guess there is a lot being said about the importance of the fishery. I think that is why we are having this debate in particular, but I guess why we are also having the summit tomorrow. I guess today we are here looking at a piece of legislation, proposed amendments for a piece of legislation, that from where I sit is probably the most important thing we could be doing in this House of Assembly during this sitting of the House.

When I look at the amendments that are being proposed, my only regret at this point in time is that we did not address this far in advance of when we are doing it today, that in fact we did not look at the Act in trying to put forth amendments to this Act before Harbour Breton closed, or before Fortune closed, and before a significant reduction in the workforce in Marystown. I guess the timing of this leaves a lot to be desired in terms of trying to deal with the crisis that are seeing now in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am glad it is here. It is a privilege for me to be able to stand here and be able to speak to it because I do represent a fishing district.

When you look at the District of Grand Bank, of course, the primary industry there is the fishery, whether it is processing or harvesting. Again as I said, my only regret is that we did not deal with this sooner.

As I look at the amendments that are being proposed, another regret that I do have is that they do not seem to go far enough. I think if we are going to hold FPI accountable, hold its feet to the fire and deal with a piece of legislation that we have that we are fortunate to have, and thank heavens that the government of the day saw fit to put in place a piece of legislation to govern this particular company, that if we are going to do it, then we need to do it right. This is an opportunity that we do have now to strengthen this Act, and my fear is that the couple of amendments that are being proposed will not do that, will not do justice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, those who have been engaged in the fishery, those who have been, I guess, employed by FPI. It will not do justice to them because I do not think it goes far enough.

We look at a company like FPI, and speakers before me have talked to the reason why it existed, how it came to be, and how it was supported. When I look at Fishery Products International that was established under the FPI Act, it was established to ensure long term stability for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess we are seeing, along the way, that that has not been happening to the extent that I think, given the piece of legislation that we do have today, that it was possible for it to continue to provide that long term stability for people involved in the fishing industry. We do have problems that we have to deal with and I think this gives us an opportunity to deal with those problems.

Again I think we need to do more in terms of strengthening the Act. My fear is that the two amendments that are being proposed will not do that, which is why as an Official Opposition we have some amendments that we would like to put forward. We would like to put them forward, I guess, in the sense of working with the government to try and do what is best here. This is an opportunity and I think we need to call on everyone involved. I know we are having a Summit tomorrow, but at this point in time I think we are looking at amendments to the FPI Act. I would like to have the government consider the amendments that we are putting forward in the sense in which they are being given, and that is to be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I think if you have a really serious look at those amendments you will see the wording of them is such that we would like for them to be considered along the lines of really strengthening the Act in terms of what we are doing here today, much more so then just the two that are being proposed.

I remember only too well when the Board of Directors changed at FPI. In fact, I was a member of the Cabinet of the day when that transpired. At a meeting of the economic policy and social policy committees of Cabinet, Mr. Risley along with several others, Rex Anthony and John Crosbie and others, came to met with us and any number of questions were put to them. I mean, time and time again they were asked if we went down this path or they went down this path what in fact they were proposing that was not happening now with FPI as it existed, and the Board of Directors that it presently had with Vic Young as the CEO. We were assured time and time again that all they wanted was to create more employment opportunities and create more jobs. They had great difficulty, you know, with the fact that people were working in the industry and only getting fourteen, sixteen, twenty weeks out of a year of employment. They were going to change that. Now, for anyone from a fishing district, that is music to your ears because you want to be able to look to your people and say: You know, yes, something is happening here that is in your best interest. You are going to have many more weeks of work. We know you want to work. We know you would work fifty-two weeks of the year if the employment was available.

So, whenever you hear someone speaking to you and making those kinds of promises and those kinds of commitments, then, obviously, it is something that you take to heart. You would like to believe and trust in the people who put that forward. That is where we were coming from at the time, as a government, having listened to the reasons being given by the new board of directors being led by John Risley in the proposal to take over FPI. The answers to the questions were exactly what you wanted to hear. Of course, we knew that he had been doing well in other parts of the country, and Nova Scotia was doing well.

I knew from Risley's involvement in Grand Bank, when the FPI plant closed in Grand Bank years ago, I remember that Walter Carter, then, was the Minister of Fisheries. I recall going down there. I wasn't a Member of the House of Assembly but I did work at the time in government. I remember going down there when Minister Carter went down and introduced Clearwater to Grand Bank. We had the only surf clam operation in the Province. It was a real blessing because, at the same time, you had Trepassey that was going through a difficult time but here Grand Bank had an opportunity, and it was an opportunity provided by Clearwater, which was owned by John Risley, for a surf clam operation and it has worked well. It has worked well, but, lo and behold, today we do not know what the future holds for that operation. We are hoping beyond hope that it is going to work, but today, we see that they have transferred a product line to China. We see that there is a boat being built to replace the two existing boats. These two existing boats land their product in Grand Bank but I am told that the new boat will not do that. It will land elsewhere and truck the product to Grand Bank. How long is that going to happen? How long will a company continue to truck product that is landing elsewhere to Grand Bank? We do not know. Those are questions that we are looking to get answers to. There is very, very real concern down there. Again, it goes back to, I guess, a commitment by Mr. Risley, who is also a member of the Board of Directors of FPI, to do whatever he can - as he did when he got involved with FPI - to increase employment opportunities and we are seeing the reverse. So, I guess it is cause for concern no matter how you look at this.

When I look at FPI in particular, look at the promises that were made and look at when they put forward a proposal of Income Trust. I remember having discussions time and time again with Derrick Rowe, the plans that they had for Fortune, that it was going to become a secondary processing plant. The hopes that were raised in that community and why it was that they insisted that I vote in support of the Income Trust. When promises are made like that I guess you would like to think that people are putting them forward in good faith, and you certainly accept them in good faith.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely! The Leader of the NDP says, as I did, we voted for the Income Trust because we believed and in good faith. We thought that, in fact, what was being promised would materialize. Well, we know that is not the case and we know today that the people in Fortune and other communities who depended on the fish plant in Fortune, depended on FPI, are moving to other parts of the country. We really do not know if they will ever return.

Back to FPI, we hear others talk about the high Canadian dollar and the cheap labour in China. Well, I do not think this is the first time in our history that we have seen a rise of this significance in the Canadian dollar. I remember when the dollar was on par with the U.S. dollar.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Yes, absolutely. As the Minister of Fisheries says, at one point in time it was higher. China has always been there. We have always had Chinese labour to contend with. All of a sudden it has become the reason why FPI is in difficulty. I guess it begs a question: Why now? Why is it now they are able to hold these out as excuses for what I consider to be poor management? Why would you go off and pay $40 million for a company over in the U.K. if you knew that you were having difficulty at home? It is a Newfoundland based company. FPI is a Newfoundland and Labrador based company. Yes, it has gone out and done a number of things. Ocean Cuisine International, which is an operating division of FPI Limited, is headquartered in Danvers, Massachusetts. It was the marketing arm for a lot of other companies. In fact, it says in 2003 FPI marketed over $80 million of crab on behalf of other processors.

They have companies in other parts of the world, and there is nothing wrong with that. They are doing well. This is where we get back to this whole idea around cross-subsidization again. Every member, when it was raised by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I thought that makes a lot of sense because it happens all the time in international companies and corporations. When you have one entity of an operation that is not doing well, it is not unusual for the other aspects of that company to help shore up those who are having some difficulty, and it has happened. It happens all the time in companies throughout the world. We all, no matter what you are in - if you are in business, no matter what kind of business, you will find from time to time that there will be some rough patches and you have to get over those rough patches, but in the interest of the company as a whole, you do some cross-subsidization. I thought it made sense. I was hoping that was something we would see in terms of an amendment, but it is not there. Then when the Premier says, it is silly to suggest that could happen. Boy, that was news to me. In fact, I thought the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made a lot of sense when he suggested that was a possibility.

Ownership - I do not know whether or not it is the right thing to buy into FPI, I do not know. I know that government, the Premier has expressed interest in buying ownership in oil industry. Certainly, we are looking at the Lower Churchill. When I look at the fishing industry in this Province, it is the renewable resource. It is the industry for this Province that has sustained us, I guess, since we have been here as a Province. Somehow I have difficulty believing that we cannot be giving the same kind of attention, focus, support, energy to the fishing industry that we can give to other industries in this Province, especially when you consider the numbers of people that have been employed over the years and continue to be employed, whether they are harvesters or whether they are processors, or no matter what they are doing in the industry.

I know FPI itself, for instance, employed at one point in time, not too long ago, 2,300, I guess it was, people. I am thinking, what has happened? That is probably down to about 1,700 now. They have plants throughout the Province. They have their fleets. As the Leader of the Opposition said, when we look at FPI and look at it as a company that was created for the people of the Province to ensure employment stability, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we all know how important it is to have an industry that you can turn to in rural Newfoundland and Labrador so that you can ensure that people can provide for their families and exist there in a manner that they have done for hundreds and hundreds of years. The reality is that today we really do not know what the future holds, and I guess this is why we are here having this debate with proposed amendments. That is why we are doing the summit tomorrow so that all aspects of the fishery will be considered.

I know that from my perspective, as a Member of the House of Assembly, there is no industry more important than the fishing industry. I know, on behalf of the people in my district, it is the industry for them that has sustained them for the whole time that they have continued to live and work in rural Newfoundland, particularly in the District of Grand Bank.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing today is people having no choice but to leave. They have had to, in some cases, sell their homes, and, where you cannot sell them, just board them up and move on. What does that say? What does that say about us, as a Province, as a government, as people, that we have not been able to do with the fishing industry and give it the same attention and support that we are giving to other industries?

It is sad, because it is a renewable resource which is, I think, why it is so important, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we really do need to look at holding FPI's feet to the fire and, instead of saying you cannot sell a plant without the government knowing, let's look at all of their assets. Let's look at their fleet. Let's look at whatever they have, that they lay claim to, and say: Wait now, hold on a second. You exist because we made it possible for you to exist. You know, you have some shareholders who have done very well as a result of us making it possible for FPI to exist. So now we are saying we are just going to make sure that just as you have made money off FPI, that, in fact, the people of the Province for whom FPI was created in the first instance, will also be able to make money.

We are not talking about millions of dollars. We are talking about money so that people who work and live the fishery in my district and in other districts throughout the Province will, in fact, be able to earn a living and provide for their families. That is all they are asking.

I think we can do a lot more than is being proposed today with the amendments, in terms of strengthening the act, and I really would like to think that the government will consider some of the amendments that we are putting forward, because we are putting them forward with every good intention of trying to work together to strengthen the act, to hold people like Mr. Risley and others, like Rex Anthony, George Armoyan, whoever this gentleman is - I have never met him but, the stories I have heard, I do not think it bodes well to have him involved as one of the three who are making decisions with respect to FPI.

If we are, in fact, increasing the number on the board of directors, I think it is imperative, imperative, that the government seriously consider making some of those appointments, people who will be there as watchdogs, I guess, in some respect, looking out to what people like George Armoyan and John Risley and others are doing and saying when it comes to FPI.

I think that is another amendment that the government should certainly consider, instead of just considering increasing the number on the board to thirteen, but we are not opposed to any amendments that the government brings forward. In fact, that is why we are here, and we believe strongly in the need to ensure that FPI continues to operate in this Province. When I say FPI, I guess what I am talking about really is that the industry, the company, continues to operate. Whether or not that is FPI or someone else, I really do not care, but I would like to think that if we go down the path that the Premier speculated about today, that if it were to become any kind of other entity, other than FPI, with other players at the table, that, in fact, there would be a piece of legislation, just as there is a piece of legislation that governs FPI; because the last thing we want is to let happen through the back door what Risley and the boys have been trying to do through the front door, and that is to scrap the FPI Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all boys.

MS FOOTE: They are all boys, and that is why I said the boys. They are all boys.

The reality of it is that if, in fact, we go down that path and we do not end up with a piece of legislation governing the other company, whatever that may be, whatever form that is in, that we would, in fact, end up being able to, later on, say: Well, look what happened here. Risley and whomever else - or, if he is not involved, whomever is involved - they were able to really make happen through the back door what they were not able to accomplish through the front door.

I think it is really important that we get that message out there, that government get that message out there, whether they do it in the summit tomorrow or whether it is done here today, or whether it is done in the House on Thursday, but I think the message needs to be sent that this company, whether it is FPI or whether it is in some other guise, that there will continue to be a piece of legislation that will govern the company so that they can be held accountable and that everything we do in this Legislature with respect to that company will, in fact, be in the best interest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why I am standing today speaking to this act and the need to amend it. I think we can never lose sight of the importance of a company like FPI to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Even though the previous speaker, the former Minister of Fisheries, talked about young people not wanting to be involved in the fishery any more, you know, that nineteen- and twenty-year-olds are moving on, well, maybe it is because the talk has all been about the negativity surrounding the fishery. Maybe it is because we have not been holding the fishery up as an industry that young people should aspire to be involved with.

We talk continuously about the oil industry. We talk about the IT sector. Now we are talking about the Lower Churchill, but why shouldn't we be talking about the fishery as the important industry that it is? Maybe, just maybe, if those of us who are in a position to influence young people in terms of future careers, maybe if we were looking at it more favourably and talking about it more favourably, more young people would consider it as a viable option when it comes to their careers.

I guess I would impress on all of us the importance of, instead of downgrading the fishery and talking about it being on the way out, and you only get fourteen weeks work here, we really should look at promoting it for what it is.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: A minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

I think the onus is on all of us to really treat the industry for what it is, and that is that it can be a viable industry. Instead of being an industry of last resort, I think we really should look at it and commit whatever we can in terms of resources and energy to ensuring that the fishery continues to be the mainstay of our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

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

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

We will end on that note for a supper break.

I do now move that the House recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, this House is now in recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To start off this evening's debate, I cannot say it gives me pleasure to stand here because for the past number of months in my district, and indeed, on the entire Burin Peninsula, to say that times have been tough is an understatement. People are going through very, very difficult times. The fish plants that have been operational there since I guess people settled there, and the fishery from the time people settled there, have been a steady source of employment for people. Right at this point, people are faced with many difficult decisions and really don't know which way to turn and they are looking to people like myself and my colleagues and people across the way to put aside party politics at this time and do what is best for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I find this House an unusual place. I have to say, in the time that I have sat here we certainly have had the time to reflect, there is no doubt about that. As we have sat here in the wee hours of the morning and we have chatted amongst ourselves, we have, I guess, questioned the role of this place. There is one thing about it, Mr. Speaker, I think somebody said to me at one point that when it comes down to it, this is a place that demands truth, and there is no doubt about it.

I think today is a day when we have seen - and we see the power of this place. There have been times in this House when we have bantered back and forth. There has been legislation that has come through that may not have entirely affected me, so I may not have been as attentive but anyone out there who is watching this debate today - and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that in my district and on the Peninsula there are many people who are following this - that in this House today, from the time we arrived and this debate started, there has been quiet. For all of us, we know that is not the case in here at all times. The reason being is that the issue before us strikes a chord with so many of us. Whether a person is a fisherperson or a fish plant worker, everyone in this House and everyone in this Province knows the impact of the fishery on this Province. It is what brought us here. It is what has sustained us for 400 to 500 years, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying - we were chatting just before we opened for this evening's session - if there is to be a character to the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador the fishing industry and the fishery has to be a part of it. I think back to last June when we entered into the debate around the Income Trust. We have people here like the Member for St. John's Centre and the Member for St. John's North, my colleagues, who certainly do not have any fish plants in their districts, they have Ches's Fish & Chips or something like that, but the one thing I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, through that debate, and again through this most recent one that we are entering into now, we have members such as the Member for St. John's Centre and for St. John's North who agonize over what the future of FPI will be because they know that such as FPI goes and such as the fishery goes, so goes so much of the Province. Therefore, they take the issue surrounding FPI, the amendments that we are debating here and the entire thing surrounding the fishery, they take it with a very serious tone and want to see it resolved to the betterment of all of the people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to speak to a little this evening - someone was talking about the lawyers today, the learned friends, and a lot of the legalities of these amendments I will leave to those folks. What I would like to do, just for a minute this evening, is to speak to the fish plant worker, the individual who is on the floor in the fish plant. Just consider the men and women who spent the last thirty to thirty-five years of their life in this career. This is what they chose as their vocation. A lot of them now are fifty and sixty-years-old. If we can, just for a few minutes, place ourselves in their situation that in the 1970s when everything was booming, and as the Minister of Fisheries said, back in the 1980s his biggest problem was there was a glut of fish and having enough plants. Now it has changed the other way. But just consider the people who went into those jobs at that time, because I can tell you from experience, they were there. You could go there on a Saturday, you worked there. If you had nerve enough to step foot on the sea and you wanted to go for fourteen days and make some half-decent money, all you had to do was take your bag, go down on the wharf, and it was there for you. You just stepped aboard, went, you suffered out the sea sickness or whatever, but on the way back you were pretty pleased with it. That was the opportunity that was there. These people have given up their entire life at the plant.

Mr. Speaker, we have to commend the unions and the companies as they worked together and negotiated contracts. At this present time, a worker in a fish plant can make $13 an hour. A lot of couples work there. If you consider that as the income, the situation is not too bad. Other than government employees, look outside and see where you can make that wage. Mr. Speaker, I would say to you, and I think many people would agree, that it is not too bad of a pay scale. Therefore, people have worked there and have developed a relatively comfortable and good life. They have sustained their families there. They have settled their lives and now, all of a sudden, they are faced with this very serious situation. We have talked about it here today, the changing face of the fishery. There is no doubt about it. I would be the first to say that we have a choice here right now. We can either come together as parties, as unions, as companies, so on and so forth, and take the lead as to how the fisheries of the future is going to look, or we can just muck our way through this and let the industry dictate what is going to come out at the end. I am of the belief that we certainly must take the lead.

What we have then, Mr. Speaker, we have the workers there who are caught in a very precarious situation. I will give you the example of two sets of workers. The workers in Burin, they work at OCI. When this debate started about where this was going to go, the people in Burin, the union - they did not want to say this too loudly because they did not want to be frowned upon that they would not take part in this, but one of the things that they did not want to do was go into job sharing. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why. That plant in Burin has had about 150 workers or so and they have worked for forty to forty-five weeks of the year. On the other hand, in Marystown, what has happened is you had some-600 people working there and due to the restructuring, there was not enough work there for everybody so the union entered into an arrangement where they job shared.

Now, here is the dilemma. The people in Burin wanted to work continuously. Let's look at Marystown. They were forced into an arrangement whereby they had to look after their fellow workers and therefore this is what they did, but the downside to it, of course, is that you worked for fourteen or twenty or twenty-eight weeks, something like that, and then for the rest of it you have to draw EI.

Someone mentioned here before about making the fishing industry and the fish plant worker, making that job a little bit more attractive. Mr. Speaker, in the case of Marystown, it is impossible to get the younger worker in there. We have the workforce of people who are fifty and sixty years old, and the young people just cannot enter into it because the situation is not there for them. We find ourselves in a situation where we have to try and maximize the resource for the number of workers who are fifty and sixty years old.

I have said, put anybody in this House in their situation, that you are fifty-eight years old, you have worked your entire life in a fish plant, and now, all of a sudden, you find yourself in a situation where you may have to relocate. Not by choice - I guess, in a way, by choice - these people started out in the fish plant there because there was plenty of work there, but now they find themselves in the situation where the work is not there and now, what is it we do?

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon government, it is incumbent upon the union, and it is also incumbent upon the company - because we know what companies and boards of directors and shareholders want. It is the business of business. In that, it is profit. We know that this is what the shareholders want, but somewhere in this equation the company has to have the social conscience.

We know the factors about China, but I do not think there is anybody in the room here who would say that we should be working towards the wage that the Chinese have - nor the Canadian dollar. The global markets dictate that, so that is beyond our control. Still, I think it is incumbent upon a company such as FPI that they give something in return. Some may say that it is being unreasonable, that you are interfering here, but let's take the situation on the Burin Peninsula. Just over a few months ago we had something like 1,100 people working on that Peninsula. Now, in this new scheme of things, basically we are looking at probably about 350 or 400 workers, if you were to put it across straight jobs. I think, because of the time and the effort and the commitment that people have given over the years, that the company has to give something in return. Realizing that, Mr. Speaker, we know there are changes that are coming.

I am willing to bet that anybody who is watching this tonight, who works in a fish plant, knows that the resource is not there as it was twenty years ago, and they know that we face many challenges in terms of getting the fish plants operational, and so on and so forth. I guess, to a degree, they are willing to commit to some of the things that need to be done. Again, I have to go back to the people who are in this Catch-22 situation - a fifty-eight-year-old. We have to come together and be able to do something to support these people and help these people out.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, the thing in this entire debate speaks more to than just the fish plant workers. The weekend before last, I was out in the community where I live and I was talking to a fellow who has fished for his entire life. They are not catching the fish that they once caught. The lobsters are not there. The crab price is down. So, what we are confronted with right now is the two sides of this. What we are debating tonight and what we will debate again on Thursday is the fish plant sector, that part of it, but we also have to tackle the other side of it.

As already has been said here today, the youth of today are not interested in the fourteen week job-sharing type of arrangement. If we want to look to the cause of it, as much as anything else, we have technology. The children of today are exposed to so much more than they were fifteen or twenty years ago.

When we came out of school at my age, and the fish plant was there, you did not have to look elsewhere, the work was there; but, through the education system and the technology that we have brought in place, we have exposed the children to so much though cable and so on and so forth that they see the world as an option now. Once upon a time, for someone to travel from here to China to work, for example, in my previous profession as teaching, it would have been almost unheard of, but now it is done regularly.

Just as we have the youth in the education system, we have the youth of all streams now who are looking to the world as their workplace. If we cannot provide them with a steady opportunity that they want to work on a regular basis and have a regular income and be able to avail of all of the extras that are at their fingertips, then they are not going to avail of those types of things.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, what we have to take a look at is, we have to decide what it is we are going to do in the future of this Province in terms of sustaining the fishery and having a rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we are to have the fishery involved in that, and if we are to have our youth coming and working in the fish plants - because I do believe that the fish plants will be there. I believe that there will be a fish plant on the Burin Peninsula, and I look to the day when the people who go to work on that fish plant will be able to work for forty or forty-five weeks of the year, as opposed to having this cloud hanging over them all the time as to: this year we are getting twenty weeks; I wonder what it is going to be next year.

If we can strengthen the industry so that the people who are in it have a viable living, then that is where we need to get.

I guess also, Mr. Speaker, if we are to take a look at what we are proposing in amending this act, one of the first statements, I believe, in it, is to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. First and foremost, that was the intent of the act and we have to ensure that we take every measure to protect the resources that we have so that we can provide for the future. It is something like the sustainability act that we are taking a look at. If we want to look at something as being what we did in the past for the future, we need look no further than the fishery.

I can remember one thing that my brother-in-law, who passed away a few years ago - he was a cook on one of the draggers - there was a saying that he used over and over. He said: One day we will pay for what we are doing.

We won't pay, as in him working on the dragger at the time, but he referred to the youth, that the youth would pay for what was being done.

Sometimes, when you hear people talk about the fishery as it was, let's face it, Mr. Speaker, some of the people who were in the industry - we can look to the foreigners, but some of our own people were some of the largest culprits in this.

We can talk about the fish companies, the plant - I worked in Marystown when boats would arrive with fish up on the deck, that had been sitting on the deck for two or three days and had become soft - the cod. What happened to it? It just got dumped over the side, in lots of cases, or it went into fish meal. My brother-in-law used to say, in his many trips on the boats, he continuously said that one day we will pay for this.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I guess what we are looking at in the amendments to this act, I certainly would not want to go down in the future as saying that we did not do everything possible to protect the future for our children. If nothing else comes out of this, in this act we are attempting to strengthen it so that not two or three people can have total control of this.

I think anybody would say they know that FPI have shipped out fish. The second thing is that if they could take it to China and process it then they certainly would; but we, in amending this act, I certainly hope that we can strengthen things to the point that somewhere in the future we will not have to say that we did not do whatever was possible to protect the future for the people, the youth of our Province. As I have already said, I certainly think that if rural Newfoundland and Labrador is to exist in the future, fish has to be a part of it.

We were talking about, just before the House, what rural Newfoundland means. If you have people who come to the Province as tourists, one of the things that they certainly like to do is, they like to go outside of the Avalon and look at what our rural parts are like, what our people are like, and they want to sample what we have been historically known for - the fish in our waters - and we have to ensure that is there for the future. I certainly hope that in this act we are making one move further to ensuring that is in place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Before the Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Speaker would like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon five member from the 1^st Vanier Cubs. The Cub members are accompanied by their leaders: Paul Grant, David Baldwin, Paul Molloy and Percy Delaney.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, I think, twenty minutes are allocated to speakers on this matter but I understand my learned friends - my learned friends, and all my friends in the House, on both sides - I know there was somebody complaining earlier they were not called learned friends; we are all learned friends here - have agreed to give me more than the allotted time on this important piece of legislation, Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

As I had said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period, this is the third time in four years that this House has been asked to consider amendments to the FPI Act, and there is good reason why that is the case. The reasons go way back, I suspect, to the beginning of FPI, back in 1983, with the Fisheries Restructuring Act of 1983. That act acknowledged an agreement to establish FPI, the new FPI, out of the ashes, as it were, of eight significant Newfoundland and Labrador fish companies.

Just to remind people who were involved at the time, there were: Fishery Products Limited - the old Fishery Products Limited - the Lake Group Limited, John Penny & Sons, North Atlantic Fisheries Limited - remember them? - Triton Seafoods Limited, Great Harbour Deep Seafoods, and the Riverport Scallop Fleet, as well as T.J. Hardy Limited out of Port aux Basques, with one, two, three, four, five operations.

The Fisheries Restructuring Act was a result of recommendations coming out the Kirby Task Force which talked about the necessity of a restructuring of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. At the same time, there was a restructuring going on in Nova Scotia.

The problems of that day were not unsimiliar to now. There was, as someone said, more fish around, but there was a lot of debt around. That was one of the big problems; there was a lot of debt around. There was instability as a result of that. There was the usual cutthroat marketing which has been endemic to Newfoundland fisheries over the years. The debt did not allow these companies to deal with the fluctuations, whether they be in market price, whether they be in currency exchange - because this is nothing new; it is nothing new to have currency fluctuations, as some previous speakers have said. The currency has fluctuated up and down. I remember when John Diefenbaker pegged the dollar at ninety-two cents. I think it is only myself and the Minister of Fisheries who remember that. I see some other members who might have been old enough to remember that. There have been currency fluctuations going on for many years. These are normal things that companies have to deal with.

We hear today the difficulties of Fishery Products being described as having to do with things like fluctuating markets, the competition from China, and all of those things, but, you know, if I may, I will quote an individual named Bruce Keating who has acted for some eight years as a business adviser to companies such as Ford Motor Company, Philips, British Petroleum, ChevronTexaco, Heineken, as well as a number of large private equity houses. This is a gentleman from Corner Brook - who is an accountant, I understand - and he just wrote an article in Atlantic Business Magazine and in it he talks about the problems that we have heard from FPI about their current financial situation. He says this: The company has faced genuine currency competition and other challenges but, as analysts point out, these problems are not unique to FPI. Every other export-based Canadian company must deal with the appreciating dollar, absorb escalating energy costs, and face up to the pressures of low-cost competitors like China, whether in furniture, apparel or fish. For these pressures that are unique to fishing, it would be naive in the extreme for the current leadership team to suggest they were caught unaware. Anybody in the industry would be happy to tell you the fishing business is ruthless, with upturns and downturns. Fish stocks are precarious. Quotas are moving (inaudible). Prices are unpredictable.

He goes on to say that the real failings here of FPI have been self-inflicted, that they adopted an aggressive strategy that plundered the balance sheet it inherited, alienated its key community and employee partners, and says 2006 might just have been a bad year. Instead, it is a deep crisis that threatens the existence of FPI.

That is Bruce Keating from the West Coast, from Corner Brook. He has written a very perceptive article, and I would commend it to all hon. members because it does set the stage for what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Not only is FPI suffering from these self-inflicted wounds, but we have other fish companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Daley Brothers, I will not suggest, is the tip of the iceberg, but it is not necessarily untypical. There may be other companies with similar problems.

The problems were identified back in 1983, which were sought to be eliminated by the creation of FPI, and that is the high amount of debt that these fishing companies were carrying. Daley Brothers could not, would not, have gone under if it did not have the debt that it had to the Bank of Nova Scotia that it was unable to pay; because the fluctuations that take place, obviously, are fluctuations that are going to happen in the fishing industry. If you are in the business, you have to understand that is the case.

One of the things that is happening today is something that was happening several years ago. Reference has been made to the all-party committee, the public consultations on FPI that occurred back in 2002. I am going to make some reference to that, because I participated, along with a number of others in this House, in that very important committee, because what had happened - there were two things that happened prior to 2002.

Number one, in 1999, there was a proposal that has been caused the NEOS proposal. It was a proposed takeover of FPI. A group of investors and fish company owners went to the government and said: We would like you to do something for us. We would like you to remove the 15 per cent ownership restriction on FPI because we want to buy the company.

This was the Barry Group. It involved Clearwater and Risley. It involved an Icelandic corporation. I do not know if, at that time, Sanford from New Zealand was involved or not. This group of investors wanted to buy the company, take it over, and get the Province to remove the 15 per cent share restrictions so that they could take over the entire company and run it as they saw fit.

The fear was, at the time, Mr. Speaker, and it was raised - it took a while for the government of the day, I have to say, to say no, but they did - was that these investors had their own designs about the future of FPI, and that these designs were not compatible with the needs and interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that there was an interest in the marketing arm in the U.S., because the Icelanders had a great deal of interest in that. There was an interest by Clearwater in certain of the assets having to do with scallops and the Riverport Scallop Fleet and other aspects of the company. There was an interest by the Barry Group in taking over the Newfoundland plants, essentially a breakup of the FPI that was built, starting in 1983, to try and deal with some of the structural problems in the Newfoundland fishery of the day.

That was rejected, they went off, and that was that. That was that until about 2001, when there was another attempt and this one was successful. It was a hostile takeover of the Board of Directors of FPI, done legally through the stock market in accordance with securities legislation, and we were all aware of what was going on. There was very little legally that could be done about it. The shareholders had the right to decide who the board of directors were. I remember the Premier saying that, with his corporate law hat on, saying that there is nothing that we can do; the shareholders have a right to decide who the directors should be, although we did not necessarily like who they were going to be.

What happened then was that they decided they could convince particularly institutional shareholders that they could run the company better than Vic Young and the then current board, and that they could return, or increase, shareholder value, get into double-digit returns, save all the communities and plants, and do a wonderful bang-up job.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite has happened, because the shares which were trading at $9 or $10 at that time - in 2001 it was taken over - they were giving dividends. They had made $46 million during the 1990s, in the worst time of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. The groundfish moratorium had been in effect for almost all of the 1990s and yet this company had increased its share value from $5 to $9 - that was trading in the open market - they had made money, and they had gone back to giving an annual dividend.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the reverse take place. As, again, Mr. Hastings points out, the first impact of the change of control was the cost of the battle itself, $9.3 million. Then, they added another $1.9 million because of the failed reverse takeover of Clearwater Fine Foods. Do you remember that? There was a planned reverse takeover by FPI of Clearwater Fine Foods. That cost $1.9 million. They had another $2.9 million written off because of a failed marketing agreement with P.E.I.-based Polar Foods, a company later investigated by the P.E.I. Auditor General. They had a whole series of disasters, Mr. Speaker, not the least of which was, last summer, when they managed to convince the majority of this House, including this hon. member, to support their plan to raise money by an income trust. They convinced the unions and the communities - except for Harbour Breton - that they had a plan that was going to return cash and investment to the tune of $100 million that was going to save the company, guarantee that these communities would stay alive, and invest significant sums of money in the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, they did not do it, Mr. Speaker. They got the approval. It was controversial. Most people in the Opposition, except for the Member for Grand Bank and myself, voted against it, but there were enough people who voted for it to allow it to pass. The Premier himself voted against it, but it went through the House and what happened? Nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing. They did not go ahead with their planned income trust.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ralph Goodale (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Don't blame it on Ralph Goodale. They could have been out way ahead of Ralph Goodale. If they were serious that they could raise $100 million, and they wanted to get their hands on $100 million, they did not have to wait until September until Mr. Goodale made his excuse for them.

The reality is - and it has been suggested again, Mr. Speaker - that there was not $100 million there, that they were grossly overestimating the value of the American marketing arm, and that there was not $100 million to be had. Again, it has been said recently, it is like saying you have a house that is worth $100,000 but I will sell you the front room for $250.

That seems to be an exaggeration, perhaps, but that is the kind of concern that people have raised about that particular deal, that it did not actually work, that it could not work and it was never going to work.

So, Mr. Speaker, the promises that were made were never fulfilled and we are back where we were back in 2001. When this new group of people took over, they made a whole series of promises to the people of the Province as part of their public relations campaign in May of 2001. What happened? By Christmas, Mr. Speaker, they had reneged on their plans. By Christmas they were announcing layoffs in Marystown and they failed miserably in meeting the commitments that they had made in 2001, to the point, Mr. Speaker, when we had our all-party committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of Fisheries, when we had the all-party committee - and for those who were not listening this afternoon, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was the Chair of the committee. The then Member for Burin-Placentia West, Mary Hodder; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member for Bay of Islands; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and the current Minister of Transportation and Works, the Member for the Straits & White Bay North, that is the committee that went around the Province in late January and February of 2002.

I want to just tell you what the committee found when it went around the Province. These are some observations that the committee made from what it heard. This sounds very familiar today, but these were the observations. There was a widely-held view that communities and FPI workers had lost trust in the company's board of directors and executive. Now, this is six or eight months after the new board took over. This view seemed to have commenced with the company's decision to reduce profit sharing in December, 2001. Trust was further eroded with the announcement of the groundfish restructuring plan, which included a workforce reduction. While an FPI representative noted at the first consultation meeting in Marystown that the groundfish proposal was withdrawn, and apologized for not properly presenting a groundfish modernization plan, this did not reduce the anger, mistrust and loss of confidence in the company as expressed by many workers, private citizens and community representatives. Now, listen to this: This was particularly evident in the communities of Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton.

Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what? Here we are, four years later, and the communities of this Province that have the highest lack of trust in FPI and its board of directors and management, if it really exists, are the people in the communities of Fortune, Marystown and Harbour Breton.

We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where this company and its new board of directors have the control of the board, they have the control of the shares, and yet nobody trusts them. People do not believe that what they say needs to be done is what needs to be done, and they not prepared to accept the leadership of FPI at its word. They are not prepared to work with them to try and find a solution, because they do not trust the promises that are made along the way. So, what do we have? We have a failed FPI. We have a public purpose private corporation created in 1983 out of an enormous amount of government money, and we have the numbers here. Back in 1983 there was $252 million put into the creation of FPI. In 1987, when it was privatized - a move, by the way, that was opposed by the NDP. I even have a press release here from Peter Fenwick. He might not agree with it today, but Peter Fenwick said in 1987 that the NDP was totally opposed, and wrote a letter to Premier Peckford telling him how opposed he and the NDP were to the privatization of FPI. In fact, not only did he do that; on April 15, 1987, when the shares were all sold, raising $188 million, he issued a public warning to the new shareholders of FPI: Beware that the government should move, or could move, and take over control of FPI.

That was opposed in 1987, but FPI was then created as a private corporation and a lot of things changed. Some of the things, by the way, that are being proposed today by certain people were in the original act. The original act was actually a recognition of the agreement dealing with the corporate reorganization of FPI, and there was a series of restrictions on the operations of FPI. The board of directors was appointed, as spelled out here. Here is the board of directors in 1983: Each board of directors of both the company and the holding company would have eleven members: five members appointed by the Government of Canada, three appointed by the Government of Newfoundland, one appointed by the Bank of Nova Scotia, one to be selected by employee shareholders, and the Chairman, who will also be the Chief Executive Officer of the company, to be appointed jointly by both governments.

That was the structure in 1983, eleven people. Five were appointed by the Government of Canada, three by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Eight of the eleven were appointed by the two governments. That was the structure in 1983.

When it was privatized in 1987, all of that was gone and the only condition was that the majority of directors had to be resident in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not a new provision, that the majority should be here. The new provision in the amendments proposed today is that there has to be thirteen, but there were significant restrictions on the corporate decisions. Even with five directors from Canada, and five directors appointed, three by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, plant closures - get this, now - plant mergers, mechanization or trawler transfers resulting in significant permanent change in employment in excess of 100 people, or one-half of the workforce, as the case may be, associated with any single plant location would be subject to the approval of both governments.

Both governments had to approve any change in 100 people's employment. In the event that one of the governments opposed the action contemplated, then the government opposing the action shall assume the additional costs associated with the continuing of the existing level of operations. Such costs, including the level of loss to the company, to be determined by reference to a firm of chartered accountants.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time under Standing Order 46 has expired.

MR. HARRIS: As I mentioned when I stood - you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker - there has been agreement that I will not be restricted to the twenty minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

The member may continue speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From my learned friends opposite, and over here.

Mr. Speaker, that was the structure back in 1983. In 1987, when it was privatized - there were also, by the way, certain specific listed plants that had to be operated. The original restructuring of the fishery back in 1983 said that the plants at Harbour Breton, Gaultois, Ramea and St. Anthony were obliged to be kept open. They had to keep open those plants for the foreseeable future. Specific plants were regarded as being ‘undefilable', could not be affected.

That was back in 1983. In 1987 it was privatized, and $185 million was achieved from the privatization. The Bank of Nova Scotia got all of its money back. The Government of Canada got $118 million, which was a $50 million shortfall from their investment, and the Province received $49 million, a $17 million shortfall. The government initially left in $17 million but, by its participation, went about the creation of FPI.

FPI is a company that was there as a result of the need to stabilize the industry and to create a flagship industry for the Province. That was recognized by the all-party committee in 2002. We, as a committee, recommended to the House, and the House eventually brought forward recommendations that would ensure, first of all, that we strengthen the 15 per cent ownership share, because there was some concern that the original plan of the NEOS group to take over control of the company one way was going to be achieved by another way, and we brought about change to strengthen that to ensure that all forms of equity were involved.

We also amended the act to include a preamble. That preamble sets out the purposes of the act. I think it is true - the Leader of the Opposition who chaired the committee can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was my draft of the preamble for the purposes that was either essentially adopted, with a few small modifications, but I put together a preamble that included the elements that are now in the current act setting forth the purposes of the act, recognizing the important role of the fishery in the Province, to continue the company as a widely-held company, acting as a flagship for the industry, whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, those purposes that are written into the act try to define and capture the spirit of the act that we believed was missing in what we were seeing from the board of directors at that time. What we have seen since that time is even worse because we do not see, at this point - or we, as a party, do not see - any agenda of FPI as it exists today as to ensure the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province; either they do not have that in mind or, by their actions over the past number of years, they showed that they are incapable of fulfilling that object.

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is a series of amendments that do strengthen the act; there is no doubt that they do. They strengthen the act by ensuring that the board is large enough, with a majority of resident Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to have a greater opportunity, at least, that the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be felt. That is all. That is as far as we have been able to go. The issues that are contained in the amendments put forth try to ensure that board will be more likely to carry out the purposes that are spelled out in the act.

Secondly, the change to try to ensure that there be less of an opportunity for this company to do something contrary to the purposes of the act are controlled to some extent. The sale of the business is restricted further by dealing with, "...a substantial portion of an undertaking, property, assets or business operation which relates to or carries on, in whole or in part, the harvesting, processing or marketing of seafood."

I think that provision, 7.(1) of the proposed section, is strong enough to deal with part of its undertaking, whether it is the marketing part, whether it is a particular plant in Danvers or anywhere else, or part of its operation. I happen to think that it is stronger. For greater security, it seems that their plants in Newfoundland have a stronger protection. That is one thing that would at least clarify the concerns that were raised last year when FPI told the Province that, as far as they were concerned, they could go and do this income trust and sell 40 per cent of the U.S. assets anyway, but they were just coming to the House because they believed they needed some greater certainty.

The privative clause, which we had before, is strengthened to some extent. The desire or the need to get information is spelled out, that the Minister of Fisheries can have information with respect to the operation of the companies. It seems that, as of now, we do not have that kind of ability. The Minister of Fisheries tried for many months to get information from FPI as to what the state of affairs was.

Are these amendments enough to make a difference? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I kind of think not. I think we are kind of rearranging the deck chairs here. I will not say the Titanic, but we are sort of rearranging the deck chairs on this ship called FPI and I do not think necessarily very much is going to change. We have a group who participated in a hostile takeover of the company. Their agenda appears to be hostile to the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We discussed today in Question Period, and numerous Question Periods before, the kind of concerns, issues and controls that we would like to have over FPI. For example, we would like to be able to make sure that the quotas that they have do not end up outside the Province, or processed anywhere else or sold somewhere else. I am going back to 2002 when we grappled with that issue. We grappled with the constitutional issue that was brought before Question Period today. Here is what we said is our recommendation: The committee recommend that government and FPI attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas. In the event the parties cannot reach an acceptable and forceful agreement within a reasonable period, the committee recommends that the FPI Act be amended to include a requirement that all current and future FPI quotas and allocations in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador be harvested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and processed within the Province.

That was what we recommended. The reason we did that, we were grappling with actually putting legislation in place, but John Crosbie, on behalf of FPI, came to the committee, phoned members of the committee at various times of the day and night, and said: Look, how about we do this? We will give you an enforceable agreement. You don't have to pass the legislation.

That agreement never took place, and those who were closer to the action in the minister's office, maybe the Leader of the Opposition can tell us what efforts were made to try and get that agreement. It never happened and, of course, we have never seen any amendment before this House. There was some serious concern that we did not really have the constitutional power to do it, and it was suggested that an agreement that would be enforceable would be better than legislation that might be challenged in the court, and I tend to agree with that. I did agree with it, because this committee's report was a unanimous report from all three parties and we got behind that measure.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker: If FPI were under the control and management of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through their government, I do not see any reason why we could not have an enforceable agreement with respect to the quotas and what would happen to them. That is something that could be achieved by, whether you call it the nationalization of FPI, the taking over the control of ownership of FPI, acquiring the controlling interest of FPI, whichever way you want to do it, that is one of those things that cannot be achieved necessarily by legislation and by amendment in this House. Maybe we will be debating - I would not be at all surprised if we had one coming forth from the Official Opposition, so we will get to debate that on Thursday, but that is one of the issues that we would like to have some control over.

Another issue - and the Minister of Fisheries talked about it a few months ago - cross-subsidy, that we have a profitable arm of this company, the marketing side, and that could be used to subsidize the Newfoundland and Labrador operations.

Mr. Speaker, it is not always one way, by the way. This is a company that operates on what is called vertical integration. Sometimes the marketing is up and the processing is down. Sometimes it is the other way around. So, a company like FPI can operate in both spheres and even out the cycles. That is what the oil companies do. They have what they call the upstream and the downstream. Sometimes they are making lots of money on the drilling and exploration side, and production side, and not making so much money on the retail side, and sometimes the cycle is reversed. Well, this is the same kind of operation, Mr. Speaker, that we have both a marketing arm and a production arm. At the moment, I think both sides are on the down slide but it looks like most of the problems of FPI are self-inflicted.

Cross-subsidy, how do you do that? Can this government force FPI to cross-subsidize? I never really believed so. I heard the Minister of Fisheries offer it as a possible solution, but I never really believed that you could tell a private company: Here is what you are going to do with the profit that you make in one division; you are going to actually use that to subsidize your losses in another.

Certainly, I will give this to the Minister of Fisheries, it identified - he put it on the table - one of the problems that we have with FPI: that we have, at this point, a useful, profitable, important marketing arm but we can't - I do not believe we can - force them to do it without the risk of interfering so much with a private corporation that we might as well take it over.

I understand how the market works, Mr. Speaker. I may be called a socialist from time to time but I think if we are going to let the market work freely - sometimes you have to let the market work freely - if it is something that is important enough to be controlled and operated under rules determined by government then you can go ahead and take it over and justify doing that. It is a lot easier to justify taking over FPI as a result of a need to restructure your industry than to stand up above and hopefully, by remote control, somehow or other, through legislation, tell this company how they are going to operate even though they are raising money in the stock market and they are dealing with the whole private enterprise approach to doing business.

As I said today, when it comes right down to it, if you are going to be interfering with this company - you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb - if you are going to interfere a little bit and get blamed for it, and get all the blame for it from Bay Street, the investors and everybody who wants to comment on it, then you might as well do something that is going to be effective.

I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments that are here before us are stop-gap measures. They are something that are being done now because something needs to be done now. We need to restore some confidence that this government is interested and concerned enough to take this kind of action because it wants to find a solution, and we want to make sure that before those with the contrary agenda to Newfoundland and Labrador actually have their way with this company one way or another, that something is done, hopefully, to stop it from happening.

I hope that the strengthening measures, particularly with respect to getting rid of part of your assets, are going to be put in place quickly to prevent whatever plans were afoot. Secondly, I hope that the new provisions with respect to the directors can actually control or prevent the kind of concentration of control and power that we have seen happening since the new directors have taken over, and in particular since the Chairman and CEO, Derrick Rowe, is gone. This company now appears to be run, by all accounts, by George Armoyan, John Risley and Rex Anthony. The designs of these three people - I do not know what Rex Anthony's designs are, but, I mean, it has been clear from the beginning that Mr. Risley and, by reputation at least, Mr. Armoyan has an expertise in breaking up companies or doing something to hopefully increase shareholder value for a sale or passing them over or, if need be, breaking them up.

That is the fear that we have, because we have, in FPI, at least two things. We have, obviously, an expectation that the critical mass of FPI, in terms of operating fish plants, the fish processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, can sustain these communities and provide some stability. Secondly, we have a marketing arm that took twenty years to build up, twenty years to build up. The international arm of FPI is what has sustained the company through the period of the 1990s, what assisted in keeping the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador going during that period to the extent that they were able to do so, but it also provided a marketing arm not only for FPI products in Newfoundland and Labrador but for the products of a lot of other companies. That is something that is the strength of FPI and it would be a shame, Mr. Speaker - and that is why I have raised questions that I raised over the last number of weeks when there was talk about what happens to the Fortune plant, or what might happen to other operations, that the government was engaged in some sort of mode of assisting what I thought was the plan of the FPI directors: get rid of the Newfoundland operations and keep what they think is the valuable operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the only role the government was playing was essentially helping them out of their troubles by trying to find another operator for Fortune or Harbour Breton, or as the case may be.

There is nothing wrong with the government doing its best to try and keep these communities alive, don't get me wrong, but in the absence of a greater plan that said here is this valuable asset that can play a significant role not only in the restructuring of our fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador but also perhaps to help solve some of the current problems of the day in marketing - because we still have those problems, Mr. Speaker. We have some operators who are operating cutthroat to each other in the markets, which is not a new feature of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, at the same time driving the prices to harvesters down and expecting plant workers, such as the Daley's were doing up in Anchor Point - they were getting them to take a vote to lower their wages by $2 an hour so they could stay in business. Well, what kind of a business is that, Mr. Speaker? We are only going to stay in business - we are cutthroating each other in markets over there and then we are making the harvesters pay because we have driven the price of crab down, and we are going to make the plant workers pay by accepting a job for $2 an hour less. What kind of a fishery is that?

If that is the kind of fishery we have, there is a serious problem. If that company that is doing that is also operating with so much debt that it cannot manage to survive in the fluctuations that occur then we have a serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, how do we deal with the problems that we have? We are worried about quotas; we need to have control over them. We are worried about the potential for cross-subsidy, and we want to make sure that we do not lose the advantage of this marketing arm. We need a solution that tries to deal with some of those problems.

I heard an individual on the Fisheries Broadcast this afternoon, Marlon Quinton - the Member for Bonavista South would know him well - he talked about the problems in the fishery. He is a very thoughtful individual. I have been thinking about this for months and months and months, he said. We have to do something that assures that we have an orderly market for our fish and our fish products, that they can be marketed wherever they are marketed, the U.S. or elsewhere, and we can be assured that the price that is being obtained in the market is the best possible price for everybody, and that price can be passed onto the harvesters.

That is what has to happen, Mr. Speaker. We have to get it - the price now is ninety-two cents, everybody says. I talked to a fisherman on the weekend, in Central Newfoundland, on the Northeast Coast, and he was saying that ninety-two cents a pound, that might be the price, but there were people offering forty cents or fifty cents more under the table. If the price is ninety-two cents, the price is ninety-two cents. If the price is $1.40, well, the price should be $1.40 and that is what people should get. We have to find a way to get to that, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the solution involves ensuring that we have a single market for all Newfoundland and Labrador fish products so we do not get this cutthroat competition, so the true market price can be determined, and that market price can be passed on to the harvesters without all of this shilly-shallying under the table, undercutting the union, undercutting collective action, undercutting the ability of fish harvesters to make a living for themselves and their crew members.

These are some of the problems that we have, Mr. Speaker, and the problems do not begin and end at FPI. I see this measure that we are dealing with today as a stop-gap measure, some amendments that I probably would have called, last week, modest, modest amendments to the act. At the same time they are modest amendments to the act but they are amendments that are strong enough to attract the disappointment, I guess, or whatever Mr. Risley said he was - very unhappy with the changes in the act - and probably also attract comments by Bay Street, the Financial Post and the usual crowd in Ontario, saying that this government is unfriendly to business and the Government of Newfoundland is unfriendly to investors.

We need to take the bull by the horns, Mr. Speaker. We have a bit of - I do not want to mix the metaphors here - a tiger by the tail here in FPI so we have to do something to try and get it under control, but I do not think these measures, in the long term, are going to do the job, and those measures that are needed to be done, we maybe cannot do without taking over the company all together.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say that we will support these measures here at second reading. We will consider very carefully the amendments that are brought forward. We do not intend to bring any forward ourselves because, as I have said many times, I think the solution lies beyond amendments to the Fishery Products Act unless it involves taking controlling interest. The solutions to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery are not all going to be solved in amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador act. I say this, too, that the solutions for rural Newfoundland and Labrador are not all going to be found in the fishery either. The fishery is extremely important, but every community in Newfoundland and Labrador that survived on the fishery for the last hundreds of hundreds of years cannot survive solely on the fishery today. There need to be other solutions.

I said to the Minister of Energy, who is also responsible for agriculture, I read a very interesting analysis of rural Newfoundland at the turn of the century, and this author was talking about why it was we did not have a very strong farming community in Newfoundland and Labrador, why we did not have a big agriculture industry, and the answer of this scholar was very fascinating. The reason, he said, that there wasn't a very strong agriculture industry on the Island of Newfoundland was because people were making too much money in the fishery. It was too easy. The money to be made in the fishery could be made much easier and much quicker in the fishery than they could in farming, because you had to farm and you had to tend your plants and clear the land, weed, do all the things that involved a long process before you got any return on your investment. You could make a lot of money fast in the fishery. You made it quick and the work was actually easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: That person didn't fish.

MR. HARRIS: The work was actually easier - easier than farming, according to this author - and that was, people could make money faster in the fishery.

That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because what the former Minister of Fisheries said this afternoon was that they were not going to have young people willing to work in the fishery and in the plants for very low wages, for $10,000 earned income a year, not when the opportunities are available elsewhere. So, we have to find solutions for rural Newfoundland that are beyond just the fishery. The fishery has to have better jobs and more value added. These are solutions of the company but we also have to see other things happening in rural Newfoundland, and we see some. You know, when you see the nature yogurt that is being produced out on the Port au Port Peninsula, Good Natured yogurt, this is an industry that is producing a fabulous product Made Right Here, as they used to say, in Newfoundland and Labrador, using industrial milk, manufacturing a product that is top quality, sells for a good price - good industrial jobs in rural Newfoundland.

That is just one example of the kind of things that have to be done, but it has to be done on the basis of a strong commitment to rural Newfoundland, a willingness to invest lots of start-up funds and support, but also to make the kind of commitment that it takes for our fishery to be restructured and get on a sounder footing. If we are willing to make the kind of investment that we are prepared to make in the establishment of the Lower Churchill on a go-it-alone basis, the kind of investment that the government is willing to make to participate in the offshore oil and gas by having an equity share in participation, if we are willing to see these industries as something that we should participate in, we should also be willing to play some role in assisting in the modernization and development of a fishery that people can rely on.

Throughout the 1990s, I remember the former, former, former, former Minister of Fisheries, John Efford, talking from 1992 on about the fishery of the future. He talked about it. We heard all kinds of talk. The fishery of the future was the phrase of the hour for about five years but I never, ever, did see anybody define what the fishery of the future was going to be. The fishery of the future, if you go back to 1992 and say what was it going to be like in 2006, I do not think we have any greater insight from all of that talk about the fishery of the future than we have right now.

What we need right now, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment by this government to go beyond what is happening here today before this House in terms of the FPI Act, in terms of the changes that are being made to the structure to attempt to have some control over FPI in a situation where it is impossible to run that company as a public purpose private corporation with the tools at our disposal in the Legislature of this Province given the nature of the equities market, given the nature of private corporations, and given the fact that FPI is now 100 per cent privately owned.

I will support the amendments that are now before this House. I will listen carefully, and my colleague and I will consider the amendments that are brought forward by the Opposition or anybody else who brings them forward, but I will say that there has to be some very aggressive action on the part of government to consider what needs to be done to ensure that the assets of FPI, whether they be the Newfoundland and Labrador assets or whether they be the international assets, and in particular the marketing assets that have been built up over the last twenty years, do not go out of the control and out of the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will be attending the conference tomorrow - conference, whatever it is called, meeting, seminar - to hear what everybody as to say, because the solution to the problems of the fishery must come not just from the people in this Legislature but must come from the participants in the industry on all sides of the industry, but must, in the end, be led by a government that is willing to make the commitment to do what has to be done to make those solutions work. So, I look forward tomorrow to hearing what others have to say and offer my insight; my insight being that the restructuring of the fishery today is just as important as the restructuring of the fishery back in 1983, and the participation of the government, both federal, provincial, and potentially the debt holders, the banks, is as important today as it was then, but nothing short of a significant restructuring that can meet some of the concerns that were raised here today: get control over those quotas that FPI has, ensure that the marketing arm survives and is strengthened and can be used to market as much Newfoundland and Labrador product as possible, and have some greater stability in the industry in the Province. These are the three aims that I see being sought for, and hopefully some plan can come forward to having it achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand tonight to make a few remarks on Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

As somebody said earlier, I cannot say that I am happy to stand here tonight and take part in such a debate but, representing a fishing district, Mr. Speaker, I would not be anywhere else, I can tell you. I would be much happier, I think, if I was probably sitting at home tonight and listening to a similar debate that might be taking place probably in another forum. I think of the House of Commons probably talking about another topic, maybe talking about custodial management or foreign fishing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - or some topics along those lines that would give people out there some hope; because, no matter what happens with this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be no more fish go into Harbour Breton. There is going to be no more fish go into Fortune or Bonavista or Port Union.

What we are doing is firming up a company that we feel has some obligation with what they do to provide some services and a livelihood, if you would, to people in Newfoundland and Labrador, in outport Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we stand here speaking and we take turns from one side of the House to the other, I feel, even though it is unparliamentary, that we would probably be better served if we had somebody like Mark Small be able to come here and address us and tell us about some of the problems within the fishing industry, listen to the real fishermen, the real plant workers, and the people who are out there today who are going through the turmoil in their lives that we can only imagine.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking, as I was listening to the Leader of the New Democratic Party speak, that if I had stayed working with FPI then I would have had twenty-six years' seniority with them today. I went to work with them back in 1979, went to work with Nickerson's, a company called H. B. Nickerson & Sons, which people might know. I think the Leader of the NDP referred to it as one of the companies, Newfoundland - what was the name of the company?

MR. HARRIS: North Atlantic Fishery.

MR. FITZGERALD: North Atlantic Fishery was the name at the time that they - they did not go bankrupt, I say to members present. They did not go bankrupt, Nickerson's did not, North Atlantic Fishery, but they became part of the five companies that formed Fishery Products International.

I cannot help but think back on what the District of Bonavista South was like pre-1992. You talk to some of the people who went to work in Port Union - 1,200 people, I say to members present - 1,200 people went to work in Port Union. Seventeen draggers employing over 255 trawlermen landed in Port Union. Mr. Speaker, the taxi business - if you wanted a job, you could either go to work in the fish plant or you could go and get a taxi licence and become a taxi driver. It was unbelievable, the amount of work and the money that was being made by people who went through the doors of that plant and got off those trawlers in Port Union.

In 1992, 1,200 jobs disappeared from the plant, not counting the trawlermen, the 255 trawlermen. Some of them found another job, but not all of them, I say to members present. They worked fifty-two weeks of the year. Move over to Bonavista, a plant that worked forty to fifty weeks of the year, 300 to 320 people went to work there. Move up the road to Charleston, a seasonal operation, work whenever work was provided. Sometimes they worked twenty weeks of the year, more times they worked the full year, depending on what product they could get to process. Mr. Speaker, over 2,000 jobs disappeared from the District of Bonavista South.

Sometimes I feel like we are being lost in the shuffle, I say, Premier. Sometimes I feel like we are being lost in the shuffle, with so much happening now in other places, because I can tell you that the District of Bonavista South has not revived from the closures that happened in the fishery in 1992.

I spoke with the local garage. Anybody who knows the physical location of the plant in Port Union will know that the service garage that was there almost formed part of the parking lot. He used to tell me the story of how people would rush into work in the morning and they could not find a place to park. They would drive the car up in front of the garage door, jump out and say, I have a bad ball joint, or I have a bad rear end, just to leave the car there so they would have a place to park and it would not be towed away. That is the kind of money that was on the go, Mr. Speaker.

In some of those communities, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the people left school at a very early age. They found themselves being able to go and access a good job, paying good money, and go to work with mom, dad, a brother and sister in the local fish plant. They would come home for dinner every day and make - today, I think FPI talked about their wage is something like $18 an hour, the average wage in their plants. This is the kind of environment that we were experiencing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the Port Union area.

Mr. Speaker, now those same workers find themselves without a job, without an education, and where are they going to go? The oil sands money might be - Alberta money might be enticing and it might be a great place to go, Mr. Speaker, in order to earn a living, but it is not there for some of those people, I can assure you.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had a call tonight, suppertime - a very disturbing call, actually - from a crewman on a boat fishing out of Bonavista. He said: Roger, I left school at Grade 6. I found it difficult to read and write, so I left school and went fishing. Now, this year, I have lost my job.

I will not name the campus, but he said: I called the College of the North Atlantic to try to take a course to provide me with an opportunity to go up and work in the oil fields. I find it a job to read, and I need this course in order to even be considered for the job.

Mr. Speaker, the way he explained it, he did not know the name of the course but it was something like an MED course that you take before you are allowed to go out and work offshore. His comment was: I was told by the instructor that I couldn't take the course because he didn't have time to teach me to read the test.

I said: That is terrible. I will call back and raise the issue. He said: No, don't bother. I'm not so sure that I even want to do it now because I am going to subject myself to a situation where I have to get you involved or somebody else involved.

I said: I will take it up with the minister. The minister, I am sure, will look into this. He said: No, I don't want to do it because now I might have jeopardized my chances of going there and passing the test.

This is the kind of story, and those are some of the people who are finding themselves now without a job, without an education, and nowhere to turn.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to why we are here, I guess, and why we are debating this particular piece of legislation, I have said on a number of occasions that I have probably spent more time in the boardroom of FPI than anybody else here, having worked with them and having worked out of head office for two winters. I worked in at least twelve of the Fishery Products International plants, Mr. Speaker, including some that no longer exist. I feel every time that I have gone into the boardroom of FPI it is like I am going through a divorce. I have never gone through a divorce, but I know it is expensive, Mr. Speaker. I know that you do not get everything you want. I know that some of the things you lose are some of the things that you cherish and you had hoped that you would get. That is the way I find myself.

I said the same thing to a gentleman from Fishery Products International when we had our latest meeting, which was just two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, where we went. It is a situation where the Town of Bonavista, union representatives from the town have come in, not on an annual basis but almost semi-annually, I would say, Mr. Speaker, at least, begging for something to do, begging for something to process, begging to keep their plant open.

Mr. Speaker, there are probably three things that exist in our communities that we all hold very dear. One is probably the school, the other one is the church, and the other one is your place of employment. For most places in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is the fish plant. Once that fish plant does not provide you with an opportunity to support your family and provide you with a place that you can go to work, Mr. Speaker, that building does not become very important either. That building does not become very important. Then, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the people do not take any pride in the building any more because it does not provide them any benefits, and that is what is fastly happening out in some of our areas, especially in all of our fishing communities. It is troublesome. It is troublesome to know that this way of life is disappearing, Mr. Speaker.

Members talked about the all-party committee that went around the Province. They named who was part of the all-party committee. Mr. Speaker, the theme that we had heard going around in the ten or eleven communities that we went to was not much different than what we are hearing today. The common themes, and I have them listed here, were: to have a government member on the board - members opposite spoke about that earlier tonight - to have more restrictions on Fishery Product International, and the other theme was to have less restrictions on Fishery Products International, because there is a mindset out there that says FPI is no different than other processors here in this Province. You say that they are harvesting a common resource, you say that they are doing something different than other plants, but they are not doing anything different than what Quinlan Brothers are doing, nothing different than what Terry Daley is doing, Bill Barry, and the list goes on. Have community quotas - I think we almost tried that not long ago. It wasn't called community quotas, Mr. Speaker, it was called another name, but the intent was to provide plant workers, especially, with some knowledge and some idea, number one, if they would have a job and, number two, how much work they were going to get, because when they would start work in the beginning of the year they would know exactly what it was that they had to process. Have processing in regions where fish is landed, not trucked out, especially on the Northern Peninsula - it is still common today. Governments should stay out of the private sector and be less intrusive - those were common themes that we had heard as we went around the Province - our government should set up a task force on the future of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, those themes are still very real in the message that we are hearing here today. When we met in the basement of the Paton Building for many nights, I say to members opposite, the same people, the same lawyers, the same legal advice that advised us, as a committee, when members opposite were in government, are the same people who are advising government today, the very same people, Mr. Speaker. At that particular time, the changes that we brought about were to expand the 15 per cent share ownership rule to cover all types of shares, voting and non-voting. It required FPI to maintain its head office here in the Province. We added a privative clause to protective the Province from liability and provide a purpose clause or a preamble specifying the purpose of the FPI Act specifically.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done, what this government has done, what this minister and this Premier have done, is to strengthen up the act. While we all would like to see something in that act spelled out, in Bill 32, that we could get up and wave around and say that there will be nobody else laid off in the fishing industry, and while I would like to see that there, and while I would like to say this is what we did, Mr. Speaker, it is not real, we cannot do it. We cannot do it, while we would like to do it.

We wanted to do that, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and he knows full well and the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we talked about that and we tried to do that when we had the all-party committee, and we were told that we could not do it, it cannot be done, we cannot be that intrusive into a private company.

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to put into the act before that we would not allow any plants to be closed. It could not be done. As much as members opposite would like to stand and say that we do not support this because this should be in the legislation, they are great things to say and it is no doubt that people would say yes, you are right, and I believe that it should be there too, but the best legal advice we could get is that it cannot be done. That is where we find ourselves today.

This act is not the be-all and end-all that solves all the problems with FPI. We will probably be back here in a couple of months time or a couple of years time debating the same thing, or debating another bill on Fishery Products International, but my guess, when you listen to the news and you listen to some of the fishing companies that are now having a problem getting people to go to work, probably in five years time we will not be back debating this particular piece of legislation or another one because it might be a situation, if what is happening now in some of the rural areas continues to happen, it might be difficult to find people to go to work.

That is understandable, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. If somebody has a job then they are not interested in staying where they are in order to work five or six weeks work a year, and when you saw this company, Fishery Products International, the other day, come forward and try to strip union contracts and talk about the amount of money that they were paying - $18 an hour, I think, was the average pay, or the lowest pay when you consider the benefits. Mr. Speaker, you talk to the people out there who are working for those fishing companies and they will tell you, yes, they are making as much or probably more than most people in the fishing industry per hour, a big difference. Look at their salary at the end of the year and you will find that they are not making as much money now as they were making probably ten years ago. That is the difference.

I do not blame them for one minute not to accept a rollback or not to allow the company to strip their contract because, at the end of the day, they are not making any more money, like I said, than they were ten years ago. It is not like they were working full time and the company - I am willing to bet that if Fishery Products International approached the FFAW and said that we are going to now provide you with ten or twelve months work a year, but in order for us provide you with that we need some concessions, I can tell you that there would be concessions given if they could see that, at the end of the year, they could support their families and feed their families and make a wage that was acceptable in order to carry on within the fishing business, but they cannot do that. They cannot do that because of the amount of work that they get. That is why I say that in five years time it will probably look after itself, because the young people who are coming today, who are coming up and graduating school, are not satisfied to go to work at a seasonal job. They are not satisfied to go to work for ten weeks a year, or twelve weeks a year, or fourteen weeks a year, and I don't blame them. I don't blame them, Mr. Speaker. As much as they would like to be able to stay in their own communities, they want some level of comfort to know at least they can go and maintain some kind of a lifestyle, and that is what is not happening. That is what is not happening.

I look forward to tomorrow. Premier, I think it was an excellent idea to get the stake players involved. I think it was an excellent idea, and I am certain that there will be some direction given because, I know in our caucus room, I do not know if we ever had a caucus meeting that we did not talk about the fishing industry. I do not know if we ever had a caucus meeting that some member on this side of the House did not raise concerns about what was happening in their district in relationship to the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, it is the topic that has gotten more time for discussion than any other topic that you can imagine.

Tomorrow, while the stakeholders are going to be there, and obviously there are going to be people there from the fishing sector, people there representing crewmen, people there representing plant workers, municipalities, it will be a forum where people can offer suggestions, and hopefully the federal government will come on side and take some part and help out financially in the initiatives that are being put forward by this government, because this government has not been idle. This government has not sat back and waited for the federal government to come to us. It is quite the opposite. If you look back during the federal election, when the Premier of the day looked to get commitments from the leaders of the three political parties, the fishing industry was not number two on the list. It was not number five. It was number one, because that is what is most important to this Province. We do not need to do anything in the metropolitan area of St. John's and Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, it can look afer itself. If every one of us here tonight, the forty-eight of us, decided that we are going to do something to hold back the economy here in St. John's, we could not do it; but, Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland and Labrador needs the efforts of forty-eight members of this House in order to help them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

Leave has been granted.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I do not need leave. I understand there are other people waiting to speak, and there are other people just as affected by this as I am, but I say to members opposite and I say to members in the House, I am glad that this debate has taken on a somber mood where people have been getting up and have been allowed to speak without interruptions and put forward their concerns and what they are hearing out there.

I compliment every member of the House, that members have acted in that way tonight and allowed this debate to take place, because it does not always happen at 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock in this Chamber, but it shows the seriousness of the issue. Hopefully, by working together and not playing politics with this issue, we all can play some part in bringing about some resolution to those major problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I could say ditto to what Roger has already said, and probably a lot of what the Leader of the NDP has already said, but I have to begin by saying, like Roger, I cannot say it is a pleasure to stand here but the fact is that I have been elected -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he should refer to members of the House by their district or by their title. I know it was an oversight and I ask him for his co-operation.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it is so friendly around here that I thought you would get away with it. It was certainly not to do anything to demean the Member for Bonavista South or the member from any other district.

When I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it has been two times within the last year that I have stood here, along with many others, and have talked about the community or the district that I represent, primarily on the Connaigre Peninsula, and think about Harbour Breton, and because God gave us memories such that in December there might be June roses, you cannot turn off in your mind what it was like a few years ago when things were pretty active in the community.

As the Member for Bonavista South said, there were two or three garages in the community and they were all filled when people had lots and lots of work, but that is not the case now. It is a community that is quite different than what it was in October of 2004. In many, many instances people in the community have lost hope, to the point of being an element of despair and almost to the point, probably, of being cynical about the whole process, even thought you want to be positive about it all.

When I think about FPI - and I do not want to go through all the things that I said before; I just want to do something probably a little bit different in how I see it - I cannot help but reminisce and see how the present Board of Directors of the company of FPI did, indeed, mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they misled the people of Harbour Breton, and they misled the people of Fortune, and probably all of us at the time when we were government, and the government here today, and the people in this House as well, because I always thought and I was always told that your word was your bond, and if somebody told you something you could depend on it, but obviously that was not the case with them.

I honestly believe, and it is just my opinion - sure, the rising dollar has made a problem for them. The crab prices fell two cents on the weekend, not because there was less money for it in the marketplace but because of the rise of the dollar, and there is competition in China, but I honestly believe, personally, that the company did not do what was in the best interest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people in Harbour Breton and Fortune, and the company in particular.

I cannot see how some of the things that they did - they went from a company that owed $75 million to one that owed $300 million, in a matter of a couple of years. Some of the things that they did were questionable: buying a plant in Great Britain, buying new factory freezer trawlers and so on. The thing is, if you cannot afford it, then why would you go out and do it? They did it.

I think about the people, as I said, in Harbour Breton, who have had to leave their families at home and go, and think about the CEO of Fishery Products International getting a severance of $750,000. He struck the deal all right, but for the people of the communities we are talking about there was no deal. The program that you see on TV, they lost all their money, they ended up with practically nothing, but I will leave that for now.

I see this as a different time here that we are talking about FPI, Mr. Speaker. It is like bookends, as I see it. We are talking about FPI today, which is Tuesday. Tomorrow there is a summit, and we come back on Thursday and we conclude with FPI, the act, here.

This afternoon, the Minister of Transportation and Works said something. I was listening. I try to listen as much as I can, but I do not get every word from everybody. What he said really, in a sense, struck home to me. It is a reality, and it is true, that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in the rural part of the Province, has changed to the point that we probably cannot recognize it today from what it was even ten years ago. It has changed. Quotas are not there.

I thought, like, in a sense, probably there will have to be more summits or meetings or town meetings or what have you on the particular subject, because I wrote down, after hearing the minister say it, just the reason why this particular summit should be open to plant workers and fisheries people and the commoners who are out there with most at stake, because Oliver Langdon did not invest $1.5 million into a fishing enterprise, like some of the people did in my district. I am sure every one of you in rural parts of the Province can name off people. I can name off half a dozen people I know. When I go back to Harbour Breton, I can see their boats alongside the wharf, $1.5 million enterprises, and they have no fish to catch. Do you know what is saving most of the people on the South Coast this year, people who have $1 million and $1.5 million enterprises? Lobster. If it was not for lobster, I do not know what they would do.

I heard from one fisherman today, that he decided, because his crab has to be caught by May 31, that he is leaving the lobster, which is really lucrative, and he is out trying to catch his crab because there are another two or three weeks for lobster. He left, I think it was, on Sunday morning, him and his crew, and I think he phoned his wife last night and said we have been fishing since Sunday and we have 2,500 pound of crab at ninety cents a pound, him and three other people who are in the boat.

Just think about that. That is not a very pleasant situation. So, in that sense, I think that, because the nature of the fishery is changing, there has to come a point when there have to be more summits held and people who are directly affected have to come to a room. Now, whether, in a sense, they want to vent their frustration or whatever they want to do, that is understandable, but they have to do it. Listening, as I said, to the Minister of Transportation and Works, when he talked about the fisheries changing and people have to meet it head on, probably they were not ready to do that last year when they talked about raw material sharing. Probably they were not ready, but as the situation becomes more and more severe for them, they probably will be.

Today, while I was trying to get a few notes together, I went to the VOCM Web site. Some people there were in favour of the summit and other people were not in favour, and I just randomly picked out two particular quotes. I want you to listen to them. I do not think for one moment that it is the norm, but it is the thought. This is what the two people said. I did not copy the names because it is just a pen name or whatever. This is what one said: If it is open to the public, mobs of fishermen with nothing better to do will show up and disrupt it unless everyone bends over backwards to accommodate them. The next person said this: It seems to me that we elect politicians to deal with the issues as they arise. Why complicate things with ignorant, uneducated people turning it into a free-for-all?

There is something wrong with that thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get that?

MR. LANGDON: That was on the VOCM Web site, where people would call back and bring these comments.

There is something wrong with that, definitely wrong. There is an attitude problem with whomever would write that. I am not sure where they would come from, what their profession would be, where they live, but there is something really wrong with that type of thinking.

The majority of us in the House, the forty-eight of us, are from rural Newfoundland. I would venture to say that every one of us from the rural part of the Province - and probably in here as well, but for the rural part, I think of my own situation where my mom and dad do not have as much education as I have. I am not bragging about what I have; that is not the point. My mom went to school until she was in Grade 2. She was the oldest of eleven children, and she had to come out and help my grandmother. My dad, I think, went to Grade 5. I do not think they are the exception. I think they are the norm.

When I think of people out there who own fishing enterprises, people who have been the stalwarts of the communities, the rural parts of the communities out there, they do not have formal education. They do not have Ph.D.'s, they do not have M.Ed's, and they do not have BA's, but I will tell you what they do have. They have a bachelor of common sense.

A lot of these people who are in the fishing industry, the people who are there, who have given all of their lives, who have gone out and borrowed, and in a sense want to make sure that their family stays in the fishery and progresses better than they did, all of a sudden they are put into a corner and they do not see any future at all. We wonder why they are frustrated.

The thing about it is, there is no doubt in my mind that these people have to be brought into different groups. You can call it common hall meetings, or you can call it what you like, but I think the fact is that you never do anything to improve the situation until you recognize that you have a problem and you face it. Some of these people, no doubt, will vent frustration. They will, but how do you ever get to finding a solution if you do not allow the person who is affected in this way to be able to come forward, vent his frustration and be able to - more so than vent frustration - be able to put forward something that is positive towards it? That is very important for all of us, I think, to begin with.

I think, really, and all of you know - and I will not name people, but I am no different than any one of you who are here - we can think of people who were in our communities who we went to school with, and I think of my own situation in the community of Seal Cove, in Fortune Bay. Not all people were fishermen. In fact, just a few of them were. They were loggers, and they worked and they were gone for a long time of the year. Now, I can name you guys who went to school with me, and I was the only person who finished in Grade 11 so I can have a reunion, as I said here many times, all by myself. They left at Grade 6 and Grade 7. Were they any less intelligent than me? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. They could have done what I did and much, much more, but they chose, in a sense, a career in life that I did not do, whether it is in the woods or whether it is in the fishing.

I talked to a person last night from the rural part of the Province and he said to me: Oliver, the choice was given to me when I was seventeen years of age. I could have come and taught in a community with a probationer's licence. Those of us who are former teachers would know what that means. You go to summer school for six weeks, get a teaching licence, and then you teach in some rural part of the Province. He said, it was either that or go into the fish plant. He said, I got roughly $90 a month for my teaching salary but, you know, today it has made all the difference. I am not retired and I have a future.

You know, he was saying there were so many other people who chose a way of life different than that. It is like Robert Frost's poem The Road Not Taken. Some of us travel different roads than others, but the thing about it is they have been productive citizens all through their lives and this is what we come up and see today.

When I think of, again, FPI, getting back to them, there is nothing more than to give an individual - I do not care who we are or what we represent or who we represent - there is nothing worse than giving a person false hope, because false hope is worse than none. This is what FPI have done, as far as I am concerned, because I remember last year when - and they were not truthful to government last year, either, when they came in here and they talked about the income trust. I know the agony that people were in, and I know about the Member for Grand Bank. I was just going to call her by her first name again, Mr. Speaker. I remember the agony that she went through, with the fact that she did not want to leave her people, and this is what the Member for Bonavista South did, and all of us. You know, it was a trying time, but what they did say is, if you pass the income trust, as has already been said here tonight, we will reinvest into the communities. We will build new plants. We will expand our employment base here.

Do you know what? Government, like I would have done if I had been in the Government House Leader's position, would have said: Well, that is fine. This is your word. You are going to do that, and you depend on it. What did they do in a few short months afterwards? It had nothing to do with Ralph Goodale. If they wanted to sell their Income Trust, they could have done it, but do you know what? They could not sell income trust because - I will tell you why they could not sell it - they overvalued their company. They were saying that the income trust part of the company was worth about $100 million. Do you know what someone told me? - and they knew what they were talking about, too - they said they would be lucky if they could raise $40 million.

That is the problem, they were not honest with people. Who are the people who are going to suffer as a result of that? It is not the people who are involved in other industry, and I have nothing against those guys. Capitalism, I mean, we all know what it is about; it is to make profit. In the meantime, you treat your employees fair and square and you give them dignity as you go along the road of life to do it, but that has not been done here. That has not been done, and when you see the anguish of these people who are there, then obviously I think there has to be something done.

I say to the Premier - and it is not in a derogatory sense, and none of us are doing that or trying to make political points or whatever - the Premier really did play tough with Hebron-Ben Nevis and ExxonMobil, and they left town. You know, he did take some criticism on the public media on the mainland because of what he did. He didn't back down, though.

I think, in this situation here, there are a couple of amendments that - for example, having somebody from Newfoundland and Labrador that the government would nominate to sit on the board. I think that would be something that - it might seem a bit intrusive, or whatever the case might be, but, you know, in the end I think it would be a real plus because the government, whoever they would appoint, they would appoint somebody, I am sure, who has stature, somebody who knows the industry inside out and would be able to advise government as to really what is happening on that particular board, because I am telling you that they are not looking out for the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not what they are all about. They are about looking after - for them, and that is the way business works. Only recently we saw Air Canada cancel a flight from St. John's to London because they were not making enough profit. They look at their shares and they want to double it, or whatever the case might be, and that is where it is going.

Again, tomorrow, when we talk about the summit, the summit that we are talking about tomorrow is more than FPI, it is more than Daley's, it is more than Quinlan's, it is more than any other fishing industry in Newfoundland Labrador - about the processing companies. It is about people. It is about the thousands of people who own their own boats, anywhere from a sixty-four eleven to an eighteen foot open boat that they go fishing in.

The thing about it is, when you seen the comments on the VOCM Question of the Day like that, these people do not know about some of the hardships that they go through. I remember, last November, my wife's brothers, three of them, in a boat. They were close to St. Pierre et Miquelon, out that way fishing in November to catch the rest of their groundfish, and they wind came down and the people in the community said they will never make it, they will never get home, there is no way on earth that those four brothers would ever make it back to port. People were really concerned. In November, the wind can be very, very strong. You are not in the bay, you are out on the North Atlantic, but they made it. You know, the thing is, that is the type of people we are talking about here, the type of people who have known this for hundreds of years. That is the way they operate.

This is the type of thing that I think is very important for us to remember. There is no doubt about it, there is a changing way of life in the Province. We have seen it. I think of the situation for all of us, as parents. We have children. For example, if I was in a smaller community and I was fifty or fifty-five years of age, chances are that I would own my home; I would have no mortgage on it. I would not need a lot of money to be able to survive. I could probably do it on fourteen or fifteen weeks work a year, with EI, but not a young person who does not have anything. They are not going to do it any more. They are going to be wanting something more than that. We have seen a mass exodus of people moving.

The same thing would happen in any industry, whether it is the oil industry or whether it is the fishery. In the oil industry, I am sure that over the next year or so, if nothing happens to Hebron-Ben Nevis, many of the young educated people we have in engineers and geoscientists will not stay around here and draw unemployment insurance. They will head somewhere else. That is why it is very important, I think, for us to be able to show some continuity in the oil industry and be able to do it.

On a positive note, like today, Cooke's Aquaculture, in the area that I represent, there is no doubt about it that I believe in the long run it is going to be very beneficial for the Southwest Coast of the Province in the area that I represent. Geographically, you cannot beat it. It is ideal. You have inlets there. Those people have gone up and have seen the inlets. They are just beautiful. They are pristine. There are no people around it, and you can put literally hundreds of cages in there and be able to employ thousands of people.

Today, Cooke's moved into Belleoram and they hired six people from that particular community. It is my understanding also that they have selected a site in a little town of Boxey with about sixty people there, and they are going to be building thirty-nine of those huge cages for Cooke's Aquaculture. That is positive. Nevertheless, it is impossible for Cooke's - in a short time - to be able to take up the slack of the companies like FPI have left Harbour Breton in. In the future, who knows what that particular case might be.

I say to the government, and I have talked to the Minister of Fisheries about it, the situation in Harbour Breton, some time ago the minister and the Premier announced that Barry's were going to go into Harbour Breton, and the people have been waiting. Some of them have left, because there is a squabble or little snarl, or whatever you want to call it, over the environmental cleanup on the plant. I would urge government to get it done, to move in, to do it and, at the end of the day, be able to bill back FPI to be able to recover the money. If we were able to do that, then obviously we would be able to see Barry move in; because there are people, Mr. Speaker, in the community who believe that, you know, the environmental issue is a red herring and Barry has no intention of coming in at all. I, for one, do not believe that; but, the thing is, I would like to see the impediment removed so that the process can begin and people can be employed in the community, and gainfully employed, and start to bring back to the community the pride that it always had.

Mr. Speaker, we will talk some more in Committee about some of the clauses and so on. I support what the government is doing, but I think some amendments that we have had will add to it, and hopefully on Thursday, when they are debated, some of them can be taken into account and can make the legislation stronger so that we do not have to come back within a month or a year or whatever to do the same things again with FPI, because it is too important. Our people's lives depend on it, and if we can do things better here to make life better for them, that is what we are about as legislators of the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, I cannot say it is a pleasure tonight to have to be debating such a negative aspect of our economy in this Province, as other members as well alluded to. It is with regret, I guess, that we could be here to talk about the negative side of our fishery. On the bright side, we do have the privilege to be here in this House and to make some difference, to show that this government is concerned about our fishery, is concerned about the people in rural Newfoundland.

Even back in the beginning, when FPI was first born, between 1983 and 1987, there was a great problem with a few companies that needed some guidance, some protection and, of course, in 1985 with FPI International being formed. I guess, at that time, with the co-operation of the stakeholders and partners, one being the federal government and the Bank of Nova Scotia and, of course, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a total investment of about $66 million, just in a couple of short years the Province realized its investment back to the tune of over $48 million. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, FPI, at the time, out of respect, I guess, for its workforce, injected $7 million of shares into its employees of the company. Back then, there was a lot of hope, a lot of light at the end of the tunnel, for the people of the Province to see that a strong, vibrant company would emerge from this hard time that they had a few short years earlier.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at some of the things over the years that evolved, of course, devastation is what evolved from the vibrant years and the early years. We could look at some of the things that FPI was dealing with in the early years. Of course, they had a groundfish harvest and processing in 1987 of 297 million pounds, and by the year 2004 that had diminished to 39 million pounds. That was a big reduction in production of groundfish back then. Of course, to do that they operated, in 1987, nineteen plants with 8,600 employees. By 2004, they were down to three plants with 1,200 employees processing groundfish in this Province. I guess that alludes to the fact of the scarcity of the fish.

In 1993, FPI Marystown plant produced 74 million pounds of fish, and by the year 2004 the three plants, including Marystown, only produced 39 million. So, we can see the big effect and the drop in production over those very few years.

Mr. Speaker, we all talked about the effect that the devastation of the fishery had on our communities. I have a fish plant in my district, one in Triton, that employees approximately 300 people. The last couple of years, we were down to less than 150 people who worked full time. Of course, there were probably 100 part-timers who worked at the plant and find it very difficult in trying to get a number of weeks to qualify for EI, and this year is no exception. This year, even the full-time workers are going to find it hard trying to get enough weeks to qualify for EI.

We produced in the area of 7,500 metric tons between Triton and Bonavista in the last couple of years, with over $8 million of product going through the plants, but we are concerned about not only the future of FPI in Triton. The people in my district are also concerned about the viability and sustainability of the company as a whole, and that involves other communities, other plants.

A year ago, we had to be faced with a situation where we had to make a decision on income trust. I felt pretty confident that the plant in Triton would survive and stay viable, but through consultation with many members in my district, people in my district, they felt that we had to strengthen the company so that the long-term viability would be good for all of the Province.

Of course, I supported the income trust amendment, and we did it with reasons to support other communities. We wanted to show towns like Bonavista and Burin that if everybody worked together then there could be solutions. We had to make a decision on that. With the people in my district telling me that, that is why I supported it.

We recognized that some investment into FPI would be good for these other communities, and I guess we never dreamed that things would fall apart the way they did. Of course, that happened so now we have to deal with other measures to strengthen the company and to protect the company for the benefit of all of the Province of Newfoundland. We were hoping that we could have the investment in Burin, have the investment in Bonavista, the new infrastructure. Of course, that not happening made it difficult now for FPI to stay afloat. Hopefully, we can strengthen the company now so that it cannot be watered down any more, or cut up in pieces that will be sold off and eventually would disappear.

Mr. Speaker, FPI had a very large infrastructure in place in the 1980s and 1990s. FPI was dealing with markets all over the world. and buying all over the world. We saw the reduction of a resource in our Province. The company had to depend on other sources of seafood worldwide, and that was to meet the demand of their customers in the world. We see that FPI operated in thirty countries, buying and selling products. Some of those countries included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Equador, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam. That shows you how big this company is, how much this company reached out to survive in the seafood world.

We know that it is not easy, when you are in a global market, when you have to depend on selling in a market with competition like it is from places like China. People say, well, maybe that doesn't make a difference; but, you know, it has to make a difference. Here we are in this Province with a few dozen plants, and in China they have between 5,000 and 7,000 fish plants. That is the kind of competition we have to deal with, with sales and seafood exports over $5 billion a year. With that kind of marketing and product going into the world market, of which about half is going to the United States market, we have to compete with that, and at the prices that China pays for labour it is difficult for us to do that.

People in our working force in the plants of this Province do deserve good wages. We have some making up towards $18 an hour. That is good wages but, like the Member for Bonavista South alluded to, it is good wages if it was all year round, but when you are only working four or five weeks a year then $18 an hour is not good enough to sustain a family, to keep a family fed and clothed in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen it personally in the last little while that some of our work force in our plants are leaving. These people have been working in the plants for years, and could have continued working there, but with the short number of weeks they feel they could not stay and survive, because the competition in the other parts of Canada, in the mining and the oil resource sectors, has drawn a lot of our people from rural Newfoundland. They find that, if they are trained and experienced in mechanical engineering, electrical, and stuff like that, then the opportunities are far greater by moving west. I have seen some of them move in the last little while, with twenty to twenty-five years working in the fish plant. They are going out west because they know they can make big dollars, they can make $70,000 or $80,000 a year. They are not staying here in Newfoundland making $20,000 and less a year.

It is sad, because even our young people coming right out of school are recognizing now that the future for them in a fish plant or in the fishery in this Province is not going to be great enough for them to stay here. They are moving on to the mainland to find high-paying jobs. It is so easy for them to do that, where years ago it was harder to do. Even though a lot of people did move over the years, now it is so easy to go. Jobs are so readily available in other provinces. With family members up there encouraging them to come, they are leaving to go up there. That is going to leave us in, I guess, an even more serious situation where some of our plants cannot find experienced workers to work in our plants. They are finding now that, in a lot of these communities, there are no young people left to take over from the people who are ready to retire in the next couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, even though we have to make legislation, and changes in legislation, to deal with these aspects of rural Newfoundland and trying to keep their fishing companies viable there, it is hard to find the right solution. I think government is moving in the right direction and, if this is not 100 per cent right, we do have the ability to change it, to strengthen it even further, if we need to do that.

I feel very sorry for some of the communities that have lost their plants. It does have a great effect on all of us here. The plant in Harbour Breton, the effect that it has had on Central Newfoundland, it was a big effect. A lot of the car dealerships and retail outlets can find this closing of Harbour Breton really hurting them in the last year or so. Not only there but from other areas. People do move away from their small communities to shop. Even the City of St. John's and Mount Pearl would find a big effect of the fishery going down the way it is, and with service sectors like St. John's and Mount Pearl, with companies that service them with supplies to the fishing companies, they must find it hard to do that. The fishery has a big effect on all of our Province, everybody in the Province. With hundreds of millions of dollars being taken out of our economy, it has to hurt. Of course, we alluded to some of the problems with the Canadian dollar and the effect that has on it.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the combined seafood exports for all producers in Newfoundland and Labrador totalled approximately $937 million, with roughly 85 per cent or $796 million sold in U.S. dollars. At that time, the yearly average exchange was one point five seven or sixty-four cents in the U.S. dollar. Just a few years ago we saw the exchange rate at one point one nine or eighty-four cents U.S., and the value of this volume of seafood exports plummeted to just under $604 million. Mr. Speaker, that is $192 million less than the 2002 levels. You take that kind of money out of the economy of this Province, and most of it coming out of rural Newfoundland, that is why we are seeing the devastation that we have.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, FPI harvested and processed just 13 per cent of the groundfish that it did in 1987. You are talking a big reduction, producing just 13 per cent of what they did. Of course, in 1985 there were producing 386,000 metric tons of groundfish, and just a couple of years ago the statistics showed that they were producing 59,000 metric tons. That is a big drop.

We have some comments that I have picked out of some of the local news releases, and I will just read out a couple of these. This is from the Chair of the Association of Seafood Producers, Mr. Herb Clarke, on December 14, 2004: There is just not enough fish available on an ongoing basis to provide either economic returns to the processors or meaningful employment to the workers. We have to have a lot fewer plants to handle the available resource, and a lot fewer workers in order for remaining workers to have meaningful income and employment. He goes on to say: We have to accept the reality that rationalization will occur whether we like it or not.

Another news release came from Mr. Earl McCurdy, the President of FFAW, on January 4, 2005. He said: We have a situation here in the processing sector where, at the moment, there are a lot more workers than there are jobs for them because of a number of factors, most of which is a loss of groundfish quotas that used to employ so many people.

Another quote here came from the Fish Processing Policy Review Commission, the Dunne report, and that came out in December, 2003: The basic problems of the sector remain rooted in excess capacity with associated results of seasonal operations, unsatisfactory levels of income, instability and volatility, and less than optimum total returns from seafood productions.

All these show that the problem of our fishery has been recognized for a few years. Are there clear answers? No. I guess tomorrow, with the summit - the Premier is taking off tomorrow - gives to everybody there an opportunity to put forward views and opinions. Of course, the minister and government can evaluate and put together some plans, because we do not have the answers. There are forty-eight of us here and we do not have all the answers to the problems in the Province. The fishery has been around for thousands of years. People have maintained the fishery for thousands of years, and it has evolved to a point now where technology has taken over.

If we go back to the way we did it 200 years ago, there would still be lots of fish. There would still be lots of people out catching fish with hook and lines. Of course, as the time evolved, people wanted to catch more fish because they wanted to have bigger and better boats, more technology. They had to catch more fish to pay for it, and now it is to a point where a fish cannot hide any more. Wherever there is a fish, we can find it. Of course, with the demand in the world for seafood products, greed takes over. The old saying is: There is enough for the needy but there is never enough for the greedy.

In the world today, money is making a lot of people greedy. People can get pretty rich pretty fast in the fishery at times. Of course, that got us into a lot of trouble. That got us where we are today. That got us to a point now where we have to find ways of making the fishery go back viable again.

I heard the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune mention about Cooke Aquaculture. I watched a program the other day on TV where a lot of the Cooke Aquaculture activities were shown. I tell you, it is very impressive when you see a company producing 5,000 to 7,000 tons of codfish to be put on the market. Now we are seeing that they are interested in doing some of the processing here in this Province. That is very positive. Even though we are going through a lot of negative times, a lot of negative issues, we do see positive things happen in aquaculture. In my district alone we have about 70 per cent of the mussel production in the Province done in the Green Bay area, employing hundreds of jobs through the processing and the farming of mussels. That is only just a tip of the iceberg to come, because we can expand on that. What we produce, the 4 million or 5 million pound a year, is only a drop in the bucket to what the markets demand in the world.

We have to look more favourably on aquaculture, farming salmon, codfish, mussels, any species that we think we can do here in the Province, because that is what is going to take the places of jobs in rural Newfoundland in fish plants where normally we do the wild species. Because of the decline in the species in the wild, we have no other choice but to see rural Newfoundland decline, and some places decimated, but with the technology in aquaculture and that we have a chance. We are not going to bring back every community in the Province, we cannot bring back every plant, but we can certainly increase jobs in rural Newfoundland through aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to earlier, it is so sad to see our young people leaving the Province because, once they leave, they are not coming back. We do not have many options when it comes to creating jobs in rural Newfoundland for people who are not there. You are not going to encourage people from big cities to come back to this Province to work in little tiny communities, so what do we do? It is not an easy solution to have these communities stay viable and even exist. I guess a natural evolution of small communities disappearing is what we are going to see the norm in the next twenty years or so when our older people die off and our younger people are gone. Of course, then we are stuck with the cost of maintaining all the rural parts of the Province and that includes road systems, schools, health care, and everything else. Maybe some day we can look back and say: Well, we did the best we could to make at least some of the areas in the Province survive.

We realize that a lot of the areas are service sectors. A lot of the areas are areas that depend on all the outports in the Province to come in and do business. That is what keeps the bigger areas like Grand Falls-Windsor, Deer Lake, Gander, and all of these areas that survive, the people coming from the smaller ports to shop in their communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we go into Committee I will have a few minutes to discuss Bill 32, and some of the parts of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I guess I stand with mixed emotions. First of all, it is a pleasure to stand to support Bill 32. Hopefully, by doing so, we are going to strengthen this bill that the minister has put forward, but I guess we all stand with mixed emotions when we know what is happening to the fishing industry in this Province.

I believe that this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a very important act, Bill 32. We all know that the legislation that was brought forward back in 1984-1985 was put in place to bring some stability to the industry at that time. I believe that this act can take care of some of the problems that we are encountering today in the fishery; however, I guess it totally goes beyond what we are debating here this evening with regard to FPI, and hopefully the summit that has been planned for tomorrow will do for the fishery in this present day what the original FPI bill did back in the 1980s.

I also stand to say that I will be supporting some of the amendments that our party will be putting forward but, as I mentioned earlier, I will be supporting this bill as it is and hopefully our amendments will be considered favourably and also strengthen this bill.

I want to go back to 2004 when the Premier made the comments during, I think it was, meetings on the Bonavista Peninsula, that he said the fishery, I don't think, will ever be what it is today so we have to move beyond; but, he said, that is no reason for us to give up fighting for the fishing industry, and he said it may take twenty years before we get to that.

I agree with him, when he stated that the fishing industry may never be what it is today, but hopefully, with the meetings that are going to transpire tomorrow, we will make sure that something will happen a lot sooner than the anticipated twenty years that he mentioned at that time, because I believe that rural Newfoundland and Labrador depends very heavily upon the fishing industry from coast to coast to coast.

I heard the Minister of Transportation and Works today make the comments - and I agree with him - that we cannot force FPI to open plants, or how many people they should hire on. Mr. Speaker, that being true, surely there must be a way where we can stop them from shipping fish out of this Province, building plants in other countries, and processing fish that should be done here in this Province. This company was formed to deal with the crisis situation in the Province back in the 1980s and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that has to be adhered to.

We all remember the FPI Bill 41, and many members mentioned it here this evening, how we all stood in our places on a free vote, on both sides of the House, and voted for and against that particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Government House Leader mention this evening that someone on this side was talking about how people in the communities were misled, and he made a very true statement when he commented that the people of this House were also misled at that time. It is sad when you have to look at such a major company who did so well for this Province back in its early days, to be able to stand and say really you cannot trust them, what they were doing at that time. When I made my comments at that time, I expressed major concerns with regard to Bill 41, even if it stated that Bonavista, Fortune, Marystown, Burin, Port au Choix, Port Union and Triton would all remain viable.

Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the letters here that were sent out at that time, June 8, 2005. They went to Mr. Earle McCurdy, President of the FFAW, and they were signed by the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Rowe. They were copied to the MHAs for the area, and the town councils, and I am sure members on this side and on the other side, when they saw this, they did see that there was a bit of hope in their communities and they voted with their hearts and their conscience at that time. It is sad to say that we have to look back now and maybe more should have been done at that time, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Mr. Speaker, I remember getting the copy of frequently asked questions when it came to FPI's income trust proposal. I just want to quote: What has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador done to ensure that the best interests of community workers in the Province are protected?

I just want to quote one line from that, because it is very important: In the proposal from FPI, it has agreed with government's request that if there is a breach of FPI's undertaking then the penalty would be that FPI's groundfish quotas revert to the provincial government. This type of penalty is a major type of protection for rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to read tonight that, at that time, maybe the shellfish industry could have been included with it and therefore we would have some grip on what they could do, because they promised that this would be converted. I know this is only groundfish we are referring to here, but I believe if that took place at that time we would be in a better place today.

I cannot help but mention - we talk about competition, the cheap labour that is going on in China, and why we find ourselves in a difficult position here in this Province. I read just this week, Mr. Speaker, that China is the largest producer of seafood in the world, 44 million metric tons. Peru comes in second at 8.7 million metric tons, and Canada 1 million metric tons.

They are building a new fish plant in China at a value of $50 million U.S., employing 8,000 people. I really believe - I cannot see why there are not seven or eight plants with 1,000 people in them in this Province who could do the work that probably they are going to do there. I know all the product is probably not coming from our Province, but we talk about the competition and we cannot keep up with them, and this is why we are finding ourselves in the problems we have today.

Just prior to Christmas, 2004, the federal government provided $600 million to the textile industry in Quebec to help them counter the Chinese competition. All I am saying is, how good would it be in this Province if $600 million were invested here to help us compete against the cheap labour and the processing of products in China?

In talking about competition, we hear talk about young people not wanting to work in the industry because there is only fourteen weeks work and how we cannot get workers. I cannot help but think back to the early 1990s, I guess, when the moratorium was on, and there were a couple of gentlemen who came to this Province from Iceland. One of them, his name was Arthur Bogason. He was the president of the inshore fishery in Iceland at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: I met him.

MR. BUTLER: You met him, a fine gentleman.

If you could only listen to the story - and we talk about that Irish model. I do not know if we can look at, when we go to this summit or whatever is going to come from it, maybe we can look at the Iceland model when it comes to the fishery, because the stories that he told, the involvement in the fishery, everybody was involved and employed. He relayed the story of how the young people in the schools would go to the plants in the afternoon. They were making wages of between $16 and $18. I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think that if it can happen in Iceland, if the right approach were taken, why can't we be another Iceland? Why do we have to lose it all because we cannot compete?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of other fishery problems that we have, I cannot help but think about the day that I was called to go to Daley's plant in Port de Grave, 250 people in the lunchroom that day, and they were talking about losing some of their quotas. They were not getting enough work. I happened to ask the question to the owner - one of the owners was there - and I cannot repeat the language, how he responded to me, in this hon. House because you would have me removed. I just asked him: How come everything is going out in sections? Because I knew and I heard that maybe not all but some of the meat was extracted in China, and I asked him that question. It was unbelievable how he responded; because, Mr. Speaker, they were shipping out the sections, the work was being done in China, and our people here in the Province were losing out.

I believe the Government of Canada, regardless of what political stripe may be there - it does not matter - I believe that they have to become more involved when it comes to the quotas, how they are passed out, with regard to retirement packages for our plant workers and the buyback programs for our fishers.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it will ever come to the day that I would like to see it happen in this industry, the fishery - because I believe that the fishing industry was and still is, even thought we are going through difficult times, and will again in the future - become the major resource for us in this Province. Nothing more would I like to see. Now, how it can happen I do not know, but every species of fish that swims off our shores should come ashore here, not be put in freezers and transported out again. Whatever has to be done with it should be done here on our shores for the benefit of our people.

Mr. Speaker, as other members have mentioned, when it comes to the summit which is coming up tomorrow, I guess many times when you stand in the House and listen to members in other communities who represent whether it is Bonavista, Harbour Breton, Fortune, Marystown, Burin and other places where the FPI plants are going through some difficult time, all too often I would stand and say, I guess, how fortunate we were in my district to have the fishing industry the way that it is there and to also have a plant with no problems, 350-plus people working year in and year out, but I guess it can come home to roost pretty fast what you fear may happen and end up in the same position as people in other areas. I know the people in my area are going through a very difficult time, and not only in my district but the surrounding districts that other members represent.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the summit, I believe that what we are discussing here today, the FPI Act, is the first step. If we do what has to done here properly, enforce the laws to this particular company in each and every clause, I think that will be the beginning of turning the crisis that we encounter in the fishery today here in this Province, but it has to go beyond that.

Another solution or an idea that has to be looked at, I believe, is the way fish quotas are given out to the fish companies. The fish off our coast, Mr. Speaker, is a resource owned by the people of this Province, and we have a right to set the conditions on companies who are given this common property resource.

We have to seriously look at the concept of whether we call it custodial management or go into joint federal-provincial management, because for too long the fish resources off our coast, the decisions have been made by the bureaucrats in Ottawa who I believe do not understand what we are going through here in this Province and how it affects the lives of the people here.

We need to look no further than the tragedy of the foreign overfishing that happened off our coast, and I guess not only foreign overfishing - some other members mentioned here today - even probably our own companies in Canada, the way that we dealt with the fishery offshore. We need action, Mr. Speaker, so that government will be able to provide a better living for the people and in the communities where they wish to live.

Mr. Speaker, as I come to just about the end of the comments that I want to make, I cannot help but go back to how I ended my comments when we were talking about Bill 41. I quoted - he was not the Minister of Fisheries then, but he is today, and he said, back on March 12, 2002: Never let us forget that Fishery Products International is the company of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was created to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, no truer words could have been said. Today, as we debate this bill - the amendments to the bill, I should say, and any other amendments that are coming forward in the Committee stage - I believe that we have to work together to make sure that every species off our coast is, I guess, used to the full potential of the people here in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated when I began, I have no problem in supporting this particular bill and hope that the government members will look at the amendments that are coming forward in a very favourable manner, because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody who wants to play political politics with this. They are brought forward just to strengthen the act in what we believe will be for the betterment of everyone and hopefully will see that FPI will become a force to reckon with again in the fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, this evening am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Like my colleagues who spoke before said, while they are pleased to take part in the debate, they are not so pleased with the situation that we find Fishery Products International in today.

As you said yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you spoke a few minutes ago, this bill may not put extra fish in the plants of FPI - that may be true - but, then again, who knows what could happen? I agree with what you said, that, really, putting extra fish into the plants of FPI or any other plant in the Province can only be done by the federal government taking immediate action to follow through on their commitment that they made in the last election to implement custodial management of the groundfish resource off our Continental Shelf.

That is where our future fishery lies, Mr. Speaker, and that is the only way that we can ever expect to see a viable, sustainable fishery in this Province. My hope tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, coming out of the summit that we have planned, is that there will be one common theme and that is that together we will come out united in our demand to have the federal government take control of our resource of the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, while the bill itself, Bill 32, specifically applies to Fishery Products International, it has implications and it has impacts both directly and indirectly on almost every community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has implications on every municipality, pretty well, whether it is a city or if it is just a small fishing community. It impacts on every resident of the Province, whether you are a government worker in St. John's or Corner Brook, whether you are a fish plant worker in Valleyfield or Bonavista or a taxi driver in Gander. Regardless of where you live, it makes no difference; when we have problems with the fishery, it affects all of us.

Mr. Speaker, anything that affects Fishery Products International ultimately affects the fishing industry in general right throughout the Province. Every dollar that has been generated by new fish coming out of the water, that has been landed on our shores, every new dollar has benefitted every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and it has contributed substantially to our viability and every aspect of living in this Province, and that is something that none of us should ever forget, and I challenge anyone who dares to minimize what we are doing here this evening even.

Mr. Speaker, FPI, as most of us know, was created in the early 1980s as a result of a major downturn in our groundfish fishery. Subsequently, from that came the consolidation of a number of collapsed fish processing businesses. One of these was the former Fishery Products company itself, the old Fishery Products. I remember that company quite well because they had a fish plant in my hometown of Greenspond in the 1950s and 1960s. That was one of the plants in the late 1960s that Fishery Products, as it was called then, saw fit to close down and sell, but I am happy to say that plant is still in operation today under the good leadership of Beothic Fish Processors of Valleyfield. That is just one example of many plants that were closed by that company for whatever reason but today are still operating and contributing to the economy of Bonavista North and of the Province in general.

Here we are again today dealing with what has been called the flagship of the fishing industry in this Province, Fishery Products International, a company that has set the trend in our fishing industry, a company that is again in deep trouble with a reported debt of $125 million, a company whose workforce has dropped from 8,700 in the 1980s down to approximately 2,400 today, a company whose processing plants have decreased from thirty-three down to eight.

Who could ever forget a company that was drastically changed during a hostile takeover of its board by a group that promised a much better future for all of its employees and for all of its shareholders? We all remember that, but today we all know what has happened. Today, the fears that I had back five or six years ago, when I was involved actively in the fish processing industry, the fears that I had at that time are now becoming a reality, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, the intent and the sole purpose of the major players in that takeover bid are now being seen by many people in this Province, and that is a major concern for everyone.

I would like to refer to a couple of recent articles in The Telegram that bring on some of these concerns. On Friday, May 5, in an article referring to the first quarter losses by Fishery Products International for this year of $2.7 million, there is one paragraph there which reads: Purchases of product from related parties, companies with common directors, total $2.3 million during the first quarter, four times higher than in 2005 when those purchases were just $554,000. The related parties were not identified in FPI's financial results.

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARDING: I am just wondering who they were, the related parties, and what did that fish sell for to FPI and what did FPI get in return for the finished product that they produced.

I also have a concern about an article in today's The Telegram which says: Fishery Products International would be unfairly restricted if legislation is passed this week that would change the way the Province's largest seafood processor operates.

This was said by one of the company's board of directors. Mr. Speaker, my question is: Is that director more concerned about how it will restrict the company itself or is he more concerned about the way that he is going to be restricted, and maybe some of his friends?

Mr. Speaker, because of reasons such as that, that is why I, as one member of this Legislature, am fully supportive of the proposed amendments to this piece of legislation. The intent of the FPI Act was to ensure that the best interest of the public in this Province is protected. Corporate actions taken recently by the FPI board have called into question whether that company is really adhering to the spirit and intent of the legislation that was put in place in the beginning; especially, Mr. Speaker, over the most recent times when actions taken by the board of that company, actions such as plant closures in Harbour Breton and Fortune, the general restructuring itself, the reduction in the size of the board of directors, and the most recent thing, that the company is now being managed by a three-member select committee. A committee, Mr. Speaker, of which the majority are non-residents of this Province and who have significant holdings in competitive businesses.

We, as a government, are concerned that this small group of directors are controlling Fishery Products International. While these directors were duly elected by the shareholders, whatever we may think of it and the manner in which it was done, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you consider that one of those directors was the leading force in the takeover bid - and we all know who that was - that director, as well, is a major competitor with Fishery Products International. When you see that, suspicions have to arise, whether they are founded or not.

In an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to generate more independent views on the board decisions without undue influence from one dominant member on the board, we are amending section 9 of the bill to expand the number of directors to thirteen, with a majority of these directors having to be residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now, Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, the board has seven members, directors, and there are talks of reducing that to five.

As well, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to section 9.(6) will ensure that a majority of a committee of directors must also be residents of this Province. Unlike what we have now with the three-member committee, only one is a resident of this Province.

Why it is acknowledged and understood that directors do owe a duty to pursue the best interests of the corporation - that is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker - nevertheless, it is also important to have directors who fully understand what the fishery has meant to this Province and to its people. Who better would you want to represent you on a board than people who have lived and worked in this Province all of their lives?

Mr. Speaker, section 9.(3) of the bill is being amended so that a majority of the directors shall be independent of a significant shareholder or an associate of a significant shareholder. The larger number of directors who will be independent of these major shareholders - that is shareholders who hold between 8 per cent and 15 per cent of the company - will give greater assurance that decisions of the board are truly in the best interests of the company rather than in the interests of specific large shareholders, especially when these large shareholders are competitors with the company.

Mr. Speaker, we are also amending section 7 of the act that currently prevents the company from selling all or substantially all of its harvesting, processing and marketing business. Under the new section 7 there shall be no sale of a substantial portion of assets without Cabinet approval, and no sale of a fish plant in Newfoundland and Labrador without Cabinet approval.

The current wording in the legislation could permit the board to sell whatever they wanted without government knowledge and without government permission. This, we believe, could be detrimental to its remaining operations in the Province.

Under the new amendments, the company will not be able to dismantle the basic structure of Fishery Products International unless it is part of a broader strategy which government approves and which is in the public interests of the people of the Province. This is being done, Mr. Speaker, without undue intrusion into the company's day-to-day business operations.

As our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has stated, we, as a government, are not going to manage the company but we, as a government, will protect the public interests by ensuring that the company is appropriately managed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all realize there are major problems in the fishing industry in this Province. We realize the negative impact that the rising Canadian dollar is having on the industry as a whole. We realize the negative impact that the high cost of fuel is having on the industry. We realize the negative impact of declining resources, and we realize that it is extremely difficult, as a number of my colleagues have already stated, to compete in the global marketplace against countries such as China, but these are factors, Mr. Speaker, that are facing every fish processor in the Province, not only Fishery Products International. These are factors, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a government, have no control over.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, it is government's role to ensure that the intent of the Fishery Products International Act is preserved while, at the same time, a positive business climate is maintained within the Province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments we are proposing today will improve the governance of Fishery Products International and will also strengthen government's position in taking some control in the general direction of the future fishing industry of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a rare occasion when you find two sides of the House supporting a particular piece of legislation. I have to say from the outset that I do support this legislation that the government is bringing forward, and I have a feeling -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - that my colleagues will as well, as many of them have already indicated.

This debate, Mr. Speaker, is all about how to put Fishery Products back together again. It is all about how to put Fishery Products back together again, and whether or not it will resemble its original self when that is done.

It is always good to take a lesson from the past. Most times when things are going good in our Province we really do not reflect on the past; we always look ahead to the future.

I had an opportunity, in doing a little research for this debate tonight, to look at a speech that was given by our current Minister of Fisheries. That was January 30, 1987. It is always good to look back. It is almost like saying the same things. I will just read a couple of things that the current Minister of Fisheries said at the time. He said, then, the company employs more than 8,000 workers. I believe the Member for Bonavista South and Bonavista North alluded to the fact that FPI was always the largest employer in our Province. The minister said that it is our single largest employer, with our rural economy having a major dependence on Fishery Products operations. That was true in 1987. I would venture to say it has become really important today because, when all of us think about the fishing industry in our Province, the first name that comes to mind is Fishery Products.

We have always been proud of Fishery Products. It has been a wonderful company. It has had its ups and downs. You wonder why people in rural communities have such an affection for Fishery Products International. It causes so much frustration whenever there is a glitch or a bump in the road, but there is an ownership in this Province, particularly in rural communities, for Fishery Products International.

As many of my colleagues have already said, it was a combination of bankrupt fishing companies. Two levels of government had the fortitude to realize the impact on rural communities in our Province. Two levels of government stepped in and they created Fishery Products International, with the help of the Bank of Nova Scotia.

The Bank of Nova Scotia has always been the financial institution of the fishing industry in our Province. I know, from the recent dealings with the collapse of some of the plants of Daley Brothers, I am sure that the Bank of Nova Scotia did not call those loans lightly; a huge concern for the Bank of Nova Scotia.

The bill itself gives the government more authority to oversee the Newfoundland and Labrador operations of Fishery Products International. I would say to the government, it would be a wise decision to actually look at the amendments that are coming forward from this side of the House, the Official Opposition, and also the New Democratic Party, because whatever we can do collectively will be for the benefit of all rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As others have stated, it is not about making political points. It is about doing something that will give us more stability.

You know, there is one image that always stays in my mind when I think about resettlement. It is actually a photo now that is on bristol board and it is being sold in a lot of the print shops in our Province. It is about a young girl, I can see her now, with blond hair, in a plaid dress. Her brother, I guess it is, or it is could a little boy, a neighbour, is standing by her and he has the rubber boots on, and they are looking out at a house, maybe their home, being floated across Placentia Bay.

Now, many of us have seen this image, and I meant to buy that print - and I will buy it - because, when I think about resettlement, that image is so strong in my memory, you know, that is what it means to a lot of people.

I looked at CBC, and CBC has been running a series on the effects of the out-migration of our rural communities. You know, I do not care who you are. You could be - a lot of people have made this reference - a grown man, and you would have to glutch when you see the anguish on the people's faces about having to leave in the middle of the night so they would not wake the kids, and saying goodbyes before they go to bed.

You know, we have to do something about that. We have to do something about this, and this bill in the House of Assembly is one step in a remedy for trying to tighten up this act so that we will have more control, as a government and a people, about Fishery Products.

I looked at the speech that the current Minister of Fisheries made, and he said that both governments have agreed, for example, that the majority of the board members of Fishery Products will continue to be residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We used to have thirteen board of director members and now we are down to seven. At that particular time, in 1987, there was also an opportunity for the board of directors to have somebody from the union be a representative. With such a stake in this particular company, it seems only sensible that government should have their representative on this board. I do not know how they will get around to doing that, but there has to be somebody who will make sure that the investment by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Canada is protected. If that means having somebody there to look out for our interests, well, government needs to find a way to do that.

Last year, in our debate on June 9, I looked at a couple of the things that I said when I rose to my feet last year, and one of the things that I said was, I was glad to hear at the eleventh hour that Bonavista is going to get a new plant. I said that last year, because that was the assumption in the income trust, had it gone ahead, that Bonavista was going to get a new plant. Well, Bonavista is really worried that they are going to have a plant to work in, and work will resume. I heard the mayor, Betty Fitzgerald - she is on Open Line quite often - and she has not been able to get a meeting with the officials from FPI. Their future is uncertain.

I congratulated, at that time, the Member for Bonavista South. I also said at the same time that I was very glad as well when the Member for Grand Bank heard some very good news for Fortune. That was the word on the street last year, June 9. What do we know about Fortune since then? Shut down.

These are things that are alarming, and when I look at some of the quotes that John Risley gave to the media and gave to different groups when he was interested in the takeover, he said: We do not intend to close any of FPI's processing facilities in Newfoundland or elsewhere.

Now, this is a direct quote from John Risley: In fact, by reinvesting in these facilities and by seeking new sources of raw materials, FPI will be in a position to increase the number of Newfoundlanders that it employs.

Now, has there been an increase in the employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the FPI plants? Quite the opposite. Then he goes on to say - and this was in The Globe and Mail on May 2, 2001 - John Risley says: We are going to do this, expand the company, by investing in the company, not by laying people off.

Now, politicians have a bad name for saying one thing and doing the other thing, but this is a major shareholder in FPI giving the employees and the people of this Province a comfort level, as we thought, that everything would be great. What do we find out today? Just the opposite.

One of the issues that is being talked about now is the issue of quotas. When there was an all-party committee that went around the Province, one of the items that came up was quotas. I had the impression, from reading that all-party committee report, that there was a deal afoot, mainly brought to the floor by FPI. It says: The committee has been advised by FPI officials that it would be willing to enter into a binding contractual agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which they believe would be preferable to legislation, requiring all current and future FPI quotas and allocations in water adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador be harvested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and processed within the Province.

Now, what happened to that? Are FPI still committed to letting the quotas, whatever is fished inside and outside our Province, be processed in this Province? That was all said in 2001, and what have we heard since? If that were the case, we would be pretty secure here, wouldn't we? We would be pretty secure.

When you look at the fact that in rural communities we are dealing with an older population who have worked in our plants and in our fishery, these people cannot be turfed out to fend for themselves. Those people have to leave the industry, if need be, with some dignity. There is no reason why the federal government cannot come up with a proper retirement plan. There is a surplus in the federal government year over year, and there is also a surplus in the EI fund.

Now, I have seen training before. I saw it in 1992, and the big push then for the cod moratorium was to get people retrained to get back into other sectors. We all know - it is just as well to call a spade a spade and be sensible about it. Who benefitted the most from retraining in 1992? Was it the worker or was it the training colleges? We had a lot of training colleges, at that particular time, spring up. Where are those older workers today? They are probably - in 1992 - a lot of them are now being pensioned with old age pension.

Let's be realistic when we talk about retraining. There is no point in retraining someone who is close to sixty years old for a new career in our Province unless we definitely know that there is a job to be had when that money is spent and that person goes into training. You have to be realistic. I would never want to be a part of agreeing to retraining that was going to go into two or three programs and then people come out at the end of it with a lot of money spent, a lot of time wasted, and nothing at the end, no job and no pension. I think it would be better, it would be much better, if the federal government would look at the age of the workers who are going to be displaced, because all we hear about now is, there are too many plants, not enough fish, and too many workers.

If rationalization has to come, it has to be managed properly. I have already heard the provincial government say they are willing to put money into an early retirement package. That is already committed by this government. I say, good, that is a good thing to do, but I think if there is going to be a retirement package it should in the form of a pension, that people will have a decent standard of living until they reach the age where they can then qualify for old age pension or something close to that. There has to be an income support program for people, and it cannot be wasted in needless training that amounts to nothing at the end of that time. I think the government should be very strong if the federal government comes up with a training package.

We have all heard stories in the past about older workers having to go to school again, when they have been out of the education system for as high as thirty or thirty-five years, trying to cope with all the new technology and go through a system of training for three years, end up with nothing at the end, and the money all gone. The federal government have to do the right thing this time, if they are looking at retraining. I have a feeling that there will probably be an announcement in that area tomorrow, so I do hope that our provincial government will have a large say in that matter.

Other colleagues have said tonight, they talked about joint management of our fishery. It is easy for us to point a finger because we do not have the direct say on what goes on in our fishery. I think we need to look at joint management in our fishery. We have talked about it for years and we still have not made any progress along those lines.

How many times can we come back to the House of Assembly and think that we are tightening up FPI so we can have a securer future for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, only to find out that when the markets get tippy, the Canadian dollar goes up, and other external factors that seem to affect every industry, including our fishing industry, then we are going through this again.

I think the people of our Province, in 2006, realize and accept that changes are going to be made but we have to be the masters of our own fate. We have to be able to manage this change rather than saying, too bad, that is the way it is going to happen, that is market conditions.

The people of this Province developed this company. The people of the Province and the people of Canada both injected their money and developed this company. We rely on it. It is the backbone of our communities in our Province, and we need to be part of managing that change and making sure that our people are looked after so that they do not have to leave with their possessions in a U-Haul and never come back.

The Minister of Finance knows how important this is. For every person that leaves our Province we have a big bump on our equalization. If we are looking for federal dollars to help us when we balance our Budget every March, we have to make sure that our people stay here in the Province. In fact, we have to make sure that more come here.

We have to let Loyola Hearn know tomorrow that we want more money for science research. We have to let him know that. The fishery should come back in this Province, but right now we do not know where we stand. There has been very little money put into fisheries research. In fact, it has been downgraded. That should be one of the key things that people will ask Loyola Hearn to do tomorrow, because Loyola Hearn has always been a strong advocate for our fishery in our Province. When he was in the Opposition, he brought many matters to the floor of the House of Commons that affected us. Now he is in a position to make those real changes that will benefit us, as a Province. He has to look at things like joint management. He has to look at more money for research. He has to look at an early retirement package that gives our older workers dignity and it also gives them a guaranteed income of some sort that will take them to their retirement years. He also needs to look at custodial management. I am sure there are many members here tonight who have alluded to custodial management. We need to have our federal member bring up those issues tomorrow. He needs to come tomorrow with some assurance and not just go, at the end of the day, and say, I will go back to my federal colleagues, I will go back to the Prime Minister and I will take all of these messages that we are hearing tomorrow back to my counterparts in Ottawa. I think he needs to come tomorrow and give us some definite plans of what the federal government is about to do, and work with us.

There have been many things said about Fishery Products, and I thought about some of the - you know, propaganda comes out from every company now and then, but when you look at the fact that the arm of Fishery Products in the U.S. -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wish to inform the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

If I would just have one moment to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the member, by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I think the only thing I can add to the debate that probably has not already been said is the fact that tomorrow might be a turning point in our Province, when people meet at that summit. They need to come with solutions that we can give to the federal government to work with the provincial government to make sure that the people of our Province have some dignity at the end of the day and they do not have to leave here with a U-Haul behind them, and that the federal government will commit to rebuilding our fishery, giving us more of a say in the operation and the future of our fishery in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak a few moments on Bill 32 as well.

In the District of St. Barbe, I have an FPI plant in Port au Choix, in the center of the district, and it certainly has played an important role in the central part of the Northern Peninsula, I suppose, as well as all the Peninsula. It has certainly shaped the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, Port au Choix was the community that was a part of the resettling plan. It was because FPI had come into the community and we saw such prosperity or such opportunity in FPI that, when the community leaders at the time got together, that is what they decided it was going to be, the community that had the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, it played that role for quite some time and it still is, I guess.

We had seen the changes in the fishery, as everybody did, and it came up to the closure of the cod, when we saw the demise of the cod, that the plant that was employing 500 or 600 people and all kinds of employment around that plant had gone away like most everybody else in those rural areas that we have heard tonight, but the thing that had come around to save us, I suppose, in Port au Choix was the shrimp, and the shrimp was in abundance on our coast there. The decision was made by FPI to come in, take a multi-species plant and change it into a shrimp-only plant. That shrimp-only plant became a much smaller employer. I remember the debate at the time and how the mayor, who is a friend of mine, had taken a lot of personal abuse, I suppose, and the fact that she had agreed to taking much lower employment than what was previous, but we have to look to the future versus the past. The opportunities that were there were in the shrimp and it brought stability to us because this resource that we were processing was very close to our shores, the same as the cod, and it gave us, certainly, an advantage.

I think one of the important things that happened, that FPI had gotten a concession from government, was to have restrictions on the trucking of shrimp to other plants in this Province and that they would only be allowed to have Gulf shrimp come to Port au Choix. That was a very key thing that happened on the Northern Peninsula, and that is why FPI played an important role in the Town of Port au Choix in shaping the Northern Peninsula as in what they were before 1994, but they also shaped very much what we were after 1994. Because of the restriction that came out there we had a plant that came to Anchor Point. That came to Anchor Point, I suppose, because of the fleet. There a fleet out of Port au Choix, there was a fleet out of Anchor Point, and primarily a fleet out of Black Duck Cove. Because that fleet was there, the loyalties to a community and wanting to see prosperity grow, we saw a plant come to Anchor Point.

Mr. Speaker, the plant in Anchor Point today, as we know, is perhaps one of the reasons why we are here, and the FPI issue, as well as the summit going on this week, is because Daley Brothers has just gone into receivership on three of the plants, one of them being Anchor Point. I must say, in speaking to the relationship with FPI and the impact that it had on the Northern Peninsula, it created a plant in a place where there were 180 plant employees there as well as a fleet that came and brought a lot of prosperity to an area in Anchor Point.

Today, as I get calls from the area, with it being shut down, it affects the whole area. Time and time again you will talk about: it is just not the one community in the rural places that we have out there. We may have a plant in one rural community but really it affects a whole area. I have perhaps twenty communities that are being affected by what is going on in Anchor Point, or certainly what is going on in Black Duck Cove combined. It will certainly affect thirty communities or more, Mr. Speaker. Those are the things that FPI - the impact that they have had.

I certainly feel I have to get up and speak to FPI, to see and try to have some influence on what we do to make this company a viable company into the future, and to be a responsible company in the future. It is certainly no more important to anybody than what it is to the people on the Northern Peninsula, certainly in my district through Port au Choix, Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove.

Mr. Speaker, actually, the impact and the decision that was made is that 60 per cent of the processing jobs on the Northern Peninsula today are related around the shrimp. If you think about the impact that has on an area that is 60 per cent of the processing jobs, it is certainly an incredible amount. Some of the reasons for that is that other products have been shipped off the Northern Peninsula. That has certainly been an issue with me, in this capacity as the MHA for the area, to get out there; and, as a volunteer before that, we fought to maintain the processing jobs on the Northern Peninsula where the product was landed that was adjacent to it.

Actually, on Friday, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Transportation, along with myself, will be in Plum Point and meeting with stakeholders to talk about those very issues. You know, having 60 per cent of you pelagics on the Northern Peninsula trucked out is certainly not the right and appropriate way to develop an economy. As much as we can go into having FPI, and the importance in the role that they can play, many more parts of the fishery have to come together to go. Like, having the leadership of any company and all fishing companies come together is certainly very important to an economy that is very rural and very remote from the Northeast Avalon, where many other things and opportunities seem to be coming from the Trans-Canada as you go away.

Mr. Speaker, back when the income trust was on the go, I was out there. I was supportive of the income trust, and I was supportive because one of the things that FPI was doing at the time was buying a company in the U.K. and that was giving them an opportunity to market their shrimp, and there were certain advantages by them being in the marketplace themselves. Certainly one of them, from what I understood, gave them an opportunity to get some more shrimp into the marketplace with a lower tariff but it also gave them an opportunity to (inaudible) the customer on a first-hand basis, the same as we were in the U.S. I am sure that FPI would not be the company it is today if it hadn't been in the marketplace in the U.S. themselves, if it hadn't been there on a first-hand basis. So, to me, I saw the encouragement of that. Maybe, as we are changing, and we are always changing and companies are changing, as everything is, we would have seen the shrimp industry perhaps become on a more solid foundation by having a company in the U.K.

I have always looked forward to what can be positive and where the future is going instead of where it has been. I know I got here and I explained how important it was, and I really looked at the history of FPI on the Peninsula and how much the people on the Northern Peninsula looked to it, and the indication in the mood. In the last year or so, many things and the mood of the Northern Peninsula have been based on what you hear, what FPI may or may not be doing, because it had so many impacts on the whole economy there. I have seen, not only were they in Port au Choix but they were marketing Daley Brothers as well, and up until this year it has certainly been an important part of both communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am supporting this government in making the changes that are needed to come out to see that FPI can be the best possible company that they can be, to be there for the future, and to see that the fishing industry can be as stable as possible, because it is certainly an economy on the Northern Peninsula where we have to look to the primary resources and what we do with those primary resources to create our employment, whether it is in the fishery or forestry. In both of those accounts we have to see what we can get from those resources to keep our economy stable and on the go.

As you know, in rural Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula, I suppose, having as much out-migration as any part of this Province, we have to be really alert and in tune to what is happening in any part and we have to be fighting as much as possible to any possibilities that may take something away or may give us something, that we have to be there and on top of it.

I certainly would like to think that there is a place for FPI in our future, and I certainly would like to think, with the advantages that Port au Choix has with a shrimp resource that we have in the Gulf - the most valuable shrimp that we land in this Province today is the Gulf shrimp. That is what gives Port au Choix such an advantage in this fishery, as well as it gives Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove. I think about the possibilities of where Anchor Point is today and where maybe it will go tomorrow. Being adjacent to such a resource, in my mind, certainly gives much more of an advantage than if it was not there. So, having that resource and the right companies together, I think that we can maintain a fishing economy in that particular region of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly look forward to having as good an economy as possible, and having 60 per cent of those processing jobs on the Northern Peninsula coming from shrimp is certainly a foundation to go from. I look forward to the pelagics and maybe the groundfish that we can go out there to create more jobs on the Northern Peninsula, but certainly you have to look to your biggest cornerstone, and that would be the shrimp industry, to continue to provide stability for us to the sense that we can have it and go into the future.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my remarks and I will be certainly supporting this bill to go out and see where it can take us into the future with FPI.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words with regard to Bill 32.

I have listened very intently to the debate that has been on in the House of Assembly in the last few hours as it relates to the amendments to the Fishery Products International Act. No doubt the act governs, legislatively at least, the company, Fishery Products International, as a company which has substantial holdings and investments in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just listened to the Member for St. Barbe when he spoke and he talked about how the fishery impacts upon rural districts. He talked about his own district. I have to say to the member, I am sure that, of all the members in this Legislature, he probably knows, more so than any of us, the impact that the fishery can have on a region. I think the Northern Peninsula and the district that he represents have certainly seen some major transitions in the last decade because of changes in the fishing industry and a huge amount of out-migration of people as the economy in that region shifted.

I think the real reason that all of us are here today looking at amendments in this act is simply because we want to be able to preserve the fishing industry, the integrity of the fishing industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, inasmuch as we possibly can from a legislative perspective, and for the government, I guess, from a governance perspective, to ensure that the fishery survives and thrives in rural communities around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this particular act talks about a number of amendments. I am going to get into some of them but, before I do that, I want to talk a little bit about FPI as a company first; because, based on a lot of the things that we know, this is a company of tremendous substance and has tremendous power in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, FPI operates not just plants but a full fleet of groundfish vessels and groundfish processing operations throughout the Province but mostly on the Burin Peninsula. They hold almost 90 per cent of the yellowtail flounder quota that is being allocated. In 2003, they purchased 4,200 metric tons of groundfish from inshore harvesters and they purchased 7,500 metric tons of snow crab. That will just give you a little bit of an idea. They are also the exclusive marketing and sales agent for crab in the Province. They represent about six other crab processing companies, and they exported, or marketed, in 2003, over $80 million in crab on behalf of other processors, not including their company but just other processors in the Province. That will give you a little bit of an idea of how much or how in-depth of a role this company actually plays.

They also hold almost 17 per cent of the offshore sea scallop quota in Canada and they produce fresh and frozen sea scallops in the United States, Canadian, European and Asian markets. They operate two scallop vessels in their fleet from the south shore of Nova Scotia. They purchased approximately 15,000 metric tons of cold water shrimp and they have over 380 inshore harvesters supplying Newfoundland cooked and peeled cold water shrimp in the industry, and they hold two of the seventeen offshore Northern shrimp licences that are in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to outline all of that for the record because I think it is important to know the scale and the mass of this company and the role that they play in the fishery. They employ about 2,300 people in the Province today. They operate processing facilities, a secondary processing facility and a fleet of eight vessels, and the company's gross payroll in the Province is about $50 million, and an additional $30 million is spent in purchasing groundfish and other species from fisherpeople.

I think it is important to note these things, because that will give you the context of what we are talking about when we are talking about FPI. It is not just a company that has a fish plant in any particular community around the Province. In fact, what it is, it is a company that has plants in both the groundfish and shellfish industry. They have a fleet of boats that fishes offshore. They hold quotas in Canadian waters on offshore shrimp and scallop. They have a marketing division of their company which markets product for fish producers all over Newfoundland and Labrador. They also have processing facilities in the United States and also in the U.K.

This is the kind of a company that we are talking about, a kind of a company that spreads its wings in every aspect of the fishery and, in doing so, takes a lot of other companies under its wing and allows them to grow their operations in our Province as well and be able to be successful. So, what happens when all of that is being threatened? That is how I see it today, because a lot of this is being threatened.

What we have is, although it has been a number of months that, as the Opposition, we have been asking the government to bring forward amendments to the FPI Act and to look at how this act could be strengthened to ensure that the company survives, that plants survive, that people actually have jobs, that fisherman have somewhere to sell their catch, it has been difficult, Mr. Speaker. It has been a difficult debate every day in this House of Assembly, and the difficulty arises because the fishery is a fishery that is very socially orientated. It is a fishery that is built on very high emotions, because it is all about people's livelihood. When you get into people's livelihood, that is the kind of thing that you have to deal with, Mr. Speaker.

We are looking at strengthening the FPI Act, and I agree with the recommendations that the minister has brought forward in this act, but I still think there is room to tighten it up. We are going to propose some amendments as we go along with the debate in this legislation, but the amendments that we are going to propose are not in any way going to change the intent of the act but rather just to have tighter controls on it, Mr. Speaker, and to really ensure that the loopholes are closed and that there will not be any particular openings there for the company to waltz through after this is said and done.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that the amendments that we pass with this act in the Legislature at this time are going to be able to do what needs to be done to ensure the viability of the company at the end of the day, to ensure the protection of the assets for the people in the Province, and also to ensure, in as much as we possibly can, that there will be ongoing processing operations in the Province by FPI.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about, first of all, the composition of the board. The board will go from seven members who are there now to thirteen members. Basically what we are saying is that there should be a government representative who sits on that board so that there is that direct contact between the government and the company, so that there is a report on day-to-day operations so that you know what is going on.

We are also talking, in this act, about the company having to get permission from government to sell a substantial portion of its assets. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that not just a substantial portion, because that needs to be clarified and should be clarified, but we really feel that any portion of sale for the company should definitely be done through consent of government.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation does address the competition of the board. We certainly believe that people with competing interests should not sit on this board unless they have the approval of government to do so. Some people might say that you should not restrict the processors or people who own other fish companies from sitting on the board because you need to have fisheries expertise but, in my mind, fisheries expertise in this Province is not limited to owners or processors. There are lots of people in this Province who have tremendous knowledge in the fishery who could definitely sit on the board of directors of a company like this, who do not have competing interests.

I think that if the real intent here is to ensure that there is no competing interest on the board, then I think that should be made quite clear and not left open for any kind of interpretation that could allow it to happen at any point.

There are a number of things that this act speaks to, and one of the things definitely that it says is that you cannot sell a plant without the approval of government, but it does not say that you cannot close a plant without the approval of government. I have a problem with that because, what we are seeing today is, we are seeing a company, in my opinion, that does not show a great deal of respect to the people of the Province. If they did, they would be showing more respect to government because, ultimately, government is the representative of the people.

When a company like FPI is going out every other day and closing down plants, laying off workers, revamping the corporation, without giving real and full knowledge of their intentions and their actions to government, that is a problem, Mr. Speaker. That is a huge problem. Personally, I do not think they should be allowed to close any of those plants without prior consent of government, without showing that rationalizing the industry in the way that they have decided to do so is imperative to the success of the company. In my mind, those things have certainly not been proven as it relates to FPI, so I do not think they should be able to sell the plants but I do not think they should be able to close them, either, without the consent of government.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What about the other assets of the company? You know, what about the boats that this company owns, like the scallop boats that are in Nova Scotia, like the offshore draggers that are out there, that are owned by this company? I think there are eight boats in its fleet, maybe less than that now, I am not entirely sure, but what happens to those? Because the act does not speak to those particular assets and, in my mind, they are a valuable part of this company that have been built up over the years. They are probably one of the more successful pieces of the operation, if you want to look at it from that perspective, so what happens to those assets? They have to be protected as well.

Of course, the quotas, Mr. Speaker. The government maintains that they have no jurisdiction as a Province when it comes to quotas but, Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction or not, it is not fair, and no one in this country can make me believe that there is fairness in a private company or privately or publically traded company or any kind of company that holds quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdiction, in Newfoundland and Labrador waters, that they should have the privilege to hold these quotas forever and eternity, whether they use them to benefit the people of this Province or not. I do not think that should ever happen, and it is happening, and that is the problem here.

We have a huge problem, because every time this company or any other company decides that they are going to close down a plant in a community, that they are going to leave, the first thing they do is, they leave with the most valuable commodity that they have, and that is the fish quota, and so far we have been helpless to stop it. That has to change, and whether it changes through the protection of quotas in this act or changes by the will of the federal government, it has to change, and I can guarantee you that the federal government, whether Mr. Hearn is a Newfoundlander or not, he is not going to walk in here and tell the people of the Province that we are going to be revoking fish quotas from these companies if they refuse to process the fish in Newfoundland and Labrador unless somebody starts taking them to task, and that is the job of the provincial government, Mr. Speaker. That is the job of the provincial government, to ensure that the federal government, in managing our fish quotas, do it responsibly and they do it in the best interests of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I still cannot get over the fact that this company walked out of Harbour Breton and closed the doors and laid off hundreds of workers, and still today hold the fish quotas that were traditionally processed in that plant. Now, where are they processing them today? I have no idea. They might be doing it at sea, they might be taking it to Nova Scotia, they might be doing it in China, I have no idea, but what I do know is that the quotas are not benefitting the people of Harbour Breton today. In my mind, there is no fairness in that.

The government likes to talk tough when it comes to oil companies and when it comes to the federal government on other issues, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no tough talk on quotas in the fishery and that is a problem for me. Because, if you think that any of these rural communities are going to survive while multi-million dollar businessmen are walking around with the quota in their back pocket, selling it at sea, Mr. Speaker, or taking it to China and making millions of dollars, if you think that is going to happen and rural Newfoundland and Labrador is still going to survive, well, I have a newsflash for you, it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen and it cannot happen. It cannot, simply because you need to have quotas in these communities if you are going to be able to build any kind of an enterprise or any kind of an industry around the fishery. That is the bottom line.

We have seen it done, Mr. Speaker, over the years. We have seen shrimp quotas go to people in Nova Scotia who are practicing in the medical profession. We have seen quotas of shrimp go to Prince Edward Island. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there are people living all over the world who hold quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador fish waters, in Canadian jurisdiction. I do not agree with it, and I have made it known many, many times. I do not agree with it. I do not think that any one person in this Province should have the privilege to hold the quotas to the fish stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador forever and eternity, and to do with it whatever they please.

Mr. Speaker, I do not care if they hold the quota for 100 years if they are going to use it to benefit the people of the Province, if they are going to continue to process it on shore, land it on shore, create employment, but as soon as they start taking it elsewhere then it becomes a problem, a huge problem, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the act does not address some of the other assets of the company, like the plant in Danvers, Massachusetts, that the company purchased; that the company purchased, Mr. Speaker, at a time when they were running a huge deficit, or a huge debt. Mr. Speaker, they were in here to the Legislature trying to get changes to the bill passed, trying to get the income trust done so they could go out and sell certain stock in the company, so that they could raise money. This is what they wanted to do. I think, at the time, they were looking at $100 million that they were going to raise, in theory, and they wanted to sell off part of their marketing arm in the United States to do it, another arm of this corporation that is not protected under this act; but, Mr. Speaker, when all of that was happening, when the company was out there racking up the debt, escalating the debt to $300 million, which is what it is today, when they were doing that, they were continuing to add to their debt. Although they were in here trying to get income trust, trying to sell off part of the marketing division in the United States, trying to raise $100 million in capital for FPI - when all that was happening - they were also out there acquiring more businesses, and this time in the U.K., spending $41 million to acquire a processing facility in the United Kingdom, and continuing to add to the debt of the company.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no protection in this act, in my mind, for those assets - for those assets that are in the United Kingdom, for those that are in the United States, and for the marketing division that is the U.S. - and I think it is important that government have some control over those assets as well. That means that the company not be permitted to sell, lease, loan, whatever the case may be, those particular assets of the company, either, without permission of the government. Because we all know that it is the marketing division of FPI that is producing the greatest revenues for the company today. We already know it is not the plant in Fortune; that is the reason they closed it. We knew it wasn't the plant in Harbour Breton; that is why they closed that. We knew it wasn't the plant in Marystown; that is why they were laying off so many workers down there. We know now that it is probably not going to be any of their processing facilities that they have here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is going to generate the greatest revenues for the company. We know, for certain, that it is going to be the marketing arm of this corporation.

Mr. Speaker, my fear is this: My fear is that, at the end of the day, those who have tried to gain control of this company over the years are actually going to achieve what they set out to do, and that is to control the most lucrative parts of Fishery Products International, leaving the processing plants to the wayside and to the government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: May I, by leave, just clue up, Mr. Speaker? I am almost finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will get to my concluding comments, because I know there are a lot of people who want to speak to this act, and I know that we will have other opportunities as well.

In conclusion, I just want to summarize by saying a couple of things, and that is that it is Fishery Products International themselves, it is the board of directors, it is the individuals who sit on the board of directors that have huge shares in FPI, and there are four particular shareholders who hold 55 per cent of the interest in this company. Three of them sit on the board of directors and could be considered to be direct competitors of FPI, Mr. Speaker, and it is those individuals who have added to the indebtedness of this company over the years. It is those individuals who have escalated the debt of FPI to where it is today at $300 million. It is those individuals, Mr. Speaker, who did not focus to make the processing facilities in this Province profitable over that period of time and therefore today we are seeing them close, and that is a problem, so that situation definitely has to change.

The other problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we have no control over quotas in this Province, and as long as we let this company walk away with those quotas and not have any control over them for the benefit of the communities, without fish we have no opportunity to have those plants. It does not matter what company wants to come in and operate - it could be Bill Barry willing to take over every plant out there - if he has no quota, if he has no fish to land to those plants, what good are they to him and what good are they to the people who live in those communities? That is the real problem that we are going to have to deal with here.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments just by saying that the recommendations or the amendments that the minister has put in this legislation are indeed necessary but I do not think that they go far enough. I think they need to be stronger, they need to be tightened, and we need to ensure that we can protect all aspects of the company, not just the operations in this Province. It does not matter if they are in the U.K., in the United States, or elsewhere in Canada, we need to still have control over them because they are still a part of this company and generate revenue for the company.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in second reading concerning Bill 32, the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Just for my good friends Joe and Martha again, who always watch us on TV, this is a stage whereby we tell - I am assuming they are still up, at 10:38 p.m.. They usually are; they are very avid listeners. This is the stage again where all parties say what they feel about the general principles of the act, and later on, on Thursday, we are going to get into the nitty-gritty details of section by section and so on. It might seem like everybody is all over the map here, but this is where people express their general commentary on the principles of the legislation.

I don't have any particular speech prepared, certainly not a speech against the bill. In fact, I will be voting in support of Bill 32 at the end of the day. Like many people have expressed, I certainly feel as an Opposition member here that it doesn't go far enough.

I would like to thank the Member for Bonavista North too because of all the commentary I heard today, and everybody has sort of given a history of FPI and so on. I think the Member for Bonavista North in his stern but clear voice gave a very good recital of the history of FPI, and certainly the recent goings on with the board and so on. That was very informative actually, and people need to understand the history in order to understand why we are here and why we need to change things. I think that was very helpful myself.

Just a couple of comments as to some of the things that have been bantered back and forth here today, and some ministers have said this and the Premier has said this and so on, just some issues that I am unclear about. I think, again, this is so important to all of us that it is not a case of he said, she said, I disagree with your, so therefore it all has to be wrong. A lot of times we just ask questions because you may have the information to enlighten us and then we don't hold that unfair notion any longer once we are properly informed.

We hear talk about a privative clause. Oh, we shouldn't have had that in the first place, the Premier says. Again, we had it put in there in 2002. We all felt at that time, the government of the day felt, it was okay at that time and we put it in. We came here last year when we dealt with the income trust piece, and we took it out. Now, obviously that income trust piece, albeit it received Royal Assent, never saw the light of day as an enacted law because it never got proclaimed, but it was a law of this Province. We added it in 2002, we took it out in 2005, and now we are putting it back in again with slight word change, a little slight word change in subsection (1) of that section 11.1.

I raise the question: Is it good or is it no good, and if it is no good, why are we putting it back in again? Surely when we get into the detailed nitty-gritty we will have some explanation for that. If, as some people are saying on the government side, the privative clause, maybe we should not have it there and it might not be useable, it might not be enforceable, and foreign shareholders might still come back and get at us and so on, but we are going to put it back in. We can't have our cake and eat it too. It is either no good or we think it is good enough to put in, and if so, what is the reason we are putting it back in? That is a question we have.

We hear lots of things about: Well, we didn't put this in because now we don't think it is useable. That raises a concern because it seems like sometimes the government is not focused here. It seems almost like we were dealing with a reactionary type of situation, an ad hoc reaction to a situation that gradually picked up steam in this Province with things that were happening with FPI and then other things happening in the fishery. All of a sudden we reached a point where people are talking near crisis to - I think I heard the Minister of Fisheries today actually say crisis in the fishery. It seems like we are not getting a reaction here.

Some things that were thought worthy, even two weeks ago, all of a sudden: That's no good any more. For example, cross-subsidization. I believe it was the minister himself in this House who one day, in response to a question, the Minister of Finance -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier.

MR. PARSONS: The Premier, uttered the words: Cross-subsidization. Again, people get concerned about: Are we with someone or are we not? If you have not done your legal research, you should not be out saying that it is an option. It is like, with all due respect to the Minister of Fisheries, up in the back of a truck saying that FPI was going to be charged and then turn around the next day and say: No, no, we have to do due diligence. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Like the Premier is saying, cross-subsidization might be an option and today he tells us: Well, we have the research done now and that is not an option any more. So that leads people to think that maybe the government is not as focused as they ought to be, which raises the question again of: Do we have everything in this bill today that we ought to have in it?

Now it is fine, I think - and the Premier pretty well indicated to the media today: We will listen to the Opposition's amendments that they are going to put forward. We looked at most of them all before - lip service -at the end of the day we will vote and move on. That is my interpretation of what was told to the media today, which is not the role of the House. I think people listen openly and see whether there is or is not some merit to the amendments that are being put forth. You don't vote against it, no more than you would propose it just for the sake of proposing it. I would not think government would vote it down just because they are the government and think, because the Opposition proposed it, it bears no merit. Give it due consideration. As the minister says, do due diligence on it and at the end of the day decide. So, these kinds of actions are confusing to the public. Government is saying one thing one day, and the next day we are saying: No, we can't do that.

That is like the legal opinions. We have had lots of banter back and forth this House today about legal opinions that exist or do not exist. That is pretty confusing. In fact, I went and got what I know - the only thing I know, there may be others, but I got and reread today the only legal opinions that I know of that exist, that government gave to us. In fact, they gave them last year. When we were debating the income trust piece, I asked a question of the Premier one day. I said: If you are talking about you got this opinion and that opinion and there are inconsistent opinions, how about giving them to us so that, in the interest of openness and transparency, we will be able to read the same opinions and see where you are coming from? Why leave anybody in the dark?

Sure enough, the opinions were delivered. These opinions, ladies and gentlemen, came from three different law firms at different stages in time. One law firm was called Stikeman Elliott, out of Toronto; another law firm was Fasken Martineau, I believe, in Montreal; and Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, another national law firm.

Now, a lot of pages are blacked out, and I understand that and I have no difficulty with that. In the interest of commercial sensitivity they had to black out some of the details, and it is nobody's business. You can still read the opinions and grasp what they are saying without having the nitty-gritty detail.

For the record, every one of these opinions that we got over here - now, maybe there are others. If there are, we don't have them, as far as I know, which we have an issue again of openness and transparency, and I will come to that again later when I comment on the quota piece.

Under these opinions right here, Stikeman Elliott said, first back in 2001 - and I believe that was when we had the reverse takeover of Clearwater of FPI. The Justice Department - I happened to be there at the time - went to Stikeman Elliott and said: What is this all about? Is this in violation of section 7? Anyway, Stikeman Elliott came back then and said: No, it is not. They can actually do that; it is not violating section 7.

They updated that opinion again in 2005 when they got to the Income Trust. The government went back, then, and asked Stikeman Elliott again, and Stikeman Elliott said no, the same thing; income trust will not violate section 7.

Then they went to Fasken Martineau - a second opinion, a great idea - and Fasken Martineau said: Yes, we think the income trust might be in violation of section 7.

So, you have one for one against. The government again - prudent, I believe - went out and said: Let's go and get another one.

They went to Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt. They came back and said, like Stikeman Elliott: We think this is not contrary to section 7.

Now, all of those opinions from these three different law firms over that course of time from 2001 dealing with certain specific circumstances, the reverse takeover, we call it, of Clearwater and the income trust last year all dealt with one issue, and one issue only, and that was section 7, and was it being violated? For example, what is the definition of all or substantially all of the company's assets?

If there is any legal opinion that exists with regard to quotas and whatever, we certainly do not have it. Now, I understand from the Premier's comments today that there had been legal advice. He talked about a Cabinet meeting on Friday past where there was advice from the Department of Justice solicitors and external legal opinions.

With all due respect, we do not have them. Maybe we are not supposed to have them, but I think we ought to. If we going to debate this thing openly and the government has gotten opinions - the same as they had in these cases - why can't we have it, so that we all know what the opinions say? Because, it is pretty easy to say there is an opinion. It is like an old saying somebody said: Backsides, we all have one but they are all different. Opinions are pretty well the same way.

I think it is only fair that, if you are going to be talking, as a government, about opinions, you ought to give them to us. There is nothing wrong with us having them so we can make our own determinations - which brings me to the issue again. When people talk about opinions, we can't do this, we can't touch that, we shouldn't touch this, legal opinions, all we have on legal opinions, I am telling you, are these that I am referring to here. That is exactly what they said, nothing else.

Don't try to make Joe and Martha out there believe that legal opinions have given you Bill 32 and that is all you can do and only that. If that is the case, let us all see it. Maybe we will say these amendments we got on Thursday aren't worth the paper they are written on, because we agree with all those opinions. If there are any grey areas in those opinions or ifs or ands or whatever, why shouldn't we see that so we are all informed and we can debate it openly from an informed point of view and vote accordingly? That is a bit confusing to the public.

We are not all lawyers in there. I happen to be one, but I don't think you have to be a lawyer to ask these simple questions. If you have something, why can't we see it and read it? You don't have to be a lawyer to read black on white and figure out what they are saying.

Then we come to the issue of the quotas: Can't do this with the quotas; not ours. The Minister of Fisheries got up today and gave us a brief constitutional lesson. I happened to take it too, section 91 and 92 of what we called back then the British North America Act before they called it the Constitution Act. The same thing, powers of the federal government, powers of the provincial government, one cannot step on the other one's toes. He got into banks out in Alberta and whatever, determined to be federal authority. You couldn't do it. Nobody is suggesting over here that the federal government doesn't own the quotas. That is the point that I don't think is being made clear. We have absolutely no disagreement with the fact that the quotas are issued by the federal government, and under the Constitution the federal government controls the issuance of those quotas. We are approaching it from the point of view of security.

For example, the federal government gives the quotas to FPI. Now, if you are in a banking institution, anybody - if you have a fish company out here, you go to the bank and you say, I want $1 million to put into new equipment, new boats, a new plant, whatever, the bank will first say to you, fine, we need a debenture over your property, a floating charge. Everything you have, we have a floating charge over, over all your assets, even your good will. Surely, if a debenture as a security document could be a security document over good will and over a plant and over a truck and over a vessel, it can certainly be a security document over a quota that company owns. Like anybody else, if you don't comply with the bank's requirements, they crystalize their debenture, they come in and take everything you have, and then they are in control of it.

All we are suggesting is, why doesn't the government use the FPI Act we are dealing with here as a security instrument, and say: If you do not do all you are supposed to do in here, we have a clause in here saying we will crystalize everything you have, including your quotas. If they breach the act, then, you enforce your security.

Now, we realize you still have a problem in that you don't own the quota, but you have removed one player from the equation. You have moved the player, and removed the player, who is playing with the quota. You have taken FPI out of the action, and that is all we are suggesting, not that you have a constitutional right to take those quotas, to take them from anybody, because that might get you in a squabble with the federal government. We are just saying, put yourselves in a position, as a government and a people here in this Province, that, if you put it in this law, and if FPI screws up and tries to take your quotas anywhere else - sell them, give them away, process it anywhere else - if any condition of this act they breach, sorry, boys, you lost your quota. No different that any other kind of security docket, and this FPI Act would be your security document. That is all we are suggesting. We are not raising constitutional arguments here.

Now, we talked about creativity, and can we all reach a solution that solves where we want to go? That is all we are trying to suggest. Maybe I don't have the right language around this. I certainly don't claim to be the brightest lawyer in the world, but all I am saying is, if you ask anybody in the corporate world, and you approach it from the point of view of, are we on soft ground constitutionally?, that is what they are going to tell you, that yes, you are on soft ground constitutionally, but if you ask them, from a corporate security point of view, give me some creative solutions so that I can tie up the quotas of that company, they will give you a different opinion geared to that. That is where we seem to be on different wavelengths here.

What is the difference in suggesting that you can't sell your plant in Danvers, Massachusetts, and in saying you can't do such-and-such with your quotas? There is no big difference. The company owns it all; it is all part of their asset base. All you are doing within the law is saying, we are telling you what you are going to do with your assets, and what you can't do. I won't belabour that point any more.

The other point that I think is missing here is, if there is an issue about the quotas and whether we can or cannot do it for constitutional reasons, whatever happened to a reference? Why are we all second-guessing, and the government being mamby-pamby and saying: Well, we don't know if we can do that. We are not sure about doing that. That might not be allowed.

Why can't we have a reference to the Court of Appeal? Why are we relying on Stikeman Elliott and Fasken Martineau and anybody else to tell us what we can or might not be able to do? It is all an opinion. Why don't we take it, at least, and go to the court, the same as we did on the offshore oil reference years ago, and say: Here, Court of Appeal, tell us, can we do this in the FPI Act to try to secure these quotas as security? Tell us.

Chief Justice Wells and the crowd down there would do that for you in jig time, if the government asked them and expressed the urgency. If we can make references to the Supreme Court of Canada on things like our Constitution, surely this is not a big issue for our Court of Appeal to deal with. How come that is not being checked out? That can be done. Instead of saying we are afraid or we don't know, why not check out the options and go for it, and not be left with dealing with opinions?

That brings us again to the quota issue. As I understand it, and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong here on this history, but when we dealt with this in 2002 - excuse me, when the standing committee dealt with this - there were talks at that time about amending the FPI Act to put in about the quota. What was decided, as I understand it, was that the company came forward at that time and said: We will give you a letter of undertaking, a letter of commitment or something, that the Newfoundland-based quotas will be used for Newfoundland if you lay off. That is what the committee, as I understand it here, says: The committee recommends that the government and FPI attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas. In the event that the parties cannot reach an acceptable enforceable agreement within a reasonable period, the committee recommends that the FPI Act be amended to include a requirement that all current and future FPI quotas and allocations in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador be harvested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and processed within the Province.

Now, history has proven, folks, that the management of FPI did not live by that. That was an undertaking. I believe Mr. Crosbie, from my understanding of my conversation with the Leader of the NDP, was a member of that committee, and that is what the company agreed to do. We will commit to you in writing about the quotas. You don't have to worry about the constitutional piece of it, you don't have to worry about the security piece. We will give you a written letter saying it is going to be yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: An enforceable agreement.

MR. PARSONS: An enforceable agreement, and it never came to be. So, if it did not come to be, I think we again should revert to what the all-party committee said at that time, and say: Thank you very much. You had your chance; you didn't do it. Now we are going to put something in here to do it. The same as we were going to do back then. I mean, that is not quantum leaps of logic of what we are talking about doing here.

I just wanted to make these few comments because it is fine to come back in here and debate all day. It is fine for us to come back here on Thursday and the government say: Get up and have your six hours of speeches talking about these amendments. We will pay you lip service and we will get out of here and we will pass this and we will go on home.

At the end of the day - and I am glad Hansard is going to record this - if we have to take the time to do this, we may as well take the time to do it right. If we are not focused, and if we are not creative enough, and if we don't have all the right answers, let's take the time and try to put them in place. Let's not say we are not sure about whether we can or we can't. Because I guarantee you, folks, we are going to be back here again next year with the FPI Act here again saying, we didn't go far enough. I don't think any of us here have to question what the motivations are now of the current Board of Directors and management of FPI. If we don't do it right, we are going to be back here again.

I also heard today comments from the Premier and from the minister: We don't want to be too intrusive, can't be too intrusive. We can only pass certain laws. If we get too intrusive we will taint or tarnish the investment environment in the Province - words to that effect. We don't want to give the impression we are interfering with capitalism and we are open for business. Well, folks, I think we are a bit late for that. We are a bit late for that. You ask anybody who is involved with the Hebron-Ben Nevis consortium and I think they will say, as of six weeks ago, the business community in this country - and I say to the Member for St. John's North who is shaking his head, yes, there are a lot of people on Bay Streets and in New Yorks who already think that we, as a Province, have tainted our business environment. I think that is a lame excuse now, when we are talking about our fishing company, to worry about whether we taint their investment environment.

Number two, and more importantly - and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said it here himself again today, when he was talking about it from a different perspective, he said: Whoa, don't get too upset about the shareholders here, whether they be individuals or whether they be institutional investors, about us making laws. He said: They knew what they were getting into when they bought into this, so don't be too upset, shareholders.

I say the same thing, and I use the minister's same statement back to him. These same shareholders - no matter how far you go in amending Bill 32, the same logic applies - they knew when they got into this what they were getting into.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a second to clue up, if I might?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the member.

MR. PARSONS: My concluding comment is, I agree with what is here, I will be voting for what is here, but I don't think government has done the due diligence and put the teeth into this thing that they can . This is not a time to be mamby-pamby and second-guess yourselves. You have the intestinal fortitude. Put it in there and let somebody prove that you are wrong in what you did. I would rather err on the side of caution and put something in it that is too strong than be back here in twelve months time when somebody says: Whoa, we should have done it then.

I will get into further details on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, but thank you very much for the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks now, he will close debate on second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me begin by thanking colleagues on both sides of the House who took part in this debate today. I think this was probably one of the most focused and civilized debates that I have seen in this place for some time, and I believe it reflects the importance and the significance of what we are trying to do here, and the impact that FPI in particular, and the fishing industry in general, has on people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador living in many hundreds of communities around our coastline.

There were a significant number of members from both sides of the House who took part, and I believe a significant contribution was made by all of those who took part. I am not going to, in closing the debate tonight, attempt to respond to every single statement and item that was raised today. That will, perhaps, be more appropriately done when we get into Committee, and people raise questions and you get up and you answer them and you go back and forth in that kind of flow, but there are a few issues that were raised that I, certainly, want to respond to before closing the debate on second reading.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader, in particular, talk about amendments that they are going to propose to this legislation, and that is fine. We have no difficulty if amendments make sense, then we are prepared to consider them. I think the Premier indicated that already earlier in the day, but, so far, we do not know what they are. We haven't seen them, so it is obviously impossible for us, as a government, at this point in time to make any commitment about whether we think they are reasonable, whether we think they add to the bill or whether they do not. So, we will pass on any commitments, certainly, except a commitment to look at any proposed amendments. As a matter of fact, we may well have an amendment or so to propose ourselves, as government, that will, in our view, strengthen the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, who just spoke, said to the effect that we are starting to make excuses over here about doing legislation that is too intrusive, and it is a bit too late to do that now in view of what we did at the Hebron-Ben Nevis negotiations. I am flattened, really, that we would get that kind of a response from the Opposition House Leader. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that what we propose in terms of taking an equity position in Hebron-Ben Nevis is okay for Norway. It is okay for Norway and some other countries in the world to be able to own a piece of their resource, to own a piece of their destiny. It is okay for the Government of Canada to own 8.5 per cent of Hibernia, but it is somehow wrong for us to want to own a piece of our resource in a new development. I mean, what kind of logic is that?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any comments about any of the details about Ben Nevis other than to comment on how I think it affected the business climate. I have no opposition whatsoever to this Province having an equity position in the negotiations. None whatsoever!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what is wrong with the Opposition House Leader, but that is exactly what I was saying, that we had gone a bit too far to talk about being intrusive he said, too intrusive. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying here. So, I mean, you cannot have it both ways.

He talks about quotas as security, taking some security on those quotas. Mr. Speaker, I am told that fish quota is not considered by any financial institution to have a lot of collateral value. Do you know why? Because fish quotas can go up, they can go down, they can be taken away, some government can decide that the rules of the game are going to change.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that the value from a collateral value perspective for fish quota, some financial institutions will not even consider it in financing. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that. So, when you are talking about those security arrangements and you take your security arrangements by making a quota part of it, well that may sound good on the surface but it really does not carry a lot of weight in the financial community.

MR. REID: You took quotas last year as security against the income trust if they did not honour their commitments (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. Well, we were going to have a contract and it meant a lot of us. Quotas mean a lot to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador if we control them, because we can decide where they are going to be processed and that kind of thing. All I am talking about is security arrangement with a financial institution, and that was what the Opposition House Leader was talking about. What he was saying was not necessarily the case because financial institutions do not necessarily place any value - some do not place any value on it. Some place some value on it and some place little value on it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before concluding I want to refer to clause 7 again because the Leader of the Opposition today made both in his remarks and in Question Period, and I tried to clarify it in my remarks, as to what is meant by clause 7.(1) and clause 7.(2) and what security it gives the Province in terms of assets of various divisions of FPI.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 7.(1) - and I am not going to read it all. It is a significantly long clause but the last part of the last sentence refers to the harvesting, processing or marketing of seafood. In other words, what the clause is saying is that FPI, or any subsidiary of FPI, cannot move to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, all those words, any of the harvesting. That includes the fleet. Harvesting, obviously, includes the fleet. Processing, obviously, includes processing plants wherever FPI owns them, whether it is in Danvers, Massachusetts. That is what we have been told, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that is what I am telling you. That is exactly what it means, Mr. Speaker.

Marketing of seafood, Mr. Speaker, obviously includes the marketing arm of the company. Obviously, it does. So, clause 1 covers off the whole gamut of assets of FPI Fishery Products International Limited, in harvesting, processing and marketing. Then, we put in an additional clause and an additional definition to deal with plants and machinery and equipment here in this Province. So, my understanding, from our legal advisors, is that we are covered on all of the assets of FPI whether they are held in this Province or whether they are held somewhere else. Because, do not forget, OCI is a 100 per cent wholly-owned subsidiary of Fishery Products International.

So, I know there will be more detail that we will go through when we get into Committee, Mr. Speaker, I have just tried to -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with the Member for Bay of Islands. Perhaps he will give us his legal opinion when we get into Committee and we can see how that stacks up.

Now, in terms of providing the Opposition with legal opinions, my -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) I will guarantee you that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. JOYCE: When you got in back of the truck you did not need a legal opinion.

MR. RIDEOUT: No. No, because you would not be invited in the back of the truck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to diverse here tonight. It is getting late. The Member for Bay of Islands is baiting me and I should have more sense and more maturity and more professionalism to fall for it, but, perhaps it is the hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: But, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make one other point that the Opposition House Leader raised, or make one reference to another point he raised, and that was legal opinions. My understanding from the legal people in the Department of Justice is that the legal advice they have given this government, in terms of quotas and what this government's rights are in terms of quotas, is the same legal advice that they gave the all-party committee when the all-party committee were considering this issue back in 2001 or 2002, whenever it was. That is what I understand. I understand from Justice that same legal advice, by those same people - and I am not going to mention their names publicly but everybody knows who they are - that it was never in writing, it was verbal, oral briefings to the Committee, just as those -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No. Well, I do not know about the all-party committee. I could not say, I was not there, but I do know that there were a battery of lawyers, two or three of them, who verbally again, orally briefed Cabinet on this and they tell us that the same advice they gave the all-party committee is the advice that they are giving us today, now. But now there is more than one. I do not know how many talked to the all-party committee. As I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I was not there. My only point is, is that we have been advised by those people that the same advice they gave the committee on those quotas is the same advice they are giving us today.

Mr. Speaker, I know there will be more detail that we can respond to when we get into committee, and I will be happy to do that, but at this point in time I am very pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 32)

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

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

I move adjournment of the House. I believe, by agreement, the House is not opening tomorrow to allow representatives from the House of Assembly to participate in the meetings that are occurring tomorrow with respect to the fishery.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move the House adjourn, to return 1:30 p.m. on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until Thursday, May 25, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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