The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Did we check with the other leaders in the Legislature to ask if we could begin today by making reference and paying tribute to a former member who has passed away since we last gathered?

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Walter Carter who passed away on January 20 at seventy-two years of age. Born in Ship Island, Bonavista Bay, in 1929, Walter Carter represented the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in all three levels of government. He served the City of St. John's as a member of council. He served as a Minister of the Crown in several provincial administrations, and as a federal Member of Parliament for St. John's West, in the House of Commons. His success in politics, Mr. Speaker, is evidence of his likeable personality and his astute political mind, which many of us in this House have witnessed firsthand.

After retiring from politics as the MHA for Twillingate district in 1996, Mr. Carter began work on an autobiography of his life in politics. Before his death, he completed and published this book entitled, Never a Dull Moment, in 1998.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join me in expressing condolences to Mr. Carter's family, and also to recognize the contribution his work and his individual efforts have made to the Province and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Premier in offering condolences to the Carter family. The day of his death was indeed a sad day for this Province.

I like to remember Walter Carter in a light way, for the manner in which he was and the type of gentleman that he was. Our firm was fortunate enough to have him as a client for many, many years; I think at the time, probably, when Jack Harris was in the firm at the same time.

He was always a delight when he was in the office. He was very pleasant. He was always a great storyteller, and it was a pleasure to be with him, I must say. He had, in fact, over the years, actually encouraged me and suggested that I should get into politics at some point in time, and I followed his direction.

I also had the pleasure of knowing his family. I played hockey with his son, Roger, and certainly enjoyed, I guess, the experience and the familiarity that I had with the family. Of course we have seen him, obviously, operate with several political parties back in the olden days when he was with the Conservative Party. He was a great politician. He was a pleasure to watch.

I join with the Premier in expressing the condolences to the family, but thanking the Carter family for his contribution for what he has given to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is truly an icon and the Province is better by the mere fact that Walter Carter has been part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in commending to all members of the House the fond memories we have of Walter Carter, and the contribution that he has made to this House and to politics in this Province. He had the distinction, as mentioned by the Premier, of serving in all three levels of representation: municipal, provincial, and federal, and two of the three political parties that are represented in this House today. He is a great advertisement - I say this lightly as well - a great advertisement for public representation and for public life. He loved being elected and representing people in the Province. He was a great advertisement for democracy, and his example should be commended to all those who believe that we do have an important democracy and can offer ourselves to contribute to it.

He is remembered warmly by me, certainly in this House, and from my knowledge of him and his family before that and since. We are all sorry to see him pass so quickly after his retirement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Burin Peninsula School Board Scholarship winners from my district.

These students had the first, second and third highest averages from their graduating classes in the 2001 school year. This year's winner of a $200 scholarship for first place in their schools were: Karen Power of Christ the King School in Rushoon; Janelle Kenway of Pearce High in Burin; and Heather Kirby of Marystown Central High School.

Second place winners receiving a scholarship of $150 were: Desiree Leonard of Christ the King; Steven Maye of Pearce High; and Melissa Brockerville of Marystown Central High School.

Third place winners receiving $100 scholarships are: Nicole Synard of Christ the King; Stephanie Lundrigan of Pearce High; and Kyla Brake of Marystown Central High School.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of those students on their receipt of those scholarships, and their achievements, and wish them all the best of luck in their future academic endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to offer congratulations to Krystal Penney and Laura Chislett. They are both students at Booth Memorial High School and they were awarded first place at the Science Fair, at the senior level. Their project demonstrated the effects of different types of footwear on bone development, and it involved a fair amount of research which they carried out over at the Janeway Hospital. It involved, as well, a lot of hard work. They are certainly to be commended. That is a very important project, and very important in the development of children's feet.

I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating them and offering them best wishes as they go on to higher regional competitions over the next couple of weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a man who made a significant contribution to his community and to the whole Province.

Lewis Gosse passed away on January 7, at the age of seventy years. Mr. Gosse was a lifelong community volunteer and leader, serving three terms as the Mayor of Spaniard's Bay. During this time, he maintained an unparalleled level of service to the community and had a strong work ethic. He served eleven years as a board member and chairman of the former Avalon North Integrated School Board. He was also an executive member of the Avalon West School Board.

His devotion to his church culminated in his studies for the Anglican ministry at Queen's College. He was ordained as a deacon on October 12, 2001. He was well known for his dedication to his family and to the community of Spaniard's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in expressing condolences to Mr. Gosse's family and also to recognize the contribution that his work and individual efforts have made to the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 6 to March 10, high schools across Labrador held the first ever Labrador High School Sports Meet. The tournament, according to everyone who attended, was a tremendous success.

I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to stand here today and congratulate all athletes who participated in this meet and to recognize two of the young athletes from Labrador West who were selected as the Most Valuable Player Awards of the tournament.

Krystal Burt of Menihek High received the Top Female Athlete Award and also finished second in the Bench Reach. Ryan Turpin, also from Menihek High, received the Top Male Athlete Award.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues here in this House, and for all students, coaches and residents of Labrador when I say that while this event was a first, we hope it is the first of what will become an annual event.

According to Jamie Hunt of Menihek High, who is a teacher and coached the Labrador West team, the tournament was a total success with all athletes demonstrating a high level of sportsmanship in a very positive atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, bringing together students from all regions of Labrador is much more than a sporting event. Young people experience educational benefits from meeting, first hand, others of different cultures and backgrounds, learning more than they would learn in a classroom setting.

In closing, I offer congratulations to all athletes and coaches for what has been referred to as an amazing, successful tournament.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to acknowledge the formation of a new association in my District of St. John's East, namely the Churchill Park Neighbourhood Association. The Churchill Park Neighbourhood Association has a mandate to monitor and address issues concerning the quality of life of its neighbourhood and seeks to preserve and enhance the social and physical environment of the neighbourhood community.

Issues of concern may include traffic, safety, policing, development within the area and provide an avenue for interaction with various levels of government.

The Association has met on several occasions, and as recently as last night formulated its constitution and by-laws, and elected an interim Board of Directors.

I congratulate these individuals on their interest in this particular endeavour, and I wish them well as they continue their work on behalf of the residents of the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to inform the people of our Province that government has decided not to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to pay equity for government employees in the hospital HS sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The implementation of this final adjustment to pay equity will see the date for implementing the classes onto scale in accordance with the arbitrator's original ruling.

Mr. Speaker, government feels this decision is fair and to appeal further would only be a disservice to our employees. The decision will cost government approximately $4 million per year. This is a good news announcement today for these employees and will bring resolution to pay equity issues for these workers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to add, that if the minister felt it was such a disservice, why did it get to this point in the first place, I want to ask the minister? The second thing I want to say is, based on your government's performance in the courts, I could not think of a better conclusion to draw here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased with the statement of the minister for the benefits that it will confer on people who were found to be discriminated against by government in its policies. I look forward to the minister making a similar announcement with respect to the decision on the home care workers; that the government is, in fact, the employer of home care workers and starts to deal with the pay equity issues in relation to home care workers in this Province, which discriminates against women in our Province, and which is aided by government's role as employer even though they try to deny it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance did not deny that her government is considering taking upwards of $100 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund in order to shore up revenues in cash for the presentation of her Budget next Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, would you support this shameful cash grab, the raiding of funds that you, yourself, took pride in saying that it was designed to provide reliable transportation infrastructure for the people of Labrador for many, many years to come?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year when the Budget is developed, there is always a lot of speculation as to what is in the Budget, what is not in the Budget, and how the Budget is developed. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance responded to you yesterday, that is the exact same response today. We will wait for the Budget next Thursday and we will see what is in it and what is not in it. Then we will see, Mr. Speaker, who is right and who is wrong in this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs - and I think he owes it to the people of Labrador to tell them whether this matter has been discussed, whether this is something that is in the offing, whether this is something they should look out for, and whether this is something they should be concerned about, because I think they have a right to know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition wants to deal with speculation, rumor and gossip as the basis of serious questions in this Legislature. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, even his Finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, who addressed this issue in a radio interview this morning, when asked if there was any basis to this, if he could tell whether this was true or not, because he is an honest man, and that has been his reputation in Newfoundland and Labrador, he did say: I have no sources to divulge, and I admit to you that this is only something that may or may not be happening.

It has been answered by the government twice now, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, that we will disclose proudly everything that is in the Budget next Thursday when the Minister of Finance reads the Budget for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious from the Premier's interjection that he does not want to hear what the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs has said. In fact, it only confirms what I have heard, that there is a gag order on all Labrador members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister and the Member for Torngat Mountains are not allowed to speak. This is the open and transparent and accountable government of Premier Grimes.

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

The Auditor General has stated in her report, as it presently stands, the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund will be depleted, for capital, for road construction and for operating ferry costs, in less than twelve years.

Could the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs comment on the consequences of taking an additional $100 million from that fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make it clear again, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition, for the members here in the Legislature, and for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador: this government is not interested in playing games, dealing with speculation, dealing with rumours, spreading rumours and gossip.

Mr. Speaker, next Thursday, one week from tomorrow, all of the plans for the next fiscal year will be laid out in their entirety by the Minister of Finance. There will be a full accounting given as to exactly what happened in the final conclusion for this year, in terms of what the real deficit was and what the circumstance was, compared to what we budgeted a year ago in March.

Mr. Speaker, no one on this side has any interest in talking about rumours, gossip, speculation, and so on, about what may or may not happen. What may or may not happen will all become perfectly clear with a plan that we will lay out next week in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Labrador provides a great deal to our provincial coffers through its fishery, through our iron ore, and hopefully in the future from nickel and hydroelectric power; yet it gets so little in return, and now our government wants even more.

This question is specifically for the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad the government members opposite are making light of it, because I consider it to be a very serious matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a very serious question that only the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs can answer, and not the Premier of the Province.

I ask the minister: What is he planning to do if government raises this fund? What will he do? Will he agree with it, stand idly by, or will he oppose it and stand up for the people of Labrador if this, in fact, happens? I ask you minister. Give me an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, and everyone in the Legislature, this: Next week, on Thursday, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will read and present, for this Legislature and the people of the Province, the Budget. In that particular Budget, we will lay out the plans for the whole of the Province, which include very significant plans, obviously, as the Leader of the Opposition would recognize, for Labrador; because, Labrador will lead this Province in leading the rest of the country for the next decade. That will be all laid out next week, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1997, this House passed an act; it was called, An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. In that act it said: the board may authorize that money may be paid out of the fund provided that it is paid out for three purposes. Those purposes are basically: number one, the marine freight and passenger service, as a part of that agreement, by taking over the ferry service in Labrador; number two, the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and, number three, other Labrador initiatives related to transportation, which the Cabinet may approve. Those were the three purposes.

I ask the minister if she is considering or intends to use funds other than for purposes intended when this act was set up, and subject to her department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. We take all of our responsibilities very seriously.

I will repeat again what I said today, what I said yesterday, what the Premier said today, and what the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs said today, and that is that we will bring down our Budget next Thursday. It will outline our plans for next year, it will summarize our finances for this year, and we will be only too happy to discuss it then. Just like every other year, Mr. Speaker, everything in good detail will be read in the Budget and we will be free to answer any questions about any of those details anytime after that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) even if $100 million was taken out of this fund, it would be gone within a couple of years. Now minster, even if nothing is taken out of this fund, as you may do because of the flack, you may back off from it, even if nothing is done to take any money from this fund it still would be depleted within the next ten years. That is based on the rate that is currently costing and projected for that ferry service.

I want to ask the minister, independent on what she is going to do in this Budget, separate from the Budget, when this fund is depleted, and it will be in the near future: Other than what was planned when the money was received, what commitment is there that the people of Labrador will have access to an adequate ferry and transportation system in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we will commit to the people of this Province that we will maintain all necessary services. Just like we are doing now, after the end of the Roads for Rail Agreement ran out. We will continue to provide money for our roads, and we will continue to provide money for our ferry services, regardless of where they are. We are committed to the people of the Province and we will not engage in this fearmongering that the member opposite, and all those others opposite, are trying to create about how we are going to cut off the people of Labrador or cut off the people of the South Coast. We are not going there, Mr. Speaker because our principles will not allow us. We are committed to providing the ferries, the services and the roads to the people of our Province, and we stand by that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to investigate and look for the $100 million tells us that there is a glaring shortfall in this Budget that is coming up next week. That is the telling tale, I say to the minister.

The faster any fund is depleted, the greater the chance that we are going to see reduction in service or increase in rates down the road. The Legislature passed an act to establish a fund. Now this fund is basically a trust fund that guarantees a certain service to Labrador for a period of time. When that is gone there is only a promise, I say to the minister, only a promise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: What guarantee will she give that Labrador transportation initiatives will continue to be addressed and the people of Labrador will not have only adequate access but a reasonably priced transportation system in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee one thing, that the people of this Province, and that includes Labrador, have nothing to fear from this government; whether it is now or after the Budget. We commit to stand by those promises, those commitments that we have made to the people of the Province as it relates to providing services to the people of our Province and, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the people of the Province that we will continue to build on the agenda that this Premier, right here, has set within the last year and we will continue to grow our economy and grow the confidence of the people in this Province in the initiatives that we have taken on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. The 2001 Census data released today by Stats Canada shows that from 1996 to 2001, Newfoundland and Labrador's population dropped from 551,000 to 512,000; a loss of almost 40,000 people.

I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, those people did not fasten their seat belts because it was not the ride of their lives, let me tell you that, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: But, the more damning statistic, Mr. Speaker, is that 85,000 people have left from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Wouldn't the minister agree that the people of our rural communities have rendered their verdict on this government's plan to develop rural Newfoundland and voted with their feet? Will he also tell us right now, what is he, and his government's plan, to do something about turning around the population decline in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, that nobody more than us on this side, take serious the fact that there is an out-migration out of this Province, and that there has been an out-migration for a number of years. What the hon. gentleman refuses to put on the record is that there has been an out-migration, and there is an out-migration from all rural parts of the Province to St. John's, and all rural parts of Canada to urban centres, and all rural parts of North America to urban centres -

MR. SULLIVAN: Those provinces are (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I need protection.

- and all rural parts of the world. The fact of the matter is, that the out-migration from rural Newfoundland in this Province was exasperated by the shut down of the groundfish industry. What is the evidence that we have, that we are reversing the trend? I say to him again, as I have said to him a million times in this House and I will keep repeating it because it is the truth, that there are certain parts of this Province that have not yet recovered from the shut down of the groundfish industry. The Northern Peninsula is a prime example of it. None of us have been able, including the Opposition, to offer any solutions to what has happened and what to do on the Northern Peninsula of this Province, and certain other areas.

However, Mr. Speaker, what have we done? Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that last year in this Province, as a result of measures that were put in place, as a result of the economy picking up in this Province, that we created in this Province last year, a record number of jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Last year there were 211,000 people working in this Province; 211,000 people. We had the highest growth in employment numbers in the country; 3.3 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously, for all of us, a serious matter. We should not make light of it, and this government will continue to do the type of work that is necessary to see that we do the best we can in rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplement, the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The stats do not lie. They present the facts as they are. Compared to the rest of the country, we are in a population decline crisis. How can this minister stand up today and defend this: We are 1.7 per cent of the population in the country. Yet, out of twenty-five communities who were worse hit by population decline, we have 25 per cent of them. How can you stand up today and justify your record of recovery? Minister, wouldn't you agree that recovery cannot exist where no people exist?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman today, that the average, since 1996, is indeed disappointing. Let me just say to him again, that there are communities in Saskatchewan, and there are communities all over North America, that are disappearing. We have had no communities in this Province, I say to him, disappear. Let me also say to him, that there has been some progress made. In 1996 the total net out-migration from this Province was 7,869. In 1999-2000, that has been cut in half to 3,900. Last year again, that number was down to 3,500. So there is progress being made but obviously not as much as we would all like to see. But I say to him, we had a special problem of recovery in this Province.

He can sit over there and grin, but I say to him, it is a serious problem. It is a problem that we take serious, and if he asked us: What do people think of what you do? I will tell him where he should have been. He should have been in a rural forum last fall where people said: Yes, we know the problem is there. Yes, government, we know it is a real problem. Yes, government, we also know that you are on the right track with what you are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grinning at his spinning. That is what I am grinning at. That is the only thing that I can grin at. The fact of the matter is that there has been a decline. Do you know why, minister? Because there is no one left to go, I say to the Minister of Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question. Not only is it serious because people have left, but let me ask the Minister of Finance this question. While the loss of a large number of people is devastating from a rural development prospective, it also means a loss in the direct transfers to the Province of more than $100 million. Can the minister confirm, that because of the decline since 1996 in direct transfers under equalization and the Canada Health and Social Transfer, that more than $100 million has been lost to the revenues of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows, and everyone in the Province knows, that our population estimates are recorded as 533,000. What the member opposite is referring to is the count that was made four years ago and today, which was a decline, as he pointed out earlier.

We have already reduced our population to 533,000, and no, Mr. Speaker, we haven't lost that amount of equalization because, in fact, we are getting paid for more people than we actually had. These numbers, in fact, as everybody knows in the Province, a census is a count, a point in time. We know that every time Census Canada will take about eighteen months to reconcile these numbers. They will do that by the fall of 2003, and we anticipate that there will be a reduction, sadly, as my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development has said. Things are progressing. But, Mr. Speaker, it is important to say that in this Province you cannot count on real numbers. We can say, without any doubt, our personal income tax increased least year, our housing starts went up last year, and our overall economic growth is clear. So, we are not going to do the doom and gloom stuff. We recognize the numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We recognize those numbers will be reconciled, but we are not going there, Mr. Speaker, because we live in hope for fear of dying in despair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, that if this government continues to stay in power, I know where they are going and so do the people of the Province know where they are going after the next election, with damning stats like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question, one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the direct transfer losses, there were also transfer losses from the federal government to individuals, such as child tax benefit credits that were not there, income tax rebates, EI, CPP, to name a few. Has your department done any analysis whatsoever to understand or quantify what the actual loss in direct transfers from Ottawa to these individuals would be on the provincial economy of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I have just pointed out, regrettably, I know, for the member opposite, we have seen more people in this Province spend the money they have. We have seen our own personal income tax increased. We have seen sales tax increased. We have seen housing starts increased, and we can only talk about the economy. Now, I know the members opposite would like to think that the bottom is falling out of it, but we have seen consistent growth. We are leading the country in GDP, and while that is very much oil-based, we do know that it speaks to a confidence in our economy, and we have seen it, Mr. Speaker, in our own numbers. We have not seen the reverberations from September 11.

In this Province, our economy, Mr. Speaker, continues to grow. I know that is very disturbing news for the members opposite, but that is the fact associated with our numbers, in that our economy continues to grow and to strengthen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

As the minister is aware, the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games were a great success this year, with one exception. Athletes from Labrador West experienced several delays in getting home from the games, due to weather and other problems. The Labrador West athletes who were supposed to take part in the second half of the games were delayed by those same problems in the beginning; however, a decision was made by those bestowed with the power of decision-making to cancel their attendance and participation altogether, even when the weather improved. That decision was reversed by the minister, and I applaud the minister for his work in that area, but I ask the minister if he has investigated the whole circumstance concerning what happened to athletes from Labrador West, and if he has a report ready with a full explanation for athletes, coaches and parents in Labrador West?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Labrador West for the question. I want to also thank him for his participation in resolving the issue that came up due to unfortunate circumstances of weather and aircraft problems that arose at the games. We did have probably as successful a games as we have ever had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, we have the best provincial games in Canada, as far as we are concerned, and they went very well. But, on that issue, I had an investigation done with my officials. I will be writing a letter which outlines the situation to a number of people in Labrador West, including the member. I believe that there was a decision-making process that could have used some help; but, at the end of the day, we were able to resolve the issue. I think it was the right decision to get those athletes there, because it is not just about sports. The games are about unity and they are about a great experience for the youth of our Province. The right decision was made. I thank the member for his help in making that decision. We did make the right decision, and we will have a report.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister whether or not he will personally come to Labrador West to provide that explanation to the parents, the athletes and the coaches. Also, I would like to ask the minister if, through his department, there will be a meeting convened of all people who are involved in organizing the Winter Games, wherever they may be held, to put contingency plans in place so that situations like this do not arise in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank members of the House: the Premier, who came to open the games, members of the House of all stripes who were at the games to support their athletes.

I will just say to the member that we will be providing an explanation of what occurred, but the bottom line is that the situation was resolved. Those athletes did get in at a late hour and, as a matter of fact, a number of those athletes were able to compete the next morning and were also in the parade of athletes. As a matter of fact, Labrador won the spirit award at the games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: A visit to Labrador West is something that we do on an ongoing basis and, I tell you, I would welcome the opportunity to speak with anybody in Labrador West who wants to discuss the issue, because this government supports Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, last week, reported that he had a good meeting with his new federal counterpart. Mr. Speaker, if indeed the minister had a good meeting then surely there must be some good news that he can report to this House. Would the minister tell us the good news on the 1,500 ton P.E.I. shrimp allocation from a couple of years ago, and what Minister Thibault's intentions are for allocations of shrimp off the coast of this Province this coming year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I thank the member opposite for his question, but I think it was one that a Mr. Morgan discussed last week on the Open Line show. What I said last week, Mr. Speaker, was that I had a good meeting with the federal minister, and I think that we are probably in a better position to work with him than his predecessor who gave the 1,500 ton allocation to P.E.I., even against the wishes of the people of this Province.

As for the allocation of the shrimp resource for this year, Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been made in Ottawa but the federal minister certainly knows where this Province stands with regard to any shrimp adjacent to our coast going to any other province or any other country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, a final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister has had a discussion on seals also. I would like to know what the federal minister had to say about a proposal by DFO to allow large vessels to participate in the hunt this year. I would like to know what our minister's view is of this proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did talk to my federal counterpart about the seal quotas and what we would like to see done with them; but with regard to our stand on vessels over sixty-five feet prosecuting the seals, we have always said that we do not agree with that, and that resource should be kept for vessels under sixty-five feet in length.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On behalf of the Resource Legislative Committee, I would like to present a report with respect to Bill 44, An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a number of bills that were sent to committee on December 13, prior to the House closing for the break, and it is one of the three or four bills that have been dealt with in committee.

I want to thank the Vice-Chair, as well as the committee members who participated. We have been able, out of the some sixty amendments that were put forward, to deal successfully with six of those amendments, and I believe some additional ten or fifteen may have been dealt with since the committee actually met.

I present this report on behalf of the committee, and thank all those who made presentations and those who came to participate.

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

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Opposition House Leader asked me a question about a payment that was made on a transaction that took place within the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. It was made as a result of some transaction records that we provided to him under questions that were tabled in the House before Christmas. I want to say to him, I am going to give him an answer today and I will give him whatever answers I can. If he has gone through those, and if there are a number of questions that he would like to have answered about them, I will gladly provide the staff to give him a further breakdown of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: No, I just say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I will provide the answers to him, but I think we can use our time much more profitably in this House by exploring other things rather than a single transaction. Those things are left to the deputy minister and his staff - transactions in a department. The minister is usually responsible for policy, and for what the government does. Transactions, unless they are of an unusual nature, are handled by the deputy minister.

In any case, in the particular case that he asked about yesterday, let me just say to him, the contract and the payment was for the development of a professionally, high quality, computerized, multi-media presentation for use in promoting the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a top location for investment and to promote various industry sectors in the national and international marketplace. The presentation was to include the insertion of video and sound-clips, photography and interchangeable texts. As such, the level of complexity required - because I think one of the questions that he asked was: Why couldn't you do it in your department?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: As such, the level of complexity required was beyond the in-house technology capacity and expertise of the department. Let me just say to him, although Bristol Communications was the agency on record for the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology at the time, the development of the presentation was undertaken by the department through a separate request for proposals processed in an effort to give other companies an opportunity to bid on the work. It was entered into by the former Department of Industry, Trade and Technology following a request for proposals, that I have just outlined to him, and under the legislation a public tender was not required for the type of services involved. I think the total amount that was paid out on the whole issue was $105,000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents, not only of Trinity North, but of Bellevue, Terra Nova and Bonavista South. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its 2001-2002 Budget that there would be a long-term care facility constructed in Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given $500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and

WHEREAS in August, 2001, the then Acting Minister of Health and Community Services further confirmed in a letter to the Town of Clarenville, that government has committed to a forty-four bed, long-term care facility and it is expected the design work would start in September.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a significant issue for the people of that area in the Province for quite some time. In fact, as I look through the signatures on this petition, I see the names of Musgravetown, Port Blandford, Bunyan's Cove, Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Clarenville, and all around that area. So it is not just the residents of Trinity North, but the residents of that entire area.

I ask the hon. members on the opposite side of this House to join with my colleague from Bonavista South, and myself, in endorsing this petition on behalf of the residents of that area

I noticed the other day, and read some notes of a taped interview that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board did with the R&B Papers last year on March 23. At that time, she confirmed for the editors of the R&B Papers that government not only was going to commit to $500,000 in this fiscal year, but the hon. minister made a commitment last year that government would make a commitment in this upcoming Budget, the one that we are going to hear next week. She made a commitment last year on March 23, that in the Budget that she is going to announce next week, that there will be additional money in that budget for the construction, or the start of the construction of that facility.

I am really looking forward to next week's Budget because I am assuming that in addition to the $500,000 that is left over from last year, that has still not yet been spent, the minister will be making a further commitment - as she had promised last year - for this year that construction will actually start in this coming year. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to next week and listening to the minister's Budget as she announces the start of that long awaited long-term care facility.

Again, I repeat, I ask the members on the opposite side from Bellevue and Terra Nova to join with my colleague from Bonavista South in endorsing this petition, and request that this House and this government move quickly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - to spend the money that they committed to in last year's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: They need to honour the commitments that they make in their budgets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I want to present a petition on behalf of a number of people who are living in the Town of Pouch Cove and it concerns a very important issue in the area of the Northeast Avalon. It concerns the Torbay bypass, Mr. Speaker. I will read into the record the petition:

To the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the population on the Northeast Avalon in the Towns of Pouch Cove, Bauline, Flatrock, Torbay, Logy Bay/Middle Cove/Outer Cove is growing rapidly; and

WHEREAS the traffic on the Torbay Road has increased to significant and dangerous levels - approximately 12,000 vehicles per day - and is growing daily; and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass route has been decided and land acquisition has taken place; and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass was a significant part of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation roads agenda and would alleviate the concerns of residents in the Northeast Avalon regarding traffic flow;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make the Torbay bypass a part of the New Road Construction Plan and put funding in place to start the construction of the Torbay bypass as soon as possible, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed when I was reading the petition that the Minister of Finance was making fun, I suppose, or ridiculing, the substance of the petition. I would say to her, that it is a very serious situation on the Northeast Avalon. It is a safety issue, Mr. Speaker. Down in the Torbay Road area, with the Holy Trinity High School, the intersection of Marine Drive and Torbay Road, we have 12,000 people passing by there every day. The people of the Northeast Avalon - I have been speaking to the mayors and some of the councillors of the five towns involved and they are very serious, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this petition.

The route has already been depicted on mapping. There has been land acquisition for this, Mr. Speaker. I have had conversations with various ministers in the past with respect to the Torbay bypass. Basically, all the people want is for that to start, for funding to be put in place. If you have to do it in phases, over one, two, three or four years, so be it, but it is something that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Last year or the year before last, before the present minister was in place, I had an agreement with the previous minister to do work on the Pipperstock Hill in Torbay, pass right through the Torbay school area, down as far as the bank in Torbay. And what did the present minister do? He cut the amount of funding in half, which was already agreed upon with the previous minister. While we are looking to have major work done on Torbay Road presently, it would only be a temporary alleviation to this very serious safety issue with the traffic flow on Torbay Road.

Now, I am looking across and seeing the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation smiling. I don't know what he is smiling about, Mr. Speaker. I really don't understand why he would be smiling about such a serious issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: The people in the Torbay area, Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Bauline, Logy Bay, Middle Cove and Outer Cove are all very serious about this situation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly would expect the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to support it also.

Thank you.

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 today to present a petition as well, and the petition reads:

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened:

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave approximately 1 kilometre of road in Jamestown and approximately 6 kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter Brook.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a similar petition to petitions - I have stood here in this House on many times over the past five years, since this particular town had become part of the District of Bonavista South. It is a growing community where the people still have to travel over a gravel road in order to get to their homes, from Jamestown to Winter Brook, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: That is growing because of the sawmill.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is growing because of the sawmill. I am glad the member brought up the sawmill, because I am going to use that in putting forward the need in order to get this particular road paved. I can't say upgraded and paved, because the road was upgraded about seven years ago, and paving was promised at that particular time. They are still waiting today for pavement.

Last year we had the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation down in the district and, to his credit, paved two kilometres of road through the community. There are still six kilometres of road leading from Jamestown to Winter Brook. On that particular stretch of road, I say to the Deputy Premier, there is a sawmill that he just referred to, employing about eighty-five people. This is a sawmill that operates twelve months of the year. The owner of that particular sawmill, known as Jamestown Lumber Company, has had to go out and he has paved his parking lot in order to get away from the dust that is being created by the traffic that is generated on the parking lot, and now his problem is with the dust that comes from the dirt road going by the sawmill. It is the only particular piece of gravel road that his lumber travels over from the time it leaves Jamestown Lumber until it gets to his markets in the United States.

You might ask: What does dust have to do with a sawmill operation? Well, it has a lot to do with it. It has a lot do with the maintenance of the saws and the knives that are used in order to produce the product from that particular sawmill.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is not a petition from the people of Winter Brook and Jamestown asking for water and sewer. It is not a petition asking that we put in sidewalks. It is a petition that is delivered here in the year of 2002, asking that their road be paved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a simple plea.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave to clue up, if you would.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a simple plea, I say to members opposite, and I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to ask that their section of road be included in this year's capital budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I want to raise a point of order. The point of order has to do with remarks made in the debate yesterday by my counterpart, the Opposition House Leader. The remarks to which I refer, Mr. Speaker, were in debate yesterday, and I think the Premier brought up the matter. I wanted to read it today in Hansard, to see what it said. I will just read the appropriate remarks. The hon. member said, "...when you go to the Supreme Court of the Province and the government is told that they were criminally wrong...", that is the part I want to address. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the member was out of order by using that description, that the government is told that they were criminally wrong. I think it is a breach of our Standing Orders.

All hon. members know that remarks we make, statements we make, must be accurate. Mr. Speaker, this statement is not accurate. It is an imputation of a falsehood. The hon. member knows the facts, and I do not think this is a matter of a dispute between two hon. gentlemen, re the facts. The facts are that the government was not told that by the Supreme Court, that they were criminally wrong. They were not told that. Criminally, Mr. Speaker, is the operative word. It is a very serious allegation. It is a very serious accusation. I would also suggest that it even verges on being unparliamentary, because one cannot list a group of words as being unparliamentary. It has to do with the tone and the manner in which it was presented overall.

Mr. Speaker, it has suggestions of being used as unparliamentary because it is provocative and it did create some disorder here yesterday, and that is the grounds on which one establishes whether a word is unparliamentary. It is one of the areas that the speaker explores when he is looking at something being unparliamentary: whether it was provocative, whether it created disorder. Mr. Speaker I would suggest that it did create disorder, that the words are certainly provocative, they are offensive, and the hon. member can easily correct that. He does not want that to be left for posterity, that he was saying something that was not accurate.

The hon. gentleman can clear it up very quickly by simply withdrawing the offensive - not words - the offensive term of being criminally wrong. I do not even know that the courts said the government was wrong, but even that, Mr. Speaker, would not have been offensive for mature people, but to be criminally wrong.

That is against the facts. The Supreme Court did not say that, they did not rule that, they did not come close to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to offend the sensibilities of the Government House Leader. To be quite clear about his point of order, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point of order. The Premier rose three times in this House yesterday on points of order and the Government House Leader has failed yet once again to point out for members of this House that the Chairperson yesterday ruled on this on three separate occasions, where the Chair of the committee said there is no point of order.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is yet another political parliamentary stunt by the Government House Leader; to what end, it is beyond me. If he wants to draw attention to the fact that he and his government spent an extra $30 million, that the courts of the Province found them liable and they had to pay extra money out for treating bidders wrong, Sir, you have the floor as long as you want it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought the hon. member was going to speak to the point of order. I will take the point of order under advisement and report back to the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) hon. members not to pursue the point of order.

Order 6, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 65.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act." (Bill 65)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 65, An Act to Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. Before I go into the amendments we are proposing and will discuss later today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we, at least, know the history of FPI and why we are where we are today. To do this, Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like, first of all, to talk about the history and how FPI was brought about.

Back in the period immediately following Canada's extension of jurisdiction to the 200-mile limit, back in 1977, most people in the Province felt that fish were going to be plentiful and that our processing facilities around the Province would operate at maximum capacity. It was at that time that a number of new licences were issued in the processing sector because there was a fear that if there were fish in excess to our needs, that we could not process, we could not harvest, that we would have to give them to the foreigners; because under the NAFO Convention, that is what happens. If there are fish in excess to the needs of the host state or the host country then those fish would have to go to other members of NAFO. So, as I said, there were a number of licences given out at the time but the only problem, Mr .Speaker, is that the bonanza in the fishery did not happen. The fish stocks were not there that we thought were there, and, as a result, in the early 1980s there was great concern about the financial wherewithal, financial position of many of the groundfish oriented plants in the Province.

The financial deterioration, Mr. Speaker, was most severe amongst those groundfish processors who were involved in the offshore fishery. Those plants, in particular, were Fishery Products Limited, National Sea Products Limited, The Lake Group of Companies, John Penny and Sons, and H. B. Nickerson's. It was at this time, as well, that there was a report commissioned by the federal government called, The Report on the Task Force on Atlantic Fisheries, otherwise known in the Province as the Kirby Report. In that, Mr. Kirby said unless there was government intervention, there were going to be more bankruptcies in the offshore sector of our fish processing industry.

Obviously, the government of the day could not allow this to happen because of the economic and social impact that would have on a number of communities in our Province, as well as the Province as a whole. So, it was decided at that time by both governments, both federal and provincial governments, that they could not allow these bankruptcies to happen. With the aid of some $252 million in cash and equity, there was a new holding company established called Fishery Products Limited, and a new operating company called Fishery Products International Limited. The ownership structure in that new company was that the Canadian Government held 60 per cent of the company; the Newfoundland and Labrador Government held 25 per cent; the Bank of Nova Scotia held 12 per cent; and the employees of that new company, FPI, held 3 per cent. The Canadian Government put in $168 million; the provincial government put in $66 million; and the Bank of Nova Scotia contributed $18 million in loans.

From 1984 until 1987, Fishery Products operated well. It appeared that the company was doing very well with regard to processing and that its financial situation had improved considerably. At that time FPI came forward to government and asked if FPI could be returned to the private sector. This was done in 1987 in an act in this Legislature called the Fishery Products International Limited Act, and under a public share offering FPI generated $185 million by selling shares. Publicly they raised $185 million and paid off some of their debts. The Bank of Nova Scotia recovered its full $18 million. The federal government got $118 million back, a $50 million shortfall. They left $50 million in the company. The Province received $49 million. They left $17 million in FPI back in 1987.

It should be noted here that the main provision, as the Member for Lewisporte would know of that act, and I will read it to you. It said: no holder of voting securities and associates of such holder shall hold in aggregate voting shares to which are attached in excess of 15 per cent of the total number of votes attached to all voting securities then issued and outstanding.

Mr. Speaker, that is legalistic wording. Simply put, it would mean that no one person or company could own any more than 15 per cent of the voting shares of FPI. Now the interesting thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is from 1987 until the present, there were no other types of shares issued in FPI, except for voting shares. There were no common shares or non-voting shares. In every deal that FPI has done since 1987 it dealt with voting shares, and no one individual or company could own any more that 15 per cent of those shares.

From 1987 up until the present, Mr. Speaker, FPI was always seen as the flagship of the processing sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. It demonstrated a strong sensitivity to the community, the fish harvesters, and its employees. It is also the largest fish processing company in the Province, employing the most people. Not only does it harvest, process, and sell its own fish, but it also markets fish for a number of other companies around the Province, especially shrimp.

As I said, FPI operated well from 1987 up until the present, within the 15 per cent share restriction. In 1999, a consortium of Clearwater Fine Foods of Nova Scotia, the Barry Group of Companies from this Province, and a group called the Icelandic Freezing Plants Corporation, or IFPC out of Iceland, under the name of NEOS, came forward with a proposal to purchase FPI, but under the share restriction - that I previously spoke about, the 15 per cent share restriction - no one could own more than 15 per cent. Obviously, the only way that NEOS could purchase FPI is if the restriction were lifted.

There was great debate in the Province at the time. I remember some of the individuals involved with this proposal going from community to community, who had fish plants owned by FPI, but at the end of the day the government said basically: No, we are not lifting the 15 per cent share restriction; and thus the NEOS deal died.

In May of 2001, after a lengthy fight for shareholders vote, a new board of directors was elected at FPI and a new management team took its place. Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of debate at that time, whether or not the government should be permitted to allow this new board of directors that was duly elected by its shareholders, if we should allow them to take their place as the new Board of FPI. But, on legal advice from within the Province, and lawyers from Ontario, it was told to us that we could not interfere with the selection of a board of directors that were duly elected by the shareholders of that company. We did not interfere at that time, but the day after that board was sworn in a number of my colleagues and I met with the new Board of Directors of FPI - actually here in this building - and told them that we were going to hold them to the commitments that they made during this proxy shareholder thing that they had ongoing.

They made a number of commitments prior to their election in May of that year. The two main ones were that they would not close any fish plants, and they would not have any layoffs in those fish plants. Mr. Speaker, we told them at the time that we were going to hold them to those commitments. In fact, they made a number of them in writing. In turn, we said publicly at the time that we would hold FPI to those commitments and when asked: Well, how do you intend to hold them to their commitments? We said at the time: FPI was created in the Legislature and if we had to, we could always come back to the Legislature to amend the FPI act to ensure that those commitments were honored. I guess that is the reason we are here today.

In recent months, actions taken by the Board of Directors of FPI have been in direct conflict with the commitments that they made back in May of last year. In January, with the proposed layoff of 584 people in Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, government acted by establishing an all-party committee to seek the views of the people of the Province on what amendments were necessary to the FPI act to ensure that the public interests of this Province were protected. I would like to thank the members for participating in that committee. They were: the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Cartwright -L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Bay of Islands, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West. I would also like to thank my colleague from Humber East, who also filled in for a couple of meetings. I might add, they were the two coldest days of the year, I think, that he filled in for us. I thank you for that.

We held nine meetings around the Province, attended by more than 4,000 people. We received thirty-seven written submissions, sixty-three formal presentations, and seventy-three oral representations. I would like to thank as well, Mr. Speaker, all those individuals who came out to partake in these meetings. We certainly heard their views, and their views were taken into consideration. I am sure that the amendments that we make to the act today are reflective of what people told us around the Province.

As a result of these meetings, and the deliberations that the committee held shortly after that, we made five recommendations to government, that government had reviewed and accepted immediately, and these five recommendations were - I will just read them.

The committee recommends that the act should be amended to ensure that no person or corporation shall be permitted to own more than 15 per cent of the voting and non-voting, preferred or any other class of shares, of FPI Limited or FPI International Limited.

Ownership must be defined as including all forms of equity such that no one person or corporation can hold more than 15 per cent of the equity in that company.

Mr. Speaker, the other recommendation was that government and FPI attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas, because that was the second biggest issue of concern with most of the people we spoke to in these nine meetings that we had. That is, we wanted to have the quotas attached to FPI, that were historically attached to FPI, harvested for the benefit of the people of this Province and processed within the Province.

Having discussed the matter with the committee, we understood that the best way to proceed with this is, rather than put it in legislation at this time, the best route to take would be to strike some kind of an enforceable agreement with FPI - a contract if you might, Mr. Speaker - that would ensure that they would not attempt to move those quotas to another province, or out of the country for that matter.

We did not put the quotas in the legislation at that time. Our legal advisors are working with the Board of Directors of FPI to try and come up with that enforceable contract, and it was agreed that if we do not come up with that contract then we can come back at a later date to amend the legislation or amend the Fishery Products International Act to include the clause that quotas would not be moved out of the Province.

The other thing that we recommended, Mr. Speaker, is that we include a privative clause in the FPI Act. What that means basically is that no one person or group of persons could, I guess, sue the Province for damages that may come about as a result of the amendments that we are proposing here today.

The final recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is to include a preamble to the act, or just at the beginning of the act we would say the purpose of the act. There are four or five clauses in that, and that was omitted in the original act back in 1987.

Mr. Speaker, those basically were the recommendations that the committee put forward to government, that government accepted, and that we will discuss in the Legislature here this afternoon.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about FPI, in that FPI is different from any other company in this Province because, since we started out with these meetings back in early February, we have been criticized by the mainland media for being intrusive in FPI in that we are not welcoming investment and that we are doing damages to the investment community in this Province by amending an act of a private company.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my opinion, and that of the committee too, I think, that FPI is certainly a different company than any other in the Province, not just in the fishing industry but any other company in the Province in that it was a creature of the Legislature. It was first established back in 1983, with the help and the aid of both levels of government, financial aid at that time, and there was money left in FPI when we amended the act in 1987 and privatized the company. There was money left in FPI by both the federal and the provincial governments.

To say that we are being intrusive, and trying to say that as a result of doing this to FPI we are being intrusive to all businesses in the Province, is not true, Mr. Speaker; because, like I said, FPI is more than just another company to us. FPI represents what we are. FPI represents the fishery in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are all about. By the fishery I do not mean simply jobs, albeit the jobs in the fishery are very important. The fishery is something more to this Province. The fishery is what brought us here in 1497, Mr. Speaker. It is what keeps us here today, and I am sure that without it we will not be here tomorrow or down the road, so it is about our history. It is also about our culture because you cannot divorce the fishery from the culture in Newfoundland and Labrador. By that culture, Mr. Speaker, I mean that I am talking about hard work in harsh conditions in this Province.

That is why it is so galling when you hear mainlanders talking about our culture, and not just mainlanders, Mr. Speaker, because we have some amongst us here in the Province as well who think and who have said during this whole debate that our only consideration in this Province is our quest for social programs, and that is the only reason that people prosecute the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for short periods of time, such that they can qualify for unemployment insurance. I find that very galling, Mr. Speaker, especially when it is said by people here in this Province.

I am not going to talk much longer, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that we do not want to harm FPI. We want to see FPI grow and prosper not only for its shareholders but more importantly for the people in the communities in which they operate. I do not think that by placing any of the restrictions or any of these amendments are going to interfere with the operation of FPI.

We have heard people talk about, oh, if you cannot get investment in FPI - we restrict their ability to raise investment because of the 15 per cent share restriction. I do not think that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: They knew back when they invested what the intent was.

MR. REID: Exactly. They knew what the intent was. They knew when they bought shares in FPI, because no one has bought shares other than voting shares in FPI since its inception back in 1987. Besides that, FPI has been successful, very successful, in raising money since 1987. They bought Clouston's, which is a marketing company, for $17 million. They did this through cash and the issuance of some shares, but those shares were also voting shares. They raised $40 million to purchase the food service division of National Sea Products back some years ago, and they spent over $30 million in renovations to the processing facilities around the Province as well as the investment in boats and new vessels. I don't think that any restriction, a 15 per cent restriction on ownership of shares in FPI, will in any way be detrimental to FPI being able to raise the money that they say is necessary to modernize the processing facilities on the South Coast. In fact, I think that the company is in great shape. It showed a profit, I think, in the last twenty-six quarters, and FPI is still a very strong company and will continue to be so into the future.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let my colleagues have a few.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to make a few brief comments on Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

To say the least, Mr. Speaker, this issue has been, I believe, one of, if not the biggest, public policy issues, one that certainly generated the greatest discussion in this Province in the past couple of months, certainly since the new year.

There is not a lot to add to what the minister had to say, but I will go back a number of years. I am not very old, but I am old enough to be able to say now that I have had a long history with FPI. I have never worked for the company as such, not directly, but I guess my first involvement was back before FPI existed, back when the arse fell out of her, so to speak, in the early eighties. I hope that is not unparliamentary. If it is, I will withdraw it.

MR. TULK: When she reached rock bottom.

MR. TAYLOR: When she reached rock bottom, yes, I will use that phrase, in the early 1980s. I was working on a wharf in Quirpon at the time, driving a forklift and icing fish. If my memory serves me correctly when she hit rock bottom, the Salt Fish Corporation took over the operation in St. Anthony for one summer. Then in 1983, of course, the industry was restructured and we had Fishery Products International Limited.

Mr. Speaker, the restructuring of the industry at that time and the establishment of Fishery Products International Limited, and FPI Limited, had a great stabilizing effect - I guess is probably the best way of putting it - on the industry throughout the Province. It created a flagship company that could market, not only the products that were harvested and processed through FPIs boats, trawlers, the inshore fishermen who sold to it, the stuff that went through its plants, but also by companies that were removed from FPI, by some of the smaller independent operators in the Province.

Those companies, who did not have great access to marketing resources themselves, had an avenue, a machine, an organization that was big enough to be able to give them a presence in the marketplace. As I said, it enabled our industry to move ahead from very difficult times in the early 1980s, through the late1980s when we hit the wall. We hit rock bottom, I guess, in the early 1980s from a marketing prospective, debt prospective. Certainly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s we hit the wall when it comes to the resource. Of course, as we all know, the groundfish crisis hit us and effectively ripped the whole industry apart, and had no less effect on FPI. Fortunately, to give credit where credit is due, because of the balance sheet that FPI maintained during its formative years and shortly after its privatization, FPI was able to reinvent itself in the 1990s from a groundfish company to a shellfish company - I guess that is probably the best way of portraying FPI now, certainly in the context of its Newfoundland operations - and also developed itself more in marketing, where it picked up Clouston Foods, the marketing arm in the United States. It developed a refurbished shrimp plant in Port au Choix and restructured in Port Union from a groundfish operation to a shrimp operation; developed a crab operation in Triton and maintained its operation in Bonavista, along with some maintenance of groundfish operations on the South Coast of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, FPI did that by maintaining a good balance sheet, by being able to response to a resource crisis. Unfortunately, I think it is only right to say it now at this time, the detractors of what we have tried to do over the past couple of months with FPI, in going on the road and carrying out public consultations, on writing a report to be presented to government on FPI, and tabling proposed amendments here in this House now to the FPI Act, that there are detractors out there saying that we are interfering where we should not be; that if it is private, leave it to private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at what happens in the fishing industry. The fishing industry - I don't know if it is fortunately or unfortunately - is not like any other industry. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be, but it is not. That is the fact of the matter, it is not like any other industry.

Even the loudest advocates of free enterprise and capitalism, when they hit the wall in the fishery, they very quickly come to government looking for assistance, which is what we saw in the early 1980s, the late 1980s, the early 1990s, and we have seen it time and time again in this industry, that when the industry hits troubled waters they come looking for government assistance.

From my own perspective, anyway, and I think from our party's perspective, we think that we need to ensure - we didn't go into this exercise on FPI to in any way damage FPI's present circumstances or its future hopes. Our only reason for participating in this is to ensure that FPI can remain a stabilizing force in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador and can continue to be a flagship for the industry in this Province. That is why we participated in it, that is why we have believed for some time that the FPI Act should be scrutinized and amended as required, and that is why we participated in the all-party committee this past winter, and that is why, right now, I am standing to give general support for the amendments that are proposed. We will get into the specific amendments and issues around those later in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out, there were five issues - and I will go briefly through those five issues - that the all-party committee deliberated on. There were more than those that we deliberated on, but certainly there were five issues that, after our deliberations, we felt should be addressed in our report and, to some extent, could be and should be addressed in the Legislature.

The first one, of course, and the biggest one was the 15 per cent share ownership restriction. You know, it is our belief, given the actions of the company over the past number of years, given the actions of different organizations, different groups, different individuals, who have tried to either take over FPI or make changes to FPI in the past number of year - NEOS for one, the present board of FPI for another, the former board of FPI for another, have on a number of occasions over the past few years approached government and looked for changes to the 15 per cent share ownership restriction.

We believe that supports the view that, I think, is prevalent throughout this Legislature and throughout the Province, that the spirit and intent of the 15 per cent share ownership restriction in its 1997 form, while it only talks about voting securities, because those were the only types of securities issued by FPI at the time - and, by the way, that was the only type of securities, as the minister pointed out, that have been issued by FPI in the years since. We believe that the spirit and intent was that it meant all of the company, 15 per cent of the company, 15 per cent of the various shares that might be issued by FPI. For that reason, we recommended what we recommended in our report, that the 15 per cent share ownership restriction be expanded or amended, whatever the word is that is appropriate there, to encompass all of the shares in the company.

We had deliberations on quotas. It was probably the second biggest issue that was raised in our public consultations. As everybody knows, it really does not matter how strong or weak FPI is, it does not matter who operates a fish plant in Newfoundland, who runs a boat in Newfoundland and Labrador, the bottom line is at the end of the day if you do not have a quota, if the quotas are not protected - and this what I was getting at in Question Period today. If quotas are not protected for the people of this Province then it does not matter who owns FPI, it does not matter who controls a boat, it does not matter who runs a fish plant. If you don't have access to quota to put through that facility, then it is all for not.

That is why we deliberated on it, and that is why we made the recommendations that we did in our report. Obviously, it is very difficult. When we were pondering our recommendations, I guess, we were contemplating having an amendment to the FPI Act requiring that FPI's quotas would be tied to this Province. In the course of that, I guess, we were approached by FPI. They made an offer to enter into a binding contractual agreement with the Province, with the government. We think that is a positive move. We believe it is a positive move on the part of FPI. If that can be brought to reality, then we think that would be advisable and certainly preferable to having to do it through legislation.

The head office; there was - over the past number of months since the new board of directors came into being last May 2 - some suggestion by the company that they did not have to maintain their head office here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Province. We believe that it is in the best interest of the company and the people of this Province if that office would be maintained here in Newfoundland and Labrador. For that reason, we made that recommendation. We are pleased that it is showing up in the amendments, and I see that there is a further amendment to that actually being tabled here some time this afternoon. We will deal with that in committee. Our intention there, of course, is to see that the corporate and administrative head offices of FPI are maintained here; that what we have on O'Leary Avenue right now does not leave the Province. That is what we are interested in seeing right now. That is why we made those recommendations.

Of course, as the minister pointed out, we recommended - and I see in Bill 65 that the privative clause is included. I will probably get into this in committee, but I think everybody in our committee had concerns about making that recommendation, that a privative clause be included in the legislation. I do not think anybody took lightly a recommendation that would see shareholders stripped of their right to seek legal action against the government for these actions. Like I said, I will probably talk more about it in Committee but it is a concern. It is not something that we take lightly and it is something that we wish we did not have to do; but, based on the legal advice that was provided to us, we felt that it was appropriate at this time.

Of course, to clarify what the FPI Act was all about, why FPI is important to this Province, and why the FPI Act is there, we thought that it was appropriate to have a preamble to point out what this company means to this Province and to the fishing industry in general. Of course, I am pleased to see that is included in the amendments also.

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up shortly on second reading. I will say now, in the House of Assembly - I have said it publicly at our press conference when we released our report - I would like to say thank you to the committee members for the co-operation that I think was apparent throughout, that existed throughout our committee during both our public consultations and our private deliberations within the committee on our report. I think that certainly all of the committee took our job seriously, I know we did over here. Myself and the Member for Bonavista South certainly have had a history in the fishing industry, and both of us have had a great deal of involvement with FPI over the years; the Member for Bonavista South as an employee and myself as a fisherman who sold quite a bit of fish to the company and landed -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) in this House, I can tell you that.

MR. TAYLOR: I am glad to hear the Member for Bellevue say that we are - myself and the Member for Bonavista South - were the two best fisheries critics that this House has ever seen. I certainly thank him for that endorsement.

MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will reiterate a comment that was made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in his remarks, that we have been portrayed by some people in this Province and a lot of people throughout this country as, I guess you might say, welfare bums. That is probably the best way of putting the light that they have held us in.

Unfortunately, I think that the people who have made these comments have not looked at the people they are talking about, that they have spoke about. The people who work in the plants in FPI, especially the South Coast operations, the groundfish operations which were front and center in the debate this past winter, those fish plants, as we all know - and I do not need to repeat it here, but certainly for the benefit of anybody who might be listening in the national media - certainly the plants on the South Coast of this Province, the groundfish operations of FPI, have been prior to the demise of the groundfish in the early 1990s year-round operations. Those people are far from what they were portrayed, and they have had, over the years, very little dependence on the social programs of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this coming Friday, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is coming to this Province, and I am sure that there will a number of presentations, both from government, the Opposition, and from industry in this Province to that Committee.

I think it is fair to point out that the reason we have been through this exercise in the past number of months with FPI is because of the management of the groundfish stocks around this Province, the management of the groundfish stocks that companies like FPI have depended on over the years, that the people who work in these plants have depended on over these years, that if these resources had been managed differently by the Canadian Government, and if these resources now were afforded the protection that they should be given, through NAFO or through some other organization or through extension of jurisdiction so that we could have custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, maybe we would not have been forced to go through this exercise over the past couple of months. Maybe FPI would be able to go on with a modernization program. Maybe the plants that we are talking about would be year-round operations, as they were in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now on second reading and I will have a few more remarks to pass on in committee later. Just to say, in closing, we do support Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, and we will do whatever we can to make sure that this moves through expeditiously.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise at second reading, being approval in principle stage of An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty important piece of legislation, and a very important step that is being taken by the Legislature today, assuming that we will pass this legislation.

First of all, I want to say a little bit about the process that led to the report and the unanimous recommendations of that committee report, and to comment on the operations of the committee. I want to say that the committee itself had a valuable task. The initiative that was taken by government with the consent and co-operation of the other parties was an important initiative, and I will talk about the politics of it a little later. In keeping with the all-party nature of the committee and the discussions, I want to say that it was, for me, having been here ten years, probably the most positive experience of democracy that I have encountered with a committee traveling around this Province, all parties represented, chaired by the minister of the Crown who, I have to say, in his favour, did an excellent job of chairing the committee. The committee traveled with great dignity. There were no efforts by anybody to make partisan points out of it. The minister, as Chair of the committee, was obviously in the best position to do that. Those members who either participated in the committee, or sat with the committee from time to time when there were substitutions, all did an excellent job in maintaining the decorum of the committee, listening very carefully to what we were told by the dozens and dozens of presenters around the Province, and achieving what I believe was a remarkable consensus from presenters as to what the nature of this company was, the importance of this company to the future of the Province and the communities that depend on it, but also, more importantly, a recognition of the role that this company played in defining for us, to some extent, what we are as a people and how important the fishery is to us.

Nothing makes me prouder, Mr. Speaker, than to see in the legislation the following through of what we heard from the people of this Province at our committee hearings, and to recognize that FPI means, to the people of Newfoundland, that we, through our Legislature, have created a company that is not only a flagship for the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador - and that is specifically now mentioned in the preamble to the act - but a company that has an international reputation and, in fact, is a leading fishing company in the world.

That is no mean achievement, coming out of the history of the fishery in this Province, particularly in the early 1980s when, beset by tremendously high interest rates - I can remember myself the short-term interest rates in the early 1980s at 21 per cent, 22 per cent and 23 per cent - and fishing companies in this Province, and many other people, struggling to maintain their existence. I remember well the difficulties that were being experienced by businesses in the fishing industry in this Province and other parts of the Atlantic.

I also remember something else, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that perhaps drove me to get involved in politics. As a young lawyer practicing law in St. John's, watching what was going on in this Province, in the industry, in the fishing industry, I saw the response of the Government of Canada to the crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. There was the establishment of the Kirby Task Force report, and for two years Senator Kirby - I think he was named Senator after that - went around Atlantic Canada listening to people, hearing what people had to say, and writing a report which resulted in what, Mr. Speaker? An infusion of about $300 million, all told, by the Government of Canada for an industry that affected four provinces, thousands of communities, and 150,000 workers, to try and save that industry by the creation of two companies, National Sea Products Limited and FPI Limited, out of the ashes of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada.

What I was struck by was that within a few months of the Kirby task force report being put down and the decision of the federal government to put in about $300 million, there was a small problem with the de Havilland aircraft factory in Montreal. There were 1,200 jobs at stake. Within three weeks the federal government had a $400 million loan guarantee to support the protection of 1,200 jobs in Montreal. I have no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, with the support by the Government of Canada for the aerospace industry. I believe that the people of Canada, in fact, should have been supporting the aerospace industry when the Avro Arrow was shut down by the Diefenbaker Government in the late 1950s.

I have no problem with the support for the aerospace industry. What I do have a problem with is when you compare the kind of support that certain industries get in Canada, whether it be the auto industry to the Auto Pact, whether it be the aerospace industry, their various forms and subsidies, and the kind of support we get in this country for the fishing industry that is so valuable to this Province, or for the shipbuilding industry that is so valuable for this Province in our jobs; that the comparison is awful and, to some extent, discriminatory. At the very least, it fails to recognize the importance of this part of the country to the rest of the provinces of Canada and the importance to the fishing industry as it relates to the survival of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I hear people talk about the Newfoundland culture, supposedly a culture where people do not want to work, I want to ask those very same people: Why is it that our population is going down? It is going down because people are leaving Newfoundland and Labrador because they want to work. They will go to other provinces. They will leave their homeland to do that, against their wishes, against their desire. They will go and seek work in other provinces, whether it be Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario or wherever there is work.

The remaining people who are here, as the Deputy Premier said today: there are more people in raw numbers working today than there were when we had a population approaching 600,000 people. In raw numbers, there are more people actually working today than there were when our population was 60,000, 70,000 or 85,000 more. That tells you what the culture of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is like when it comes to work. If you want to ask anybody who is an employer in Alberta, or an employer in Ontario, or an employer in British Columbia, who have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working for them, they want more. They are looking for more. In fact, that is part of the reason why people leave this Province, because their friends and relatives from their community phone them up and say: my employer is looking for more people who can work as hard as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do. That is why we have a smaller population, but those who are here are working - more and more are working, even in raw numbers, despite the small population. So I get more than a bit exercised when I hear those kinds of comments from people who, not only do not understand, do not want to understand and would rather take potshots for whatever purposes they have in mind.

To get back to FPI; when it was created in 1983, with the support of the federal government and the Province, and the banks offering some of their security, FPI had a public purpose as a Crown corporation, which was eventually privatized in 1987. I think it is fair to put on the record that we, as a party, the New Democratic Party, opposed the privatization of FPI because we were concerned. We were concerned that the public purposes, which it was serving up until 1987, would be deteriorated. They would fall by the wayside. They would be watered down.

It may surprise some hon. members that the person who was leader of the party, at that time, was Mr. Peter Fenwick. He has recently come out with all sorts of statements that are absolutely contrary to the things that he said, as leader of this party, in 1987. The Member for Lewisporte was here in the House and probably heard some of the questions asked of him as to what was going to happen to FPI when it was privatized. So we did oppose it, Mr. Speaker, because we were concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think the Member for Lewisporte even has the quotes. He will probably give us one later on when he speaks in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, it was the public purposes of that corporation that we wanted to preserve. We seen that there was a danger of them being eroded. What we did see then, after the privatization took place, we saw a company gradually emerge. Although it was a private corporation, although it was broadly held as the intention was spelled out in the act - no more than 15 per cent ownership - it did, in fact, develop itself as an international presence in the world market, as a flagship company for Newfoundland and Labrador. A company which, I have to say, I was certainly proud of as a resident and person of this Province, as a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to know that we had under management in this Province a company which - although it may not have been owned directly by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in fact, the shareholdings were widely dispersed - was managed by people who were born in this Province, who grew up in this Province, who received their training in this Province, and who were showing leadership in the corporate world, leadership in the fishing industry, leadership internationally in the development of a corporation that was playing a role in this Province in terms of its job of keeping stability in our workforce, of making the fishery modernized and profitable, of involving its employees in the management of the company.

It is one of the few companies who had a representative nominated by the employees, by the union on its board of directors in the presence of Father Des McGrath; a company which had a pretty good track record when it came to labour relations. They were not there in negotiations with its union without recognizing the validity and the value of the process of collective bargaining and negotiating in good faith. They were there to ensure, to a maximum extent, in keeping with his obligations to his shareholders, that the employees would be treated well and fairly. Within the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, the standards were set by FPI in terms of its relationship with its employees in terms of wages and benefits that were made available through collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, that company did emerge as a flagship for the industry, as a model for other fishing companies and as a company of which we could all be proud for the role that it played in the international market. I know the Minister of Fisheries - I am not sure if he mentioned it here today, but he has on previous occasions, as have others, that at the Boston Seafood Show, one of the prime international seafood shows in the world, Fishery Products International has always been one of the largest exhibitors, one which has the greatest presence in the show, and one which people look to as being a leader in the industry in terms of what it does.

We have seen this company grow and prosper, and play an important role. Then we saw something happen, Mr. Speaker. We saw something happen because somebody realized or somebody recognized that this company was probably a lot more valuable than the stock market investors realized, that the trading value of the company was a lot less than its actual asset value, than the book value, than the real underlying true value of the company.

What we saw then, Mr. Speaker, was a proposal by a group known as the NEOS Group to take over that company. They wanted to take over that company because they saw a value in it that the market was not recognizing, and the only way they could effectively take over the control of that was to get rid of the 15 per cent share. So what did they do, Mr. Speaker? They came to the government - not this government, the previous government, the same political stripe - and asked the government, would they remove the 15 per cent share to allow this takeover. Mr. Speaker, when this became public my immediate response and reaction was to say: no, we oppose the NEOS bid. We believe that the NEOS bid would change the nature of the corporation. It would take control of the corporation outside of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would mean that the company would no longer operate under the rubrics of the 1987 act and its intention. It would now be just another company controlled by foreign interests and foreign capital and operated to suit their interests, not to serve the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What did the government of the day say, Mr. Speaker? Eventually we know what they did. Eventually they said: no, we are not going to change it. What they said, and the statement of the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, was: we will do it or we will only do it if it is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now there is a nice, good mealy-mouth statement, Mr. Speaker, that allows you to do whatever it is you want, but it sends a message. It sends a clear message. What the message that it sent then, and continued to send until this committee made its report and the government adopted it, the message that it sent was that FPI was for sale, that FPI was available for the right deal, for the right buyer, for the right group, for the right interests to take over that company. That was the message that it sent, Mr. Speaker, that if the right deal came along, if the right group of people took it over or wanted to take it over, then the government would consider it.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, that was the wrong message to send; the wrong message to send to the NEOS group, to Mr. Barry, to Mr. Risley, to the New Zealanders, to the Icelandic Freezing Group, to all of those people who had an interest in cutting up and carving up the pie of FPI for their own interests. That was the wrong message to send. All it did, Mr. Speaker, was encourage plan B. In fact, it was even called plan B at one time.

Plan A was the NEOS takeover. Plan B - and, as I say, it was referred to as plan B by the salesman for the NEOS group - if this does not work, we will come back with plan B. Well, we say plan B, last spring. We say plan B when Mr. Risley nominated a slate of directors to take over FPI, and we saw what happened. What happened was that, under the law of corporate operation, the existing directors of FPI were forced to take certain actions under the existing legislation and under their corporate fiduciary duties. They allowed a vote to go ahead, despite the belief of many of them that this was contrary to the act, contrary to the spirit and intention of the act, and that there were directors and shareholders acting in concert. Despite their strong belief that that had taken place, they felt obliged to allow the vote to proceed and we know the result.

I was there, Mr. Speaker. I was there at the Delta Hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there?

MR. HARRIS: I was there at the Delta Hotel at the shareholders meeting, not the first one I was at, Mr. Speaker, because I went to three or four of them because I was interested in watching the fortunes of this company for a number of years, not as a shareholder, although I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if a mutual fund that I own had shares in it, but that is alright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: That is not why I was there. I was there as a member of this House who had been invited to come and see how FPI was doing. I went and watched the fortunes of that company. I saw them doing very well and acting as what I believed to be within the public purpose and intentions of the act. I was there last spring because I wanted to see what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, it was like a wake for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were there, people who had been in the fishing business in this Province for decades and decades and decades, who saw what they thought and what they believed to be the control of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador at last going out of the hands of the people of this Province. I saw senior business leaders of this Province with tears in their eyes as they heard the results of the vote that put in the new Board of Directors of FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, that was a very important day because that was the second approach, the second issue with respect to what was happening to FPI, and an attempt to change and transform FPI from we thought it was, what we believed it represented, to what somebody else's idea for FPI was.

Then we saw, not a few months later, a proposal by FPI to buy Clearwater. That is what it was called, but the business press called it something else. What did they call it? They called it a reverse takeover. It was called a reverse takeover of FPI by Clearwater Foods, a privately held company, not even publicly traded, whose finances are a mystery - at least they are not public - and who planned to take over FPI through this reverse takeover. We saw, Mr. Speaker, gradually, one step at a time, plan A, plan B, plan C, which resulted punitively in the transformation of FPI from what we thought it was to what somebody else wanted it to become.

What has happened as a result of the committee coming into force, after they had made further plans to transform the political culture of Newfoundland by laying off one-half of the groundfish workforce without any consultation, without any plan, without any consensus as to what was happening, without any forewarning, that was the change in the culture, that FPI, this flagship company, would try to do something like that in the face of the history of this company in this Province. That was the attempt to transform the culture. The response was predictable, if anybody had any sense. The response was: No, you are not going to change that culture. You are not going to take and transform this company into something that we never, ever intended it to be.

Mr. Speaker, when we sat down as a committee and went around to hear from the people of this Province what they wanted, or what they saw FPI as, what we heard again, again and again, was that the spirit and intention and expectation of FPI back in 1987 was that we were going to have a widely held company, not a company that was going to be subject to reverse takeovers, fancy takeovers, or whatever other new corporate ways can be found to take control of a company, but rather a company that was widely held so that it could be managed in the interests of shareholders, yes, but to be a public purpose private corporation, and that we, the people of this Province, wanted to see it defined in a more tight way with respect to the shareholding, and in a more precise way with respect to the provision of a preamble which sets out now what people expect. I do not think anybody who bought shares in FPI were under any illusions, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as to what this company was all about. They were not under any illusions. They knew that the 15 per cent shareholding restriction was there. In fact, the previous board, not the one elected last night, they themselves had passed a motion at their annual meeting to change the share restriction, to eliminate the 15 per cent share restriction subject to the approval of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which, of course, was not forthcoming. They knew what they were buying. They knew they wanted to change it, but they knew what they were buying, and nobody who is a shareholder of that company, Mr. Speaker, who had bought shares in that company can say, if they had done their due diligence, if they had done their proper activity in buying shares, large amounts or small amounts, that they were under any illusions. They might have wanted it to change. They might have thought it would be advantageous for them to have it changed, but they should have been under no illusion as to what the purpose of this company was and what the people of Newfoundland expected from it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the purpose clause of this act, it is recommended, in fact, word for word by the committee, we see that it is very clear. If there was ever any doubt, there will be no room for doubt in the future that this is a public purpose private corporation that has its purposes spelled out in the new section of the act, which will spell them out as recommended by the committee. That is a very important provision, Mr. Speaker.

The head office provision is something that I think many people believed was there and expected it was there but was not, in fact, there. The head office has always been in St. John's, and there has always been a requirement of majority resident directors in the Province. The Newfoundland and Labrador nature of the company was never let go by some of the provisions, and this makes it even more definite.

The other provision of the 15 per cent, I think, is a reflection of what people expected in this Province in terms of whether the company should be widely held or not, that the shareholding in FPI broadly held all types of shares, not just one type of share. I think that is important, that it be passed. That is what we heard. That was what we expected. We heard, very late in the day, some arguments from FPI in relation to how accounting systems work. We did not hear that until long after the Risley reverse takeover, the Clearwater deal had been announced as being gone. They did not try to convince anybody around the Province that this was a good provision to have, 20 per cent or 25 per cent. Late in the day they asked the committee to look at it, but at this point the intention was clear. The committee's deliberations on the issue were almost complete. The public hearings were over. The company passed up every opportunity, except one, to participate in the hearings, and the arguments that they had to make were too little, too late, and certainly were not convincing to the committee. If they were, they would have been contained in the report.

We do have a clarification and a specification that all securities are covered by this. This is something that is reflective of what we heard and reflective of what we believe was always the intention of the FPI Act, to ensure that there was a widely held company headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador with purposes as set forth to recognize the fundamental role of the fishery in this Province; to continue the company as a widely held company with the objective of growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province, recognizing that we have a private company operating on sound business and commercial decisions, but also recognizing the historical context in which that operates; and also to ensure maximum employment stability and productivity within the Province through employee participation.

That is a reference, oblique though it is, to the collective bargaining history and the working with its employees, whether in terms of profit-sharing plans, or in terms of consultation, or in terms of collective bargaining, or in terms of having representation on the board. That is the nature of the kind of corporate culture that we have come to see in FPI. Now you cannot legislate corporate culture, Mr. Speaker. You cannot legislate it, but you can give some indication in the purpose clause of this act, of the kind of corporate culture that we have experienced in FPI and the kind of corporate culture that the government and the Legislature hopes for in passing this legislation.

I want to thank all the members of the committee who worked so hard to achieve a unanimous result and a unanimous report. I think that is enormously important, Mr. Speaker. It is enormously important that the message which comes out from this Legislature today - while we are passing and considering this act - is that this is not something that is the product of partisan or ideological gamesmanship or positioning or anything like that, but rather, in fact, is the unanimous will of this Legislature of an all-party committee. Indeed, I can't say it is the unanimous will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I can say with some certainty that it is the political will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have a company, called FPI, with public purposes that operates in the private capital world, but can cross both of those borders and do a proper job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the shareholders of that company.

I want to say that I wholeheartedly support and endorse our committee's efforts; the process; the work that the minister did as Chair of the committee; the commitment of the Premier in advance to clarify the 15 per cent rule; the full cooperation of the Opposition members on the committee: the Fisheries critic and the Member for Bonavista South, all of whom - along with the Member for Marystown, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Bay of Islands -did an excellent job in representing, not only their parties and their districts, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole, in carrying out this committee's work.

I wholeheartedly endorse Bill 65, in all of the principles that it contained. I haven't said anything about the issue of quotas, but it is an important part of our committee's work and deliberations. It is not in the act yet, and I hope it does not have to be because I hope that FPI will follow through on its word and its commitment to enter into a binding agreement that protects the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the potential transfer of quotas; and I fully expect that they will. I fully expect them to abide by their word. I hope we don't have to have legislation here to deal with that.

This legislation, the four pieces of legislation or the four principles that are contained in our report - that the needed legislation right now are here. They are here in spades, and I believe that they make it very clear, for the future, that FPI is what we thought it was and is what it should be, and I hope it will continue to be so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 65, An Act To Amend The FPI Act, and to echo a little of what has already been eloquently spoken by previous speakers - my colleagues: the hon. Minister of Fisheries, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - and, I guess, to reflect on what was so clearly voiced by the many presenters as we toured this Province as an all-party committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to be a part of this all-party committee and I commend the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, for getting this consultation together. I also want to thank other members of the committee: the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and of course the Member for Humber East, who also sat in on these committees.

I want to thank them for their input, their ideas and work in ensuring that we were united in our goal as an all-party committee. That is, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that FPI continues to be an important part of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, a leader that can be a flagship for that industry and to ensure that the voices of the people most affected were heard. I also thank the Premier for his leadership, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that this vital issue be debated in the House of Assembly at this opening session.

Mr. Speaker, this issue debated here today hits at the very heart of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in my district, the District of Burin-Placentia West. Mr. Speaker, this was evident when some 1,200 people crammed into the Marystown Motel for the first public meeting on February 28. As I looked around that room that evening, and beyond it, I looked into the concerned faces of genuine hard-working men and women, people who have built a successful company and contributed greatly to our communities through their unwavering commitment and honest sweat. As one speaker eloquently stated, Mr. Speaker, FPI is truly a reflection of the (inaudible) people who helped build it.

Emotions ran high during those hearings, as those workers expressed their concerns and their outrage for the company that was reneging on commitments made to them, to their community leaders and to us, as a government, less than a year earlier in the spring of 2001.

It was not only the workers who got up to speak to this important issue. Community and union representatives, town councils in the area, the Marystown Burin Chamber of Commerce and concerned citizens addressed the committee in their public presentations or written submissions. The people have grave concerns because they realize, just as the members of this House do, the impact the operations of FPI have on the future of these communities. The sense of outrage at the original proposal of FPI to cut almost 600 jobs in an area that has continued to see struggles should not have been surprising for anyone. We were all outraged by this proposal, a proposal that would have created further devastation to the people of the entire Burin Peninsula.

Emotions ran high in the majority of other areas we visited as well, Mr. Speaker, especially in Fortune and Harbour Breton. I honestly believe that no member of our committee will ever forget our evening in Harbour Breton when the message was portrayed in a way that touched the hearts of everyone present as the 132 workers, that would have been displaced, walked in from the plant dressed in their processing uniforms and stood before us, passionately imploring us to fix the loopholes and hold the company accountable for their commitments. I will never forget the concern on the faces of these people, or the tear in the minister's eye, as these people looked to us for some hope. These workers had worked diligently to make FPI a viable company and they believe they were being dealt a raw deal. Plant workers and community leaders were shocked and hurt, but prepared to fight the plant layoffs and closures.

Another memory that will always remain with me, Mr. Speaker, was our evening in Port Union, when the Mayor of Port Union portrayed what can actually happen when a plant closes; and a tour of Port Union that we took the following morning.

There are those who maintain that we should have acted sooner. The truth is, there was really nothing that could have been done any sooner than was done. We could not tell a company who they could elect to their board of directors, but we did meet with the new board shortly after the change and our concerns were addressed at that meeting. I, for one, could not understand how they could keep all plants open, retain the present workforce, and, of course, provide forty weeks' work in each plant or more.

I was told that the company's intent at that time was to purchase raw materials from foreign sources, something that they said the previous board had not done. Of course, the board's commitments were reiterated at that meeting. We had their official commitment to grow the company in a manner that provided security to the workforce, while at the same time increasing employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. I still had doubts, so I immediately issued a news release that I would be monitoring closely and holding the new board of directors accountable to their commitments. Just a few months later, Mr. Speaker, my fears were realized when I had to join some sixty to eighty workers in a protest at FPI, in Marystown, when they were advised that somewhere between seventy and eighty people were already about to be displaced.

In January, 2002, we learned of FPI's decision to invest $12 million in new capital at Marystown, Fortune and Harbour Breton, as well as deploy $6 million of existing equipment in these three plants. No one would have argued FPI's investing in its facilities had it not been for the startling human cost of this undertaking, Mr. Speaker. Some 584 positions would be eliminated, with the majority of those positions in the Marystown facility. Totally unacceptable! Mr. Speaker, to reduce the groundfish workforce by 45 per cent was a huge blow to my district; a 180 degree turnaround from the original commitments of the company's new Board of Directors. It eroded the trust of FPI workers and also the community leaders who represented them.

Mr. Speaker, it was stated many times during the consultation process - and there is no doubt whatsoever in any of our minds - FPI workers want to work fifty-two weeks of the year. They did it before and would certainly welcome the same opportunity again. However, the lack of raw material forces them to work, in most case, some fourteen to twenty-four weeks. Mr. Speaker, it is a hard enough blow to a person's dignity to have to stay at home and collect EI benefits because there is no gainful employment available, but it adds insult to injury to be subjected to the scorn of the Risleys of this world, who would like to have people believe they are dealing with people whose sole ambition is to collect EI benefits. It is just not good enough. True, the proposal had been withdrawn but the workers' trust had been shaken, as well as their belief that they played an important role in the future of FPI.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that fishing is a business, but it is also a part of our culture and our way of life. We expect a company to want to make a reasonable profit, but it is also incumbent upon them to think of the social impact their desire for exorbitant profit can have on the people who have faithfully served them.

Mr. Speaker, our concerns, first and foremost, are for those workers at the fish plants affected, and we are also concerned about what is in the best interests of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we have proposed those amendments to the FPI Act, Mr. Speaker.

First, and perhaps the most important, is the clarification of the 15 per cent ownership restriction in FPI. The committee's belief was that the intent of the original legislation was that no one would own more than 15 per cent of FPI, but it needed to be clarified. The act is being amended to be very specific about the 15 per cent restriction of ownership by including that no person or corporation shall be permitted to own more than 15 per cent of the voting or non-voting common, preferred or other class of shares in FPI. That is even more clearly defined by including all forms of equity.

The committee also recommends that government and FPI attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issues of quotas. In the event we cannot reach such an agreement, within a reasonable period, we recommend that the act be further amended to include a requirement that, all future quotas and allocations in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador be harvested and processed within our Province.

Another recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is that the act be amended to include a provision requiring that the corporate and administrative head offices of FPI be located in this Province. A privative clause is also included, as well as a preamble. This preamble, Mr. Speaker, more fully outlines the purpose of the FPI Act.

Firstly, the preamble recognizes the fundamental importance of the role the fishing industry plays in this Province. This industry has been the mainstay of the livelihood of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians since the days of our forefathers.

Secondly, the preamble recognizes the continuity of FPI as a widely held entity that can act as a leading company to strengthen the growth of the fishery here in this Province.

Thirdly, the preamble recognizes the need for a company to operate on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions without causing an upturn in the history of harvesting and processing here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the preamble includes a very important point: it ensures that there will be maximum employment stability and productivity through employee consultation and participation in the company.

Mr. Speaker, the workers of FPI should have a voice when it comes to the future of the company, and that will be a flagship for the fishing industry in this Province. The preamble enshrines that right.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, this undertaking to amend the FPI Act could not have been done without the input of all concerned citizens that addressed the all-party committee. I thank all people who did presentations to this committee.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the support staff who traveled with us: Elizabeth Mathews, Jeanette Grant, Mike Warren, Paul Martin, Brent Mead, and Andrew from Eastern Audio. Again, I thank the minister for including me in the all-party committee.

In years to come, I am certain I will look back on this experience as one of the most emotional and perhaps hallmarks of my political career. I am pleased that these amendments addressed concerns that were ever so present at the public consultations. We, as a government, should continue to work diligently with FPI management and their workers to ensure the prosperous future of this flagship company in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a motion and move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to pass some comments on Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a position, I think probably a little bit different than most people here in the House of Assembly, in that I worked for a company that was restructured prior to 1983, a company that disappeared prior to 1983 within the fishing industry, a company known as H.B. Nickerson & Sons, one of the companies that were, I suppose, if you would, refurbished and brought in to this new company, Fishery Products International.

At the disappearance of H.B. Nickerson & Sons, I went to work with Fishery Products International and worked with Fishery Products International as an electrician up to 1992, at the time that the groundfish moratorium was brought into place. At that particular time, I lost my job, like a lot of the people who came forward and spoke at the meetings that we attended across the Province.

I have gone across this Province before, I say to members in this House, having meetings on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, where we went out, had public meetings, encouraged people to come forward and put forward their views and opinions. I traveled across the Province with a committee, our committee on the education reform, where we encouraged people to come out and talk about their concerns and put forward their wishes of how they would like to see the education system restructured here in the Province.

Never before have I been involved in a committee to go out and listen to people's views that were so highly charged as this particular committee, this all-party committee that recently clued up hearings across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of the people who came forward - we heard from hundreds of people. Thousands of people came to our meetings. They came out and spoke with passion, and they spoke with commitment because they were talking about their community and their jobs.

I remember down in Triton, where one lady got up and referred to some comments that were made by a certain gentleman involved with Fishery Products International, where he talked about the culture of Newfoundland needing to be changed, where he talked about us being a society that collected unemployment insurance and wanted to work at temporary jobs. This lady got up and spoke about her desire to go to work, about what she had to do, and her commitment to her employer, which was Fishery Products International. She talked about having to take drugs before she went to work in the morning. She talked about how going to work affected her health, but she went on to say, yes, her health is important, but a job is more important to her; because she knew that this was the lifeline that kept her in her community. She knew that Fishery Products International was her only chance of being employed and living in the community of Triton.

We talk about the changes in the fishing industry in this Province, and we talk about the fishing industry not being what it used to be. It is not. The fishing industry has changed. I say to people here in the House of Assembly and across the Province, the fishing industry today still employs in excess of 25,000 people. There are still 25,000 people working in the fishing industry in this Province today.

Fishery Products International still employs 3,000 people in this Province, still employs 3,000 people, and purchases fish products from in excess of 3,000 fishermen and fishing enterprises. We are talking about the largest fish processor in the country, the largest fish processor in Canada. We wonder what all the commotion was about. We wonder why people were so upset, and why they had so much distrust when there was a new Board of Directors about to take over Fishery Products International.

All we have to do is go back to a short eighteen months ago, when a company known as NEOS came forward with some of the same people involved. They wanted to take over Fishery Products International. They came and they met with our party here. I remember very well sitting down with many members in our own caucus room. We asked some pointed questions about where they were going to take this company. We asked -

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, some people took out their wallet and put it on the table and said, here is what I stand for. We asked some pointed questions, questions that we thought the general public should know the answers to, and questions that I should know the answers to. Because, I suggest to people here, that my district, the District of Bonavista South, is probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, fishing district in the Province.

At one time - and I will just give you a little bit of history to show why people in my district are concerned about this company and where it goes. Mr. Speaker, the town of Port Union once had a fish plant that operated as a groundfish, a deep sea fish plant, where there was in excess of 1,200 people employed. Over 1,200 people worked at the Fishery Products International plant in Port Union. People had a job to get a week's holidays. They had a job to get the Christmas season off, Mr. Speaker. People were not used to working six weeks or ten weeks or fifteen weeks of the year. They were proud to get up in the morning and go to work.

Mr. Speaker, today, in that particular plant, while we do have a modern plant there - it is now a modern shrimp processing plant - there are approximately 120 to 130 people who find work there for sixteen to twenty weeks of the year. Over a thousand jobs disappeared - that is direct jobs - from the fish processing plant in Port Union.

Mr. Speaker, let's go over to Bonavista where there were in excess of 400 people employed. Bonavista operated as a crab processing plant, one of the first in the Province, and as a groundfish plant. You go to Bonavista today, while the crab processing plant is still there, today there are approximately 260 people who get the minimum number of work weeks to qualify for EI; never sure when the plant closes down if it is going to open again or how many people will be able to have a job when the plant reopens.

Move up the road, Mr. Speaker, in the same district, the District of Bonavista South, and we come to Charleston, another plant that was owned by Fishery Products International. There were 280 people on the seniority list there. There were in excess of 320 people who would go to work there at certain times during the year. It was a seasonal operation but, in days gone by, it did operate full time, year round. Today the locks are on the gate and there is not one person working in that particular facility.

Two thousand jobs gone from the District of Bonavista South. Now, how can you take 2,000 jobs out of a district with about 15,000 people and not feel the hurt? How can you take 2,000 jobs away from a rural community and replace it with job creation and make-work projects? It cannot be done.

I always say, if we are going to survive in rural Newfoundland and Labrador then it is going to have to be fisheries related. There is nobody going to Port Union, there is nobody going to Bonavista or Duntara or Spillars Cove or Melrose, making airplane parts or making automobiles. Our future is still directly related to the fishery, Mr. Speaker, and this is the reason why so many people assumed ownership of this problem and came out to put forward their concerns to the committee and put forward their pleas in order to have this Fishery Products International Act strengthened to make sure that we did not loss control of this particular company.

Mr. Speaker, our meeting started off down in Marystown where there were approximately 1,000 or 1,200 people who came out that particular night to the hall and put forward their concerns. Then we went to Bonavista. While we were in Bonavista, the Mayor of Port Union got up and asked the committee - I can hear him now, he got up and commended the committee for what they were doing. His words were, and I will repeat them: Where in the hell were you back in 1992? It was certainly a good question, and it was one that I could relate to, and it was one that he could relate to, because he saw the devastation that was caused in this town. That has been on my mind since then. Where was everybody in 1992? Probably most of us were not sitting in this House of Assembly. Some of us were. Most of us were not. I know I was not.

Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, back in 1992, I think everybody was so concerned about what was happening with people and trying to get an income for people, maybe we were caught up in trying to convince Ottawa that we needed immediate funding to keep body and soul together and to put bread and butter on the table rather than going out and trying to protect jobs.

Anyway, the thing unfolded back on January 8. I think the submission was made to the FFAW, the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union, on January 9, when the presentation was made by Fishery Products International to the Union saying that they were going to reduce their workforce by something like 50 per cent in three communities of Fortune, Marystown and Harbour Breton.

I remember getting a call, the night before the bomb was dropped on January 9, from a gentleman who lives in my district, Barry Randell, who was the unit chairperson of the Union at the Bonavista Fishery Products International Plant. He said: Have you heard what is coming down tomorrow? Have you heard what Fishery Products International is going to be doing in Fortune, Harbour Breton and Marystown? I said: Boy, I have not heard a thing. I know that you people are in on the negotiations and I know that you are going to be meeting with the company to try to get a new contract in place, but, no, I have not heard. He said: Let me tell you what we have been told; and he related the story to me.

So I immediately, as soon as I hung up, got on the phone and called a member of the Board of Directors of Fishery Products International. I immediately got on the phone and made the call. I said: This is what I am hearing. Is this the correct information? The gentleman said: Yes, it is the correct information. I will never forget his comments. He said: We have major problems in the groundfishery in this Province and we are going to deal with them. This year and next year we are going to get our teeth into the shellfish plants in the Province. That included places like Bonavista, places like Port Union, places where FPI has a presence in the shellfish industry; Port au Choix, Mr. Speaker. Next year we are going to get our teeth into the shellfish industry.

Thank God, I have to say, because I do not know if there is any other organization in this Province that has the ability to organize and to bring together a group of people and get them assembled for a common cause. I do not know if there is any other organization that can do it any better than the FFAW. They certainly have good organizers within that union and they have people that stick together and fight together for a common cause.

It is probably a good thing, I say to you Premier, that it happened the way it did, because if they went and singled out certain plants, and singled out certain communities, then the next thing we know we would probably have one community fighting against another one. This is all about survival. Mr. Speaker, thank God they did it the way they did.

The Premier, after some reluctance, I say to the Premier, after some prodding from this side, decided that there was a major problem here and we would have to react and we would try to put together an all-party committee to travel and get the views of the people and come back and make recommendations for a piece of legislation in order to deal with this major problem.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot deny the right for public opinion. You cannot deny the right for public opinion. You can never go wrong when you reach out and ask for people to bring forward their views and bring forward their opinions so that we can make some decisions based on what people thought.

The overall message that we heard, as we travelled from community to community - we went to nine different communities, held nine different meetings - the one message that came through loud and clear was: We need to address the 15 per cent ownership of Fishery Products International.

When Fishery Products International came into being, when it was privatized back in 1987, Mr. Speaker, the 15 per cent share restriction was with voting shares, and at that time that is the only type of shares there was. There were only voting shares, I say to people opposite. Then all of a sudden, there were other types of shares. There were common shares, there were preferred shares, Mr. Speaker, but the legislation dealt with the voting shares of Fishery Products International. The one message that came through loud and clear is: We want this act strengthened up; we want this act clarified; we want the 15 per cent to extend to all shares; we want the 15 per cent ownership restricted to 15 per cent where nobody, nobody, will own any more than 15 per cent of the value of this company. Whether it is in voting shares, preferred shares, non-voting shares, it does not matter; 15 per cent. That was the one message that came through loud and clear.

There were other proposals, I say to members opposite. There were others. In fact, there was one proposal that came forward which said that we should have an election on the issue. The three parties should put forward three pieces of legislation and we should take it to the electorate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, I said it was a proposal that came forward from the floor.

There were other proposals that said that maybe we should look after providing community quotas. There were other proposals that came forward saying we should legislate jobs, that there should be a piece of legislation put in place that would legislate no job losses, no layoffs.

As a committee we met and we went over some of the things that we heard. We separated the things that we thought we could realistically deal with and some of the things that we thought we should not be interfering in. One of the things that we should not be interfering in was legislating jobs, I say to you, Madam Speaker. We felt, as a committee, that we could not go out and legislate jobs because people were fortunate enough to have a job with Fishery Products International. We felt that was too restrictive. You did not want to strangle the company; and that was where the union would play a part. We felt that we could not extend and put into legislation community quotas, because we felt that again would restrict private enterprise.

Where do you stop, or where do you start, if you are going to give community quotas? If there is a reduction, maybe regional quotas could be something that could be considered, but when you talk about community quotas, I say to the Deputy Premier, you have to be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

MR. TULK: Did I question that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Regional quotas?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not so sure regional quotas as such were brought forward, but community quotas certainly were.

There were people who talked about community licences; but we felt, as a committee, that we had an obligation to bring forward the main points, the main suggestions, the main concerns, that were brought to us as a committee and ask the government to put it in legislation.

Our recommendations were, and I am going to repeat them again, even though they have already been repeated. They bear repeating, because the recommendations are certainly good recommendations.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, if I could, please?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, the all-party committee recommended the following::

Number one, "The Committee recommends that the Act should be amended to ensure that no person or corporation shall be permitted to own more than 15 % of the voting or non-voting common, preferred or any other class of shares of FPI Limited and/or Fishery Products International Limited. Ownership must be defined as including all forms of equity, so that no person or corporation can hold more than 15 % of the total equity in the company."

We felt that particular recommendation is quite clear. There is no argument now whether somebody can own 15 per cent of the voting shares and not 15 per cent or more than 15 per cent of another common share. It is clear, it is concise, there is no way around it. We figured that it is ironclad and I am glad to see that recommendation brought forward.

The other recommendation, "The Committee recommends that the government and FPI attempt to reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas." An issue that came up at every meeting. "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."

That is motherhood. If we are going to survive in this Province today, then we are going to have to ensure that every pound of fish that is harvested off our shores is landed here, processed here, and we get every hour of work from every pound of fish that is landed here in order to employ our people. Other than that, lock the doors, turn off the lights, we are not going to survive here. That is a motherhood issue. Now, it is not in the legislation.

I understand that the minister is working with Fishery Products International to reach an agreement whereby a contract can be signed to have exactly that happen, and that would be much more agreeable, I say to you, Madam Speaker, than putting something in an act which we do not really have full control over, because that is controlled by the federal government as well.

Third, Madam Speaker, "The Committee recommends that the Act should be amended to include a provision requiring that the corporate and administrative head office of FPI Limited and/or Fishery Products International Limited be located in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." That, Madam Speaker, we want to make sure that the head office, the corporate office, the administrative office of Fishery Products International Limited, continues to stay at O'Leary Avenue.

"The Committee recommends that the amendments to the FPI Act should include a privative clause."

MR. SULLIVAN: Or somewhere else in the Province, not necessarily O'Leary Avenue.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not necessarily O'Leary Avenue, but somewhere else in the Province, I say to the Member for Ferryland, but that is where it is now.

Madam Speaker, that was an issue that caused us some concern, a privative clause. It probably caused more debate than any other of the five or six recommendations, I say to the Premier, that are in this particular recommendation. We had grave concerns about it. We had grave concerns about it because it almost seemed like we were admitting guilt, that we were bringing about changes to this piece of legislation and we were admitting a little bit of guilt because we were going to build into that a clause that said this is what we believe in but now we are going to stop anybody from coming forward and taking legal action against us for the rules and regulations that we have implemented as legislation. We had grave concerns, and I still have concerns about it. I have to be honest with you, I still have concerns about the privative clause. I made the recommendations, we put up the argument, but at the end of the day we decided that we would get legal advice to see what this privative clause meant. We decided that we would get legal advice from the government's own lawyers, to ask them the questions. It was with their recommendations, and reluctance from some committee members, that we put this privative clause there. Because it is something that is going to cause us some concern. A lot of people have some concerns about where it is taking us or what the repercussions might be. I have some concerns myself, but at the end of the day we decided, with the legal advice of the government's own lawyers, that we would include that.

Then the committee also recommended a preamble which is clearly written here, and that was to clearly define what the intent of the act is and to, I suppose, if you would, clarify the legislation.

I say to members opposite, that there was a lot of effort put into this particular report. I think it is a good report. I commend the Members of the House of Assembly for taking part and showing up at all the meetings. I have to pay tribute to the minister here. We traveled around this Province on a bus. We went from community to community to community with the electronic gear, with the speakers and with the microphones, stored in the back of the bus, and we were in the front of it. I said to the minister, that there are a lot of ministers over there on that side that, I can tell you, would be traveling ahead of the bus, probably with flags stuck on both mirrors saying: The minister is coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: In a helicopter.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe. Well, I won't say that, but maybe.

I commend the minister for traveling with all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: We went and did the things we needed to do, because it was done with the best intentions of representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was done to bring forward people's views and opinions into this House.

We have no intentions here - there is not one person in this Legislature, there is not one person in this Assembly, who doesn't want to see Fisheries Products International be a successful company. We all do. I don't know if most of us here care who is at the top as long as this company continues to be a Newfoundland company, harvesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. FITZGERALD: Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to members opposite.

- harvesting and processing a resource that belongs to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receiving the greatest benefit from this resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, with that I will conclude. I understand other people want to speak, and I understand I am speaking on leave. I say to people opposite, that this is not the committee's views and opinions. Those are the views and opinions from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This is what we heard. The people have spoken. Now I think it is incumbent on us to act on those recommendations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to rise in the House and support the amendments that have been put forward to this bill. No doubt, this has been a process that has been both educational to us, as Members of the House of Assembly, and to myself, in particular, in dealing with all the rural areas on the Island of Newfoundland as we have travelled around in this process. Also, Madam Speaker, it has been a process whereby people have been active. They have been vocal. They have been putting forward their issues and what is important to them, and what they want to see changed.

Madam Speaker, if there is one thing that we have heard consistently throughout this process, is that we have heard from people in communities who talked about the challenges that they have had within the fishing industry. They talked about the survival of their communities, what they have endured. They talked about the fishery itself, and what it is like to be in a fishing boat in this Province, in such a harsh and dangerous coastline on many occasions, and how hard they have worked through generation after generation to build communities and build a coastal society for people.

I am very proud today to be able to stand in this Legislature and support these amendments, because these amendments reflect the views and the wishes of people. When this issue first surfaced, and even before it surfaced, this government was very active. Before the restructuring plan was even announced, we had sent letters to FPI asking them to outline what their plan was and to keep us informed and aware. We were disappointed that they had not honoured the commitments that they had made to us as a government. We felt that there was a need to act, and we acted immediately. I am proud to say that we acted with the support and the involvement of all the Members of the House of Assembly, and all the parties that are represented here. I think that, Madam Speaker, speaks for how important and how significant this issue is, not only to us but to all people in the Province.

The recommendations that have been put forward and the legislation that we have put forward is what we felt was necessary, was realistic, and was our responsibility to deal with. We didn't just hear from people in the fishing industry, although we heard from a lot of plant workers and a lot of fishers, we also heard from community leaders. We heard from business leaders. We heard from officials of the religious order. We heard from the everyday, ordinary people who live out there in those communities, that have little or no affiliation with the fishing industry, but who are concerned. We heard from people who were looking out for their communities, and people who have grown up in these communities. They were living this life. They knew it best and they knew what needed to be done, what restraints needed to be put in place in order to help them manage themselves through yet another challenge within the industry.

Protecting the resource and producing the resource for the benefit of people. This was a consistent message and one, Madam Speaker, that we have tried and have been successful in honouring as a government. It is protecting the resources of the Province for the people of the Province. That is what this issue was all about. It was about ensuring that there was a resource in a community that was providing jobs, providing sustainability, and that it was going to be left there; it was going to be managed; it was going to be protected; it was going to be multiplied and used for the benefit of these communities. It was about being able to build an industry, and build an industry that could benefit each and every one of them.

We have a responsibility, all of us in this Legislature, to protect and provide safeguards that are in the best interests of people. When we run a risk of failing to do this, the people in our communities fail and the people of the Province, as a whole, fail. That is why we have to work diligently to make sure that those safeguards, those protections, are put there for the best interests of people.

I remember a number of speakers, and I can tell you that they spoke with such passion, such emotion, and such commitment to their communities. They are really the heart and soul of what our Province is all about. They came out in large numbers. They came out by the thousands to address this committee in hope that someone would listen, in hope that there would be changes made that could be of some benefit to them.

I remember one quote by an individual in Marystown who got up and said: sometimes we are the architects of our own misery and our own misfortune; in referring to the FPI Act. I guess that is exactly where we were. We were looking at having to make amendments to a piece of legislation that was created out of the goodness of this House with only the greatest concern, and the greatest interest for people, but it was created out of this House. Sometimes I guess we do not always do things perfectly, but at least we have a realization that when there is a change that needs to take place, that we go back and make that change, and we do what is right and in the best interest of people.

I can honestly say that I have very seldom, in my entire life, seen people who have felt such betrayal as a lot of the people who came out at these forums. They felt that they had been given false promises. They felt that there had been an erosion of trust between the company, themselves as employees, and of their communities. There was a total loss of confidence, I think, in the company and what was about to happen with this restructuring. That is really sad because when you get to a point within a community where you have lost that trust, you have lost that confidence and you kind of feel betrayed, it takes an awful lot of work and an awful lot of effort, on everybody's part, to rebuild that back; to work your way back out of a situation like that.

I can honestly say that the people who came out had such strength about them and had such commitment about them, that, I think, in light of what is happening today, in light of the amendments that are being proposed, that I really do have a great deal of confidence in the fact that this company and those communities and those workers will build back that trust, and will build a strong viable relationship that can produce good economic benefits for their company. I think that all of us have to support them in doing that.

I think that the workers of FPI are probably the people who came out with the strongest message in all of this because, obviously, they felt they had given their entire lives to this company. They had been workers who worked long hours, many weeks, through year after year and some days - you know what it is like - standing in a fish plant on a concrete floor in the middle of winter. It was not always the most pleasant circumstances, but they did it. They were commited to the work that they did and they were commited to this company. I think, for them, it was somewhat of a setback. They were somewhat disappointed because there was a sense of pride that they have in their work, and a sense of commitment that they have in their work, and all of a sudden, I think, they felt that in a lot of ways this was being threaten, and that is unfortunate.

I remember the stories that were told, and they were so realistic. They were such a reflection of who we are as people, and how determined that we are as people, to persevere and to do the best we can, even under the most challenging circumstances. I think, for the most part, a lot of those workers who came out at our forums were taken back by the comments they were hearing in the media, because it became much more than about FPI. It became about the attitudes that other people had towards them as workers, towards their communities and us, as a Province. That was very disturbing for them because they had spent their entire lives, day-in-and-day-out, no matter what the reward, how great or how small, committing themselves to building a piece of this industry, a piece that they felt they belonged to. I think it was absolutely terrible, and I think it was wrong that some aspersions were cast at them in a negative light. That was very unfortunate because we all know that the fishery is a difficult industry in this Province; and it has not gone without its challenges and it has not gone without its hardships. We also know that it is only the diligences and the hard-working people that we have in this Province that keeps it going and keeps the fight and allows us to keep building it back up.

I think that was pretty sad and, hopefully, people in this Province realize that we can stand proud, and be proud of what we do and what we have accomplished. We do not have to tolerate the negativity and the slights and comments by people who know little or nothing about us.

Madam Speaker, FPI is an important contributor to the rural economy of our Province. The employees have committed themselves and their lives to this company. The shareholders have made investments, lifetime investments in some cases, in this fishing industry. It has been a continuous struggle for them as well.

We have had to be very cognizant of that as we proceeded with this process because it is not our intention, Madam Speaker, nor our wish, to compromise the integrity of this company. It is not our intention to do anything that could compromise the consumer confidence or investors confidence in this company. It is our intention only, Madam Speaker, that we strengthen this company, that we strengthen its profile, we strengthen its investments, and that we allow them to do the job that they were intended to do, and that is to build viable fishing industries in our communities and for our people.

We want to make sure that they are a profitable company. We want to work with their investors and we want to make sure that they make decisions that are going to be supportive of our people and of our Province as well as supporting their own interests and making sure that they get their own returns. That is important. In order to do that, we certainly have to be vigilant in our work. We have to be responsible, as elected officials in the House of Assembly. All parties have to be responsible in carrying this out and ensuring that it happens.

I will not get into the details of the recommendations because they have been outlined by all the members who have spoken here today. I do want to outline one of the things that was in our recommendation but not in the legislation, and that is on the quotas.

There is one thing that I remember quite clearly; that is when the Mayor of Burgeo stood and he talked about what had happened in his community when the quota of redfish was transferred to Nova Scotia. Many others stood and talked about the shrimp quotas that were adjacent to our Province, that were transferred to P.E.I.

It became quite clear throughout the entire forum, community after community, speaker after speaker, that there is a grave concern about quotas within this Province and how those quotas are being managed by the federal government.

Madam Speaker, when we made our recommendations to the House of Assembly, we wanted to make sure that we addressed this issue to the best of our ability. While quotas are governed by the federal government and it falls within federal jurisdiction, we have legitimate concerns and we feel that within this Province our concerns should be heard. We have to still make every effort to protect them. In doing so, we initiated discussion with FPI to enter into a contractual agreement on quotas, ensuring that the quotas that we have will stay in the Province for the people, for the communities, to ensure that their fish plants carry on, that they have continuous employment. We can only do that if we have the co-operation of FPI. They gave us their word, that they were willing to enter into a contract with government to do that. I certainly want to encourage them today to own up to that commitment and to make sure that they negotiate the contract on quotas, protecting the quotas for the people of our Province. We cannot allow to happen what happened in Burgeo with the redfish quota. We cannot allow to happen in this Province what happened with the shrimp quotas when they went to Nova Scotia. This is a critical issue for us because, when you start eroding away the resources that we have and transferring them somewhere else, it diminishes our return for the long term for our people and our communities, and we cannot allow that to happen.

There were a number of speakers, I guess, who came out to our forums. My colleague opposite, the Member for Bonavista South, talked about the Mayor of Port Union. I think that his story was probably one of the stories that will remain with me for a very long time, because he was an individual in a small rural outport trying to provide leadership in a community in our Province that had been through probably one of the most challenging and devastating things that could ever happen to a community: when you get your plant closing down and you get over 1,000 people put out of work, and you start seeing your community being torn apart and people leaving by the droves, pulling out, and you have no control to do anything about it because the only industry that you have committed a lifetime to building in your community has been taken away from you.

I certainly would not want to see that repeated in many other communities. When he stood there that day and talked to us about how the banks had pulled out, and how they have not issued a new housing permit in almost ten years, and how 75 per cent of the businesses in that particular community had closed, it is a harsh reality to any rural area in this Province.

When the Mayor of St. Anthony stood up and talked about when his plant had closed and they had seen 800 people displaced from the fishing industry when FPI pulled out, and what that meant to their community and their local economy, and how because that one industry was taken away, the out-migration of people had climbed significantly in the years to follow, and how it has been such a struggle for those people to rebuild despite all the new investment and despite all the new initiatives that have been invested in that particular area, these, I think, are a couple of examples of what happens in this Province when you have one industry in the rural economy that people are depending upon, investing in, counting on, and this is what happens when that particular industry fails you.

As a government, we have to be responsible and we have to try and provide the safeguards that are necessary to protect Fishery Products International and in turn to protect the communities in which these plants operate.

It has not been an easy decision because we have been challenged from the time we started by people who do not support the view of government, who do not support the initiative that we are bringing forward, who think in some way that we may be damaging investments within the Province; but, investments in this Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, have to be for the benefit of our people. They have to be healthy investments that provide a return for the investor but also provide a return for our communities and our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have a responsibility to make sure that is the course of action, and that is the way that we lead. Certainly, that is evident today in the amendments that are being put forward. These amendments are there to protect people and communities, and fish plants in this Province, but they are also there to ensure the integrity of the company that we are all so very proud of, and don't think that we aren't. We are very proud of FPI and we are very proud to have had a part, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in building this company. It does not matter if you are a fish plant worker, if you are an investor, if you are a Member of this House of Assembly; we have all had a part in building that company and we all have a role in ensuring that there are proper safeguards and protections in place for it.

Mr. Speaker, I feel very fortunate because, as I went around the Province as part of this all-party committee, I guess, I soon started to draw comparisons to my own district in which I have a company called the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company. That is also a company that is owned by people who live in that region, by fisherpeople primarily.

I can certainly understand where all of these communities were coming from, because if anything was to ever happen to the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company that would ever jeopardize their operations, you would see a whole district of communities basically being reduced to devastation, because this company has also been the mainstay of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They operate the fish plants. They operate the fisheries. They control the industry, but they do so from a very public consultative process, and I do so with the best interests of people at heart. I think that is what is important. Any decisions that they make in those communities, they make for the benefit of the community, of the region, and of the people who live there. We are very fortunate to have a company like that operating in Labrador.

I know how important FPI is to the communities in which it operates on the Island of Newfoundland because it is that type of process, and that type of social and economic management that certainly makes a difference in all regions of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Can I have leave to -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments, I just wanted to raise one other thing that I had heard from an individual up on the Northern Peninsula when we were doing our consultations. I think it was a Mr. Hoddinott. I am not sure, but I thought he said he was born and raised and came from a community called Spirity Cove - and I am sure the Member for The Straits & White Bay North would probably know where it is. He told us a story about how he had raised ten children, been a part of the fishery, and how he had spent his life in a fishery that was controlled by big business and large merchants in which fisherpeople had very little control, and the people had little or no say. I guess the lesson in all of that is: if we don't study history we are probably bound to repeat it. I think that was his message to us and certainly a message that stayed with me as we continued on with this process, that we should always ensure that where there is an industry or a resource in which we have some control and some input, we certainly do not want to see that get into the hands of the wrong people.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to say that I support all of the amendments that have been put forward in this legislation. I think it is a clear reflection of the views of the people of the Province, and certainly those who participated in the process. I want to thank and acknowledge the great work that has been done by all of my colleagues on this committee, and also praise the efforts of the Minister of Fisheries who has taken a very strong leadership role on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: He has done a very impressive job and I can tell you that he has done this with the best interests of the people of our Province at heart, and that certainly is very satisfying to me.

I also want to acknowledge the tremendous solidarity and support from the union. The FFAW, I know, has probably had a vested interest in terms of this process from start to finish, but seldom have I seen such solidarity in any group. I can tell you that they have certainly represented their workers and their communities very well on this issue. They certainly need to be commended for that.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to acknowledge the great work by my colleagues, to say it was a pleasure to work with the members opposite as well as the members on our side of the House, and to say that I had my first real, long bus trip that I ever had, because having grown up in Labrador we did not have any roads. So I did not have an opportunity to do any real, long bus trips. I will certainly be doing lots of bus trips in the years to come because, as you know, we have over 300 kilometres of highway built in my district now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I can tell you, it was a very satisfying bus trip, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is impressive, on behalf of the minister and the whole committee, that we were very diligent in our work; although it took us three weeks, by bus, around the Province to do this. It was certainly an experience, and I look forward to taking my first bus trip on the Labrador Highway through Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is appropriate that I take a few minutes this evening to pass a few comments on Bill 65, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. I could not help but think, as I was sitting here this evening listening to the debate, that it would be impossible to even dream, back in 1987, that you would be taking part in this kind of debate again in 2002, dealing with the future of so much of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and a company that means so much - has meant so much over the years, and I think will continue to mean so much to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember introducing the legislation in 1987 that lead to the privatization of FPI. Mr. Speaker, there were some who believed that we should not have done it at all. For example, as my friend the Leader of the NDP said this evening in his remarks, it was the position of the NDP, at the time, that we should not have moved at all to privatize FPI. The Official Opposition, at the time, which is the party that forms the government today, their position was that we do not disagree with privatization, but it is too soon. We shouldn't do it right now. That was the position of the Official Opposition. The position of the government and the company, and the Government of Canada which was a shareholder, and the Bank of Nova Scotia which was a shareholder, was that the time was right in 1987 to return this company to the private sector.

Before I move on from there, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to pay compliments to the all-party committee who looked at this particular issue. This was a very difficult piece of political business. This committee, on behalf of all of us in this Legislature, was given an onerous piece of work to carry out on our behalf. A necessary piece of work, no doubt, but an onerous piece of work, nevertheless. That committee went out across the Island of Newfoundland, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a most difficult time, January of this year, and listened to the people of the communities that were most affected.

I had anticipated, Mr. Speaker, of being part of that process but unfortunately, my personal circumstance was such that I could not travel in January. But, to all of our colleagues on both sides of the Legislature here, who did go - the minister as chairperson, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Bonavista South, and the Member for Bay of Islands - to all those who went out there and listened to the heart-wrenching stories, that had to tear on the heartstrings of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to all those who went and did that, Mr. Speaker, they deserve the compliments and the credit of all of us in this Legislature because it is not an easy process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember being home, pretty much alone late at night while this process was going on, watching the process on television. NTV, in particular, replayed some of those meetings in their entirety. Even though I was not out in the communities hearing what was happening, I stayed up until 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning listening to what the people in those communities were saying; the only way that I could hear for myself what they were saying. I remember watching every piece of the meeting in Harbour Breton, for example. NTV replayed it in its entirety. I believe they did the same for Marystown. After the fireworks gave up, they kind of stopped filming the whole thing and did not pay as much heed to it. It is too bad, because I am sure what was said in Triton, and what was said in Port Saunders, and what was said in Stephenville, and what was said in other places around the Province, while perhaps not as politically charged for the media, was equally as important and beneficial to all of us.

It was that process that I had to fall back on, Mr. Speaker, to get a feel of how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador still felt about their company in 2002. Never let us forget, Mr. Speaker, that Fishery Products International is the company of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: It was created to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember the first hurdle that was thrown in front of this committee: that the Legislature does not have a right, does not have the right to amend the legislation to clarify the intent of the 15 per cent rule. What a load of crock, Mr. Speaker. It is a load. I believe that the debates in 1987 clearly show that the intention of this Legislature was to make sure that no one individual or no one corporation controls more than 15 per cent of the shares of Fishery Products International -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: - either through the process of the front door, Mr. Speaker, or through the process of the back door. That was the clear intent of this Legislature and the government of the day in 1987.

I make no claim on perfection, Mr. Speaker. We were not perfect, in hindsight. The word voting shares was what some creative minds were able to latch onto a few months ago. The word voting shares. That is what we used. I take responsibility for it. We did use it, but 20/20 is perfect, Mr. Speaker. I say to this House and to the people of this Province, in 1987 those mergers that are the thing to do in the corporate political world today were pretty well unheard of. They were not taking place like they are today. The dot coms of the world were not the things that ruled the world, as they are today, so the voting shares were all that was envisioned in the legislation of 1987. That does not make it perfect, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is an explanation for it, because that is all that was envisioned in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: It meant ownership.

MR. RIDEOUT: It meant ownership. The debate was clear; it meant no person or corporate body could own more than 15 per cent of this company.

Having come to the realization, though, that some creative corporate mind out there, when they could not get their way on the NEOS bid, when the NEOS bid failed - and I have to say here, thank God that the government of the day in this Legislature did not fail prey to the invitation to remove that 15 per cent cap back when the NEOS bid was on the go, because we would not be here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We would perhaps have no legislative or legal right to be here today; she would be gone. It would be a done deal. So, thank God the political wisdom existed in the crowd, the crowd being us here in whatever year it was - 1999 or 2000 was it?

AN HON. MEMBER:1999.

MR. RIDEOUT: In 1999, and that we did not agree to remove that 15 per cent cap. Thank God, we did not fall prey to the invitation of FPI executives themselves to remove it. Thank God, we did not do that; because if we had done that, Mr. Speaker, we, as I said, would not have the right, I don't believe, to be here today.

Having acknowledged that, Mr. Speaker, we have every right - this Legislature, the supreme legislative authority of this Province, has every right to clarify the intention of the original legislation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spelling out in detail in Schedule B of this particular act that the intention of the Legislature in 1987, now clarified and modified by this new piece of legislation, was that no person or company can own or control more than 15 per cent of any of the shares, any class of shares of this company. We have every right in the world to do it, and I am delighted and I am pleased to support the fact that we are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as well that this Legislature move to spell out some of the purposes. What is the real purpose behind the FPI legislation? If you, as members here, did attend those meetings, if, as I did, you listened to a tape of those meetings, I think that the purpose of this legislation is what was reflected in the heart and soul of every person who spoke at those meetings. They talked about trying to hold on in their own community. They talked about employment opportunities in the fishery. They talked about wanting to continue to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They talked about having a company that would reflect the values of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where the bottom line was important but the bottom line was not God. That was the kind of thing they were saying, and I do believe that the purpose clause in this legislation reflects that.

Will it do anything? Will the purpose clause do anything in terms of creating or saving a job? Perhaps it will not, but certainly it will not lose any. It will not cause us to lose any employment opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In that context, then, it is important.

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that this legislation has what I consider to be a piece of unnecessary - how shall I put it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause.

MR. RIDEOUT: Has a clause that, in my view, is unnecessary to be in it. I am talking about section 3, the privative clause. I know that members of the committee struggled with this. I think members on all sides of the House struggled with the privative clause.

Mr. Speaker, a privative clause, or a clause that, in a normal person's everyday language, takes away the right of any citizen of this Province or this country who feel they have been harmed; who takes away their right to go to the judicial system that we have in Canada and in our Province and seek redress, to seek to right the wrong, to seek some damages for the wrong that was done to them, any legislation that does that, has to be something that I hope all of us in this House are worried about. It is not something that - like I said, I know the members of the committee struggled with it.

At the end of the day, I guess our representatives on the committee, from both sides of the House, felt that they could do no other but recommend to their colleagues here in this Legislature, that this type of clause be inserted in the legislation. This is not something that gives any joy to me to see in legislation in this Province. I hope it is not something that gives joy to anybody. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, privative clauses in administrative legislation, administrative law - for example, like in Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, labour relations and things like that, those privative clauses in those pieces of legislation are quite common. We insert them every day.

What is also quite common is if a person feels aggrieved, feels they have not been treated fairly and have been treated unjustly before the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, they can get their matter before a court, even though the privative clause says the court cannot have a look at it. But, if a court feels that natural justice was not done, that the tribunal had stepped outside its jurisdiction, that it had been patently unreasonable, a whole range of reasons. If a court feels that any of that has happened in an administrators tribunal, you will get your day in court.

There have been dozens and dozens - I don't know about dozens, but there certainly have been several Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal matters that have gone into the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and labour relations matters as well; but this is a little different kettle of fish here, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: No pun intended.

MR. RIDEOUT: No pun intended, talking about a fish company.

We are not talking about an administrative tribunal here. We are talking about a privative clause set squarely in a piece of legislation, squarely in an act of this Legislature, which says to the citizens of this Province - I do not know how many there are now - says to the citizens of Canada, who hold shares in FPI: that even if, with our best intentions, we somehow cause you damage you cannot come after us for compensation. Now, in a country like Canada, a province like Newfoundland and Labrador that prides itself on a system patterned on the rule of law, I find that hard to glutch. I find that hard to swallow.

I would be perhaps more comfortable, as one individual, if we would say: let her take her course. We feel that this Legislature has the sovereign right to amend a previous act of this Legislature. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is a court in the land who will say that we do not have the right to amend the FPI Act to clarify the intentions of the original act in 1987. I do not believe - and I had an opportunity to look at some of the legal advice that was provided. It goes without saying, I am no expert when it comes to the practice of law. I have only been around it for a very short time. Even before you had anything to do with practicing law - I was in this House for seventeen or eighteen years and we were passing laws every day, so you had exposure to law. Mr. Speaker, even with that my gut tells me, the very depth of my being tells me that we do not have to protect ourselves with this kind of clause. I do not think we have to protect ourselves with it. I think the sovereign right of this Legislature to amend its own legislation will, at the end of the day, carry the day.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I find really difficult to swallow is the possibility - however real it is I do not know - that a privative clause in this legislation - and I know again the legal advice, I think, flagged that with the committee members. Even though there is a privative clause in this legislation, we could find ourselves, as a Legislature, in the untenable position of having passed legislation that protects foreign interests and citizens but does not protect citizens of Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have been told that under the NAFTA agreement, for example, shareholders in the United States, despite a privative clause, could sue the federal government, the Government of Canada. I have been told that under international law, shareholders in New Zealand and Iceland could sue. I assume it is through the Government of Canada, I do not know. What I am saying is, I guess the fear is - and I want the minister to justify it when he speaks and closes debate. I hope he can remove every one of the fears that I have articulated. I hope he can come with information that will make it possible that what I have said holds no water. I would be the happiest person in this House at the end of the day if that is the case, but I find it troublesome when the possibility exists that we might be setting up two standards, and on that standard our citizens, our people, could be on the losing end and those in foreign jurisdictions might be the ones who would remain on the winning end.

That is the fear I have. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I think the government is right in coming forward with this legislation. I think the all-party committee did a tremendous job, for which we are all thankful, in helping galvanize the mood of the Province and being able to tap into the reservoir of political will that was out there in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to right what people perceive to be wrong. We made it clear that we wanted nobody, under any circumstances, to come into this Province and, by a back door trick, control more than what the law said they could control in this company, 15 per cent.

That was the pith and substance, Mr. Speaker. That was the intent. That is what the committee set out to do, and I believe the committee, in that regard, and the government, in that regard, have achieved that in spades. I think they have achieved it in spades, and we all are pleased and proud about that.

The one fear and the one concern that I have, I have articulated it once and I won't articulate it again. I would hope that the minister has some quivers in his bow, some arguments in his back pocket, some wisdom still left untold to us, by which he will be able to convince me - I don't know if anybody else shares it to the degree that I do - but be able to convince me that, despite the fears I have, those fears are negligible, they are not worth worrying about, and that we should be able to go home tonight and sleep comfortably.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, since we are close to the closing time, I suggest that we now take a recess until 7:00 p.m. Is that okay with everybody?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we recess until 7:00 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

The House met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is commend the Committee. I had the experience of going to Marystown for the very first session and had a chance to observe the members in action in what I would suggest was a tough situation, a difficult situation. They handled it very, very well. As everybody knows, all hon. members know, it was a volatile situation; difficult. I was impressed by their demeanor, by the way they handled it, by the way they looked, by the way they sounded, by the way they appeared. There was nothing antagonistic or political about it. It was non-partisan. It was extremely well handled. I commend the Minister of Fisheries. I commend all the other members of the panel, including the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, the Member for Bonavista South and, of course, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I was initially concerned, of course, when the panel was going around. I do honestly have to say that I stand here tonight with some mixed emotions about the whole process. When I look back, in hindsight I guess, we could say, as an Opposition: I told you so, on the basis of what we had laid out and what our position was, and actually, what we stated in our press conference in January. At that particular point in time, which was on January 21, nearly two months ago, we came out and stated that the Legislature should be opened immediately and the loopholes should be closed.

I will read to you, basically, what we said at that press conference: "Unfortunately, it appears John Risley has found a loophole to circumvent the spirit and intent of the Act by acquiring 100 % of FPI's non-voting shares... The Official Opposition believes the FPI Act should be amended so that its application is consistent with the spirit and intent as it was debated fifteen years ago. No one person should be permitted to own more than 15 % of FPI's voting and non-voting shares."

We went on to state: "To facilitate this proactive approach, we are asking Premier Roger Grimes to immediately open the House of Assembly so that amended legislation can be introduced and the issue debated for the public record. It is my belief that it is in the people's best interests for government to immediately act on the ownership issue in the Legislature."

That was two months ago. That was the action and that was the initiative that we felt should be taken. We were prepared to take it immediately. We were prepared to come into this Legislature and we were prepared to do it. We felt it was a time that demanded leadership, strong action and we felt that was what was needed and that is why we took that approach.

As well, in that release we also said: "I would also like to send a clear message to the business community." It is not the intent of our party "...to micro-manage the day-to-day operations of any private business operating in Newfoundland and Labrador. All that we are trying to do today is correct a loophole that allows John Risley to circumvent the spirit and intent of the law. That is not an uncommon process in Canada."

Those were the parameters and those were the guidelines that we set out for coming into the Legislature. At that point in time the government and the Minister of Fisheries, in their collective wisdom, decided that it was appropriate to go on the road, to set up the panel and listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That process was a worthwhile process, a productive process. People had an opportunity to vent their passions and their frustrations. I would recommend to the Premier, members of Cabinet, members opposite, that this is the process that should also be used when the framework of an agreement is struck for Voisey's Bay. In fact, there should be an all party committee that should go around this Province, put out the terms of the deal before it is signed, before it is agreed to. Let the people of the Province have some input into that particular agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Fisheries is quite proud of the exercise, as are all members of the Committee. I would suggest as well, if anything happens with regard to the Lower Churchill, if there is any tentative agreement or any framework of an agreement - not a tentative agreement, the framework of an agreement struck on the Lower Churchill - that before anything is signed, before anything is agreed to, the Minister of Mines and Energy, as Chairperson of that particular panel, should go around - in the event of a Voisey's Bay deal, or in the event of a deal on the Lower Churchill, there should be an all party, non-partisan committee of this House struck to go around and listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to hear what they want, to hear what their interests are, and to hear what they think a deal should be. That is what should be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I have mixed emotions here this evening, and I certainly do. I am proud of our party on the basis of what we recommended some considerable time ago. I am proud of what we recommended just two months ago, but the mixed emotions come from the fact that I think we paid a terrible price for the whole exercise. Our people have paid a price. Our business reputation has paid a price. Our fishery has paid a price, and FPI has paid a price, a huge price. Unfortunately, that is what has happened as a result of this whole exercise.

I need to take you back, back in time to about a year ago, around March 27. I did not have the honour of being in this hon. House at that particular point in time but I specifically remember some things very vividly. What I do remember, specifically, are some quotations from the Premier of this Province, Premier Grimes. On March 27, he said: I thank Mr. Risley for the information. I was not interested enough, quite frankly, to ask him any questions. Premier Grimes also said: I have felt no reason, none whatsoever, to ask Mr. Risley about what he might do, what his intention might be, what his motivation might be if he is ever to become successful in the first instance of having new directors and a new board of directors put in place.

The Premier of this Province was not interested. The press release, The Telegram, the newspaper article: There is no guarantee that the attempt to have the current board replaced will ever be successful, and again, I thank Mr. Risley for the information that I wasn't interested enough, quite frankly, to ask him any questions.

That flabbergasted me. I wasn't in this House. I was a citizen of this Province, a resident of this Province. I was about to become leader and I heard the leader of the people, the Premier of this Province say he was not interested enough to ask any questions of a person who is about to take over the biggest and most important company in this Province. I ask you: Is he naive? Is he indifferent or was he just lulled into a false sense of security? Why wouldn't the Premier ask? Do you want to know something? I am sure all hon. members opposite felt the same way as I did. They must have wondered. You must have wondered why your own Premier wasn't interested enough to ask any questions. I can tell you, all the people out in TV land tonight, everyone of them, saw their Premier not taking action. They were wondering why he wasn't interested enough to ask any questions. They couldn't believe it. It is obvious. It is as plain as the nose on your face. This entrepreneur from Nova Scotia who is going to take over the biggest company in the Province, who is going to control the fishing industry in this Province, who is going to control rural Newfoundland, the communities and the people in it, and he is not interested enough to ask any questions. I could not believe it.

So, what happens next? What happens next? The Minister of Fisheries says: What did I say? Let me tell you what the Minister of Fisheries said. May 2, the Minister of Fisheries says - and I honestly, sincerely pitied you when you said this because you were out of your league. You were over your head and you did not know what to do. Do you know what the Minister of Fisheries said? He was shell shocked. Do you want to know what the Minister of Fisheries said?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Fisheries said: Because I am just as much in the dark today as I was yesterday on what we could have done. That is what the Minister of Fisheries said.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. WILLIAMS: He was in the dark today.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: What I was responding to in the quote that you are using there is - what I was in the dark about was your position on the selection of the board of directors for that company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: So don't get up there and misquote things and use things out of context!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: What I was in the dark on, and what I was speaking on there was your position (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am sure there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I should point out for the hon. irate member opposite is, you should read it.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know who are referring to? You are not referring to me.

MR. REID: I am referring (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: No, you are not.

You are referring to Mr. Vic Young and Mr. Brian Peckford actually. I have it right here: Mr. Young said yesterday that we should have acted, and Mr. Peckford would have.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if he had told me what he wanted us to do - so he wanted Vic and Brian to tell him what to do - maybe we would have acted, because I am just as much in the dark today as I was yesterday on what we could have done.

So it is not me. You are wrong. You said it before. It was Brian Peckford and Vic Young you are talking about. Do you want an opportunity to apologize, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: So now we have a situation where the Premier is not interested enough to ask any questions. We have gone to March and we have gone into April. Now we have a situation where this is unfolding before us. The entire Province knows what is unfolding. There is a reverse takeover underway. There is a board of directors that are going to be controlled. It is all happening before our very eyes. The Premier is doing nothing. The minister does not know what to do. Let's just let it unfold.

Let me clarify something as well, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman opposite has said that I said you could not interfere with the board of directors. I certainly did. I certainly did say that because you cannot interfere with the internal workings of a board of directors. I said it. I stand by it. I said it because I believe in it and because it is right. But, once the board of directors are taken over, which was on May 1, then it is time to wake up; then it is time to act; then it is time to do something. Once that board of directors changes, the control changes, then it is up to the government to look out and safeguard the interests of the people of this Province, and it wasn't done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: On April 11, the Minister of Justice, Minister Parsons, said he had an opinion from Stikeman Elliott which concluded that we have many, many options available. So the Minister of Justice knew there were options available. He knew because he had legal opinions which said the options were available. One of those options could have prevented a privative clause. One of those options was that the act could be changed if it was from a public policy perspective. They had a legal right to actually change that act. It never happened. It was not done. The minister must have told the Minister of Fisheries, and must have told the Premier, that many options were available because he told the world, but nobody listened. So now we are into April.

On May 4, three days after the reverse takeover of that board takes place, the fisheries critic, Trevor Taylor, did an article in The Telegram. Here is the article: The Newfoundland Government shouldn't wait to bring in legislation to protect FPI from its own board, says Opposition Fisheries critic. It should not wait. It should act. That is what Mr. Taylor said. He said it in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Member for The Straits said, he then asked: Will you, before this House closes in a couple of short weeks, table legislation to address the serious concern?

What we are doing here today, on March 12, is that he asked on May 4 of last year that we do this. There was no response, no response whatsoever. Nothing happened. It is embarrassing to the Province. That is why we are embarrassed now as a Province, because there was no action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So now we go through - we are all sort of lulled along. The government has no action, does absolutely nothing. So we, as a party, get concerned during the summer about what is going on with corporate concentration. We continue to speak about it. The Fisheries critic continues to speak about it. Wally Young speaks about it. The Member for St. Barbe talks about it. Then we launch a complaint to the Competition Bureau because we are concerned about collusion and concentration of ownership and problems that are on the hearts and the minds of the people of this Province. We address them. We file it with the federal Competition Bureau, and we act on it. Then what does the provincial government do? They tag along. They start their own panel on corporate concentration. Good. You are starting to wake up. I am delighted. I am happy. It is about time. You are finally starting to realize there is a problem here. No action. We are now into August. September 6; the fateful day of September 6. That is when Clearwater announced a reverse takeover; September 6. The entire Province looked at this deal and said: We knew it was coming. We could see it back in March. We could see it in April. We could see it in May. We all knew it was coming. Here it is, September 6, and Risley lays this in our lap. He is now going to take over. He is going to take over that company. A Nova Scotian company is going to do a reverse takeover of the biggest and most important company in our Province.

We looked at it. We stood back and said this deal is not good for this Province. This is a deal where the debt is loaded up. Increase the debt by two-and-a-half times. If FPI had (inaudible) Clearwater, based on the knowledge that we have, they would have succumbed under their own debt. What would have happened then is the merged company would have gone down. No Clearwater; no FPI. That is what would have happened. We were concerned. We expressed those concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I did a speech in Corner Book during the summer. I said to the people in Corner Brook: If I were the Premier, I would have asked questions. I would have said to John Risley: How are you going to improve the bottom line? How are you going to get the profits? How are you going to get the dividends out? How are you going to get that company to be more profitable? Do you know what you are going to do? You are going to cut jobs, that is what you are going to do. That is what happened, eventually.

Those tough questions should have been asked to Mr. Risley in the beginning if the Premier had been on him or the Minister of Fisheries had been on him. If they were responsible, they would have known.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were on him (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: But he was not interested enough to ask any questions. Sure, he got interested after September 6, when the merger was happening. Do you know what the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier were after the merger? Well, let's just monitor it. Let's wait and see. It has to go through the Ontario Securities Commission and we are going to see how it works out.

Well, we seen how it worked out, didn't we? It worked out really well. We got a mess on our hands. I can't quote the Member for The Straits &White Bay North but he described it very well this afternoon. The bottom is out of her. That is what happened. We allowed it to go on too long. We allowed it to go on nearly a year before we sit here in this House and clean it up. I support what we are doing here. I would have supported it ten months ago. I would have supported it two months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on December 12, in the House of Assembly, we continued to ask the questions in the House of Assembly during the fall session. On December 12, the Fisheries critic, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: The Member for Bonavista North said we will have a holiday. I cannot charter airplanes the way you can charter airplanes. I cannot afford to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I happen to be the Member for Bonavista North and you can cut wood just as well as I can charter planes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know the Member for Bonavista North can sling the mud but I am not interested. This is too important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I happen to be the Minister for Bonavista North and you can cut wood just as well as I can charter planes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know the Member for Bonavista North can sling the mud, but I am not interested. This is too important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to inform hon. members that the controller that we had, Kevin, is not here now. He is down in the media room. If members get up and speak without being recognized, your microphones are not turned on and you will not be recorded in Hansard. Members have to be identified by the Chair before these people know whose mike to turn on. So, I just want to remind members of that.

As well, this evening's proceeding are not being televised because we could not get the air time. You have to be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are classified as an occasional user.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to inform members as to why we are not being televised, if members are interested in hearing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are not being televised because we are occasional users. In order to get the evening broadcast we have to book in advance, and of course we booked our time early in December, not knowing what evenings we would be televised. We are preempted today because we are an occasional user. Maybe on another occasion we can book the time to broadcast live. But, it is being recorded.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Just so it is recorded in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. gentleman: this is the Member for Bonavista North and while I can charter aircrafts, I can also cut wood.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Member for Bonavista North should cut (inaudible). He seems to be on his way now anyway. I am surprised they are even here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, for his information, I have been here a lot longer than he is likely to be here and as long as the people of Bonavista North choose to elect me, I will come back. I will not ask him if I can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on December 12, the Fisheries critic, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North asked a question, "Mr. Speaker, is the minister concerned that under this acquisition one person will have circumvented the 15 per cent restriction on ownership in the FPI legislation, will own 60 per cent of the company...".

The answer was, "With regard to the actual shares, even if Mr. Risley owns 50 per cent, or 51 per cent of the actual shares in the company he still only controls 14 per cent or 15 per cent of the voting shares, and those are the shares that count...".

He said 15 per cent of the voting shares are the shares that count. He is up here now proposing a bill that strengthens that. It is now the voting shares, the non-voting shares, all the shares count. Now they all count. So he has changed his position from December 12. Unfortunately, he is still just as much in the dark today as he was last March or April.

The next question from Mr. Taylor, the Fisheries critic, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, "Is he planning to... change the legislation as it relates to the 15 per cent ownership restriction on FPI?"

Mr. Reid said, "With regard to the legislation, the legal advice from our own Department of Justice, along with an independent advice from a law firm in Ontario, I think the name is Stikeman Elliot, both have given us the opinion that it is not in contravention to the legislation currently on the books."

So hon. members opposite and the government are all over the place on this. Then what happened? It becomes political opportunism time, because now the company puts its foot in its mouth. The company comes out in December and says that it is cutting back dramatically on Christmas bonuses. Terrible! Never did it; thirty years in business, never did it. Wrong thing to do; unacceptable. Politically opportune to jump on the bandwagon. What did they do then? They announced there are going to be layoffs of 580 people. Oh, the bells go off! The Premier is interested enough to ask some questions now. Now, all of a sudden, he is very interested because we might have an election and it is politically opportune to say that they are going to keep the jobs. Then what happens? The company then makes the mistake and comes out and talks about the culture of the people in the Province, and another executive in the same company talks about our Third World environment. Well, now, we should get interested. Now it is time to really start to get interested in this, and so he got interested. You all got interested. We were interested nine months before. Nine months before, we were interested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: The inaccuracies about this side of the House, that are coming from the Member for Humber West - I just want to quote the Member for Humber West, Mr. Speaker, just for the record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is, he is claiming that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Member for Humber West is saying that we did not want to get involved with the FPI Act whatsoever, and that they did. I just want to show, from his own words, that it is just not true, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not clear on what the hon. member is getting at. I will give him a couple of more seconds to clarify his point.

MR. JOYCE: It is an internal corporate matter. You cannot get involved in exactly what is going on with the board of directors, but it is very very important that the government has the options that are necessary. So they have to monitor it very closely (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The other bit of information I should give to members is that whenever the Speaker stands here his microphone is activated. The hon. members' microphone will be automatically shut off and he will not be recorded.

There is no point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) that I made before and extend an invitation to the Premier on Voisey's Bay and on the Lower Churchill, that we have an all-party committee that goes around this Province, a non-partisan committee like this last committee that we just had, to go around and hear the people and hear their concerns and come to conclusions on Voisey's Bay; chaired by the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. He would be a great chairman. He would be a wonderful chairman. I would get on the bus and go around the Province with him myself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: On Voisey's Bay and on the Lower Churchill. It would be a pleasure to be on the bus with him; an absolute pleasure to be on the bus with him.

Lets get back to the sequence. As recently as December 12, in the House of Assembly, we were asking for legislation. Then, on January 21, we had our press conference and again we asked to come in for this legislation.

I indicated earlier that I do have mixed emotions, and the mixed emotions that I feel are what transpired as a result of it. This is a serious matter. I do have mixed emotions about this because it is because of what we have done to our people. Anyone who was in Marystown, who sat there in Marystown and listened to the people express their concerns, there were nearly 1,000 people in that room that night. There were community leaders there, there were union leaders there, there was mayors, there were representatives of the business community supportive of FPI, on the Clearwater side, and non-supportive. They were all there and they were quite upset. It was a very volatile situation, and they felt anger and they felt fear and they felt betrayed. They felt betrayed by their company and they felt betrayed by their government. That is what happened in that room that night. I witnessed it before my very eyes. I was there.

I intended to go to Plum Point, as well, but weather prevented me from going there. There was a storm. That was the reason I was not there. I was going to Plum Point. I could not be there, but I was there for that first meeting and, believe me, that was an experience. I was very concerned for what was going to happen in that room, and that did not have to take place. That just did not have to happen; because, if this had been resolved in the spring, or if it had been resolved in the summer, or if it had been resolved in September when the Clearwater deal was announced, it would have been over. We would not have put our people, the people of this Province, through this; but, we put them through it. As a result, things got volatile, national press came in, local press came in, and that is when we harmed number two. That is when we harmed our business reputation in this country, and we lost a lot of reputation in this country, believe me.

It did not have to happen. We have a black eye now on the business reputation of this Province. People do not like heavy-handed intervention. They do not like it, and that is what happened in the business community. The national media are looking at it and they now see our intervention as heavy-handed. If it had happened back in April of last year, back in May of last year, there would have been no problem.

The hon. Member for Lewisporte talked about his concern about a privative clause. We all share that concern. There should be no need for a privative clause. There should be no need to hide behind your mistakes, so that people who have a right to sue you can rightfully sue you. We have done it; it is out there. You have this unique legislation that talks about privity, so you cannot sue us because we made mistakes. That is wrong. That could have been prevented. The legal opinion that you had last spring said that you could change that legislation for public policy reasons, and you did not do it.

The other thing that has harmed the reputation of this Province is the past history of this Premier. The Friede Goldman situation - they were all party, they were all in Cabinet when that all went down - $1, no safeguards in the contract. They go bankrupt, they keep it all. Give it to them for a buck, give them the cash in the bank, let them keep it all. How do we get it back?

The hon. minister chartered seven, eight - how many people chartered down to Friede Goldman land? How many people went down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven.

MR. WILLIAMS: Seven.

Of course, it is not the total now; you have to divide it by seven to get the individual count. I understand that. I understand the math in that. So, if it is $28,0000, it is seven into $28,0000; so, it is $4,000 each. Is that the way it works? I understand that. I understand the math, the new math that government has implemented. Friede Goldman.

Then we go to bulk water. Then we go to the bulk water, Gisborne Lake. This Premier has gone out and created a national furor over bulk water. We are going to ship it out. We are going to make a fortune. The rest of the country says, you are not going to ship it out. We are not going to let you ship it out. The people in the Province want to process it. But he says: No, we are going to ship it out.

Do you know what he forgot to do? He forgot to find out if there is any money in it, whether it is viable. He never bothered to check. That is the man who runs this Province. He runs this Province. He never bothered to check.

Our reputation was also hurt because he had a meeting with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister told him equalization is going to be all straightened out. He came back and told us, so we were delighted. The next day, the Prime Minister says: No, no, no, you have it all wrong. You have it all wrong.

What happened? What happened in the transition? Something happened. Not only that; you talk about our business reputation. You take Friede Goldman, you take Gisborne Lake, you take flip on equalization.

Then, the Minister of Finance, the wonderful Minister of Finance, she is in charge of the least accountable Finance Department in the entire country. The National Post says the Province is in a fiscal mess, a fiscal mess. The National Post says, a fiscal mess. Imagine, our Province, the least accountable province, is in a fiscal mess. Our business reputation is shot. Pass the government over to us while there is still some hope in this Province to try and salvage it. There is going to be nothing left. Those are two of my concerns.

The third and final concern - you may find it funny, but these are serious concerns. I have talked about the people, I have talked about the reputation of the Province, and you still continue to laugh. Go ahead and laugh. Go ahead and laugh. You are laughing at yourselves.

The third component that makes me sad is what we have done to our fishery and what we have done to FPI. We have done a lot of harm to FPI. I think the minister said today, the company is doing well, you know, showing some profit; they are going to grow. We have harmed that company, believe me. We have harmed it nationally. As well, we have taken a whole year when our fishery was not being dealt with properly. Major issues were not being dealt with. We were all consumed with this. It took the poor Minister of Fisheries a year to come out of the dark to find out what was going on. He finally found out, and today he has seen the light. We have this legislation, and he is presenting it. Wonderful, wonderful!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Having said all of that, I thank you for your attention. You were wonderful, absolutely wonderful. We are doing the right thing. We are now, today, finally, twelve months later, doing the right thing. We have learned by our mistakes and we should move forward. We are supportive. We have been supportive from day one. The Premier wrote a letter to the editor. A good move; I admire him for doing it. He asked for my support and the support of our caucus and I said, we will support him. We will support him on initiatives that protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be part of the solution. But, he is the problem. He is the problem. We will be part of the solution, but he is the problem. He has to clean up his act. That is the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So, it is a whole new evening, tomorrow is a whole new day, and we should be positive. I thank you for your undivided attention and co-operation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because this is an important issue, and admittedly so, that is why all parties participated in an all-party committee and took the process very seriously and came to what I thought, until I just heard the Leader of the Opposition speak, were some unanimous conclusions. I know how our caucus works when our members support recommendations in an all-party report, that they are actually part of making up the recommendation and formulating it. They do not then have their leader stand up in the House and say: Well, I do not think they should have done that, such as the privative clause.

It was fully debated. I understood, our committee members understood, and I believe the Leader of the NDP understood, that when the issue, which I appreciate the Member for Lewisporte raising today, about a concern - because it is a concern for all of us. The whole issue is a concern. That is why we were dealing with it in a serious manner until the last speaker. In any event, I understood that the Fisheries critic opposite, and the Member for Bonavista South, when this was discussed at the committee, were speaking for the caucus, for the official Progressive Conservative caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we would not have had to do it.

PREMIER GRIMES: I will get to that, thank you. I will get to that. I am very pleased to get to that, and I would like to handle any other interjections that you would like to pass along to me. I will try to deal with them in the next few minutes.

It is a bit unfortunate, I think, this evening, I understand, because of the link-up to the satellite, that this evening's proceedings are not being televised live throughout the availability of the House of Assembly network. However, the events are being recorded and we do have the verbal record which is available to the radio stations, as it always has been, and we have the written record of Hansard. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, is very proud of the representation and the presentation just made and would want it widely circulated in the Province.

In any event, let me deal with a couple of things, Mr. Speaker. Let me deal with a couple of things.

I, too, quite sincerely, as all the other speakers in the debate did, including the Leader of the Opposition, congratulate and thank the members of the House who took this very serious task upon themselves and put a lot of effort into it, a lot of time into it, and provided for a real exercise in democracy in the Province. Unfortunately, we have a circumstance now where the Leader of the Opposition - and I do not say this to be critical, just to point out the facts - who I mentioned yesterday was willing - six or seven or eight weeks ago he bragged about being ready to do this right away - yesterday, for some strange reason, was not in a position to even allow this debate at second reading to proceed. Even though - and I will explain that again because apparently he has taken some time to learn some of the rules here - in fact, after having studied the issue again all weekend - these are his words in Hansard from yesterday, spoken in this Legislature where we tell the truth - that in fact he said, after having studied it all weekend, he was not prepared to stand up yesterday and speak to the principles that were going to be in this bill.

The principles that were going to be in this bill were in the report of the all-party committee that he studied over the weekend. The actual words that we will debate in the next stage of this debate in Committee of the Whole, as to whether or not the words are the precise ones that should reflect the principles, that is at the next stage of debate. So, I would understand that his protector, the Government House Leader who does a great job of that, will continue to work on educating him as to what happens at each stage of the debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I recognize as well, and I listened intently today - I was taking care of some other business, but I was watching the monitor when the Member for Lewisporte spoke - I acknowledge exactly what he said as being the person, I think, who introduced and sponsored the FPI bill in 1987, as the Minister of Fisheries at the time, that there was a very different business climate, there was a very different corporate climate. I checked with my colleagues who were in the House at the time and they all recognized in that debate that there were concerns that you raised today legitimately to remind us, but nobody was anticipating then the kinds of mergers and takeovers and reverse takeovers and so on, and the language that was used that said voting shares, that was the type of share that was in the common norm. That was common. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until just awhile ago in September that anybody ever really put forward the proposition of having any other type of share in FPI. The first time it every happened. So, the judgement call made fifteen years ago turned out to be a pretty good judgement call: that if you save voting shares, and that is the only kind ever used, we didn't really have anything to be concerned about. I think that was raised in debate at that time, and the Member for Lewisporte properly reminded all of us today of that.

So, in fact, what we have is this - and there was concern he raised, the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the privative clause. The reality is this: I concur with one sentiment that the Leader of the Opposition raised. I believe that every single one of us wishes that we were not here having this debate. The Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately, insists on playing the same kind of politics that he started to play yesterday in terms of politicizing. Nobody else today, by the way, politicized this issue. That is why we had the all-party committee, so it would not be politicized; and, all of a sudden, in a twenty-five or thirty minute tirade, the likes of which will go down in the records of the House of Assembly as being a classic, maybe not for the right reasons, but being a classic, one person destroyed all of that, almost, and called into question the whole process because they just could not resist the whole notion of politicizing what we had all worked so hard, including his two members on the committee, to keep out of the political realm so we wouldn't do damage to the investment climate of Newfoundland and Labrador, so we wouldn't do damage to FPI. But one person, the Leader of the Opposition, just could not resist, and the record will show that and show it quite clearly.

What has happened is this, and let me recount -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: I understand it.

Let me recount, Mr. Speaker, the series of events with accuracy because it deserves to be recounted. The only reason we are here is this. The only reason we are here, any of us - because none of us want to be here doing this - is because a company with a change of directors - let me make the two points - that I understand everyone here suggested there was no role for us to play in that. I heard the Leader of the Opposition just say it. I am not sure of the leader of the NDP. I think he might have suggested it; maybe we could have stepped in at the time and tried to make sure that the current board of directors stays there instead of even allowing the potential for someone else to take over; but I know the Fisheries critic of the day, he said again it today, actually, is not sure it is anybody's business, and not sure many people care about who runs it. It is just how they run it and whether they do it in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The issue that the Leader of the Opposition and the Fisheries critic and the other used for, I guess, what they hoped to be political advantage in the Province, is the quote that I used, in all honesty and all frankness, when we were talking about a potential change in the board. The answer I did give was this: that it is not the position of the government to ask a bunch of questions of someone who might run the board; because, regardless of what answers we got, what would we do about it? Would we come here and say: If you give the wrong answers, then we are going to go into the Legislature and pass a piece of legislation saying you cannot possibly go through a corporate business practice and try to become chair of the board. But, guess what we did?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for saying that, too, because that leads right to the next point. Guess what we did? The board changed - recount the chronology. The board, Mr. Speaker, changed on May 1. Guess what meetings were being held on the morning of May 2? They were meetings with the new board, with the Minister of Fisheries, with the Deputy Premier, with other members of our Cabinet, and MHAs who had FPI operations - a full meeting that went on for several hours, in which they were then asked: What are your plans? Because, you are now in charge.

The very first day - not that we were not interested - the very first day that they had any say in what would happen to that company, guess where they were? They were in the minister's office. Guess what they did? Let me read it to you.

They became the board on May 1- and this is from Derrick Rowe, the CEO, to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, saying: I am writing further to our meeting of May 2.

So, when did we meet them? We met them the very day after they had any real say in what might happen to this company. Guess what is in this letter? Guess what is in this letter, written to the government and signed by the CEO and chair of the board? The current workforce has nothing to fear. There will be no plant closures. There will be no layoffs. The allocations that you currently have and hope to get in the future will be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We intend to grow the company. We don't intend to diminish the company.

The same commitments, by the way, they put out in their proxy circular and published in the papers of the Province before they ever took over. The same commitments they gave publicly so they could be voted in as the board of directors at the meeting.

Now, why would the Fisheries critic ask the government to intervene? Intervene for what? Intervene to stop a company that has committed in writing that there will be no plant closures? Intervene to stop a company that said the current workforce has no reason to be concerned? Intervene to stop a company that has given a written commitment on the very first day that the board of directors is in place, that there will not be any layoffs? Intervene to stop a company that says the quotas that we currently have, and any that we get in the future, will be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador?

The suggestion was that we should have done something last year. Guess what the record is? We did it. Now, I understand this. Through the medium that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be more comfortable with and likes better, which is the open lines, because he spends a lot of time on them, he continually makes the speech and puts out the spin that we should have done something last year. There were two things that happened last year, the board changed. On that account and on that point there is no difference of opinion. He confirmed it again tonight that there is no role, that the government should not have done anything about that. Then he says: We should have been concerned enough, we should have been interested enough, to ask the company for some commitments. Guess what we did? We got every single commitment that the community leaders wanted, we got every single commitment that the union members wanted, we got every single commitment that anybody in this Legislature could even think about asking for and they were all provided in writing to the government.

On that basis, I would like to ask: why would anybody in this Legislature now suggest that on May 2 of last year - which is the date that the Leader of the Opposition always refers to - that we should have done something? What was there to do other than to get an absolute, written, guaranteed commitment from the new board of directors - which we agreed we should not interfere with who the board is, so we did not interfere with who the board is. We did not ask questions of them, I certainly did not, before they had any say in the company; anymore than I would ask the Leader of the Opposition what he would do if he were to run FPI. Why would I ask him? Because as far as I know he has no intention and no interest in running FPI. He is not in that kind of business. He might be going back to some other kind of business sooner than he thinks, probably into the cable business.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the issue is this, as soon as the group had any say in the running of the company all of the interest in the world was shown, all of the commitments were given. I would like - with an honest debate, a non-partisan political debate - for someone to stand up and tell me now what it is they would suggest that the government should have tried to get in a written commitment from that company other than what is contained in this document, which has been released to the people of the Province.

Why are we here tonight? We are here tonight for one reason, that a company that publicly, through its proxy circular in getting control - which the Leader of the Opposition and the official stance of the Opposition, because the Fisheries critic at the time agrees, in a process in which they said we should not interfere with who runs the company. He restated again today that he doesn't really care who runs it as long as they do it right and do it for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I concur with that view. This government concurs with that view completely.

That was that issue. The Leader of the Opposition always tries to take that honest statement by me, that I would not spend my time talking to people who do not run a company, about what they would do with it if they ever got it because no matter what they said to me I was not prepared to come in a heavy-handed - to use a term from the Leader of the Opposition - manner and say: Well, I heard some things from them. I believe this Legislature to say just because of what they think and just because of what they feel we should come into this Legislature and say: You are not allowed to want to be the chair of that company. You are not allowed to want to try to own that company because we do not like what you think. But, the very first day that they did get control, what they thought and what they had already stated publicly was put in a written commitment to the government, and it said there is nothing to fear, absolutely nothing to fear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for that, because that is the next point I was going to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Very good. I will just say you are very good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker, because my microphone is on and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North is not, he did ask a question: So what was that written commitment worth? That is the reason we are here tonight, not because somebody should have asked some questions last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is the reason we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely, positively, that is the reason we are here tonight. Because not only - and I sense that he feels a bit of betrayal in this. I know that the government felt a little bit betrayed. I know that the FFAW felt betrayed. I know that the community leaders felt betrayed. I know that the people of the Province felt betrayed because - and the Committee found it out by the way, you should know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Your Fisheries critic and your other representatives should have reported it back to you in those regular caucus meetings that you have, where you discuss all these things and you all agree on what the position of the party is. You should now know. Mr. Speaker, the point is this, a written commitment - that the government did not twist out of anybody through the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He did not conduct a meeting were he said you write this down on a piece of paper or else, because we do not deal with people who invest and operate companies in Newfoundland and Labrador in that fashion. We are not heavy-handed. We are fair-minded.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this, in a meeting in which the issues were explored, they voluntarily gave a written commitment to the people of the Province, through its government, exactly matching the commitment they gave to their own shareholders, by the way. It is the same commitment they gave to their own shareholders that convinced the shareholders that they should become the board of directors.

The problem and the reason we are here tonight is not because some questions were not asked a year ago, it is not because of anything that government did or did not do. It is because a company, that is very important to Newfoundland and Labrador, gave some voluntary commitments to the government, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the government, and then did not honour the commitments. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here, plain and simple. There is no politics to that. It is a huge disappointment and it has raised an issue whereby we had to deal with it in a manner that puts some respect back into it.

Mr. Speaker, let me make these comments. Again, I am very disappointed in the level of debate entered into by the Leader of the Opposition tonight. Personal attacks aside, I do not mind personal attacks. I do not mind being called naive. I have been called that and then something. I do not mind him if he wants to suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - who has gotten elected twice already down in his particular riding of Twillingate & Fogo. That the Leader of the Opposition will go back to the people in Twillingate & Fogo and suggest that the people they think is the best person to represent them, out of everyone being offered, is to be pitied.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say he's in the dark.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, and he did say he was in the dark. Rightfully so, because he could never find out from you what your position was, and we are still in the dark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for that. Thank you for adding that. You and your star pupil from The Straits & White Bay North are perfect for debating a (inaudible) like this one. Absolutely perfect. Actually, some people have been coming here and planning to say nothing, but you would give them enough lead-ins so they could say a lot. We thank you and appreciate you for that.

Mr. Speaker, we have a typical example again. Let me get back to the Leader of the Opposition, not to be overly critical, but to set the record straight. Another example this evening of a flip-flop, which he has already gotten the reputation for, of being totally inconsistent and going on different sides of different arguments. He bragged about the fact that some two months ago, seven weeks or so ago, he was ready to come into the Legislature and make the changes right away. Yesterday, he could not even debate the issue on principle. He could not even say what he believed in because I guess he did not know, but he was ready to make all the changes in one day, two months ago. Yesterday, he could not find a word in his cheek to even articulate to the people of the Province what he thought the changes should be shaped like. So we had a standard flip-flop in that particular (inaudible).

Now, all of a sudden, he likes the idea of committees. He likes the idea now of all party committees. Seven weeks ago he wanted no committee; no part of it; don't let the people have a say. Get this point again, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is important for the record. Seven weeks ago, on an issue that is very important to Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the future of FPI, he said: We don't need to talk to the people of the Province and even give them a chance to voice their concerns. We don't need to have any public dialogue. We don't need to have any consultation. We don't need to set up a committee. We don't need to have any debate out in the Province. We are ready to go into the Legislature and make the changes tomorrow. Let's do it instantly. This evening, because he wants to enter into another debate about issues like Voisey's Bay and Lower Churchill, he says: Oh, guess what I just found out? This is now the perfect model. Absolutely ideal!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There has been no better model ever thought up, dreamed about or conceived by man in the history of the world than this model that we just used for the FPI Act. But, let me point out the difference, Mr. Speaker. He knows the difference, and I will make sure that I say it so we can all understand it. I know I could say it any way at all and he would understand it, but make sure we all understand it.

With respect to it, this process in the Legislature is absolutely required in this case. A debate here is absolutely required because the changes are being made to a piece of legislation that was introduced by the Member for Lewisporte, when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The company that we are talking about is a creature of this Legislature; and, if we are going to make any changes, there is no place to do it other than right here. The process has to end right here.

When we talk about arrangements like Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls, they are critically important too. But, guess what? There is no piece of legislation; these things are not created by an act of the Legislature. We are talking about a business deal that allows for the development of a natural resource in the best interests of the Province, and the government is given the right, when elected, to make the arrangement on behalf of the people. What comes back here is a debate on any pieces of legislation that might be required to enable that particular deal and arrangement to proceed. If there is none required, in terms of legislative amendment, there is no requirement to be here. We have already committed, Mr. Speaker, to having a full and open debate on all of these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated again, they have raised the issue of the Clearwater deal and tried to suggest they were always against it. I believe there is a statement from the Fisheries critic the day after the Clearwater deal; he says they opposed it adamantly from the beginning. The press release says this, just for the record. The press release from the Fisheries critic, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said, "While the merger of FPI and Clearwater of Nova Scotia does not add significantly to the concentration of ownership in this province, I am nevertheless concerned that future acquisitions may put the industry in the hands of a small group of people...".

Mr. Speaker, that does not sound to me like someone who jumped up and said: We are adamantly opposed to this.

This was in September, because I believe the Leader of the Opposition said that we said then we should come into the House and kill the deal. What they said was: It does not add significantly to the concentration of ownership - because they were out talking about concentration of ownership - but they were concerned that future acquisitions, not this one, may put the industry in the hands of a small group of people. Not one word to suggest that they were opposed to the Clearwater acquisition. Not one word to suggest that the Legislature should be opened. Not one word to suggest that, if they were the government, they would intervene and stop the deal. But tonight, because it suits the political purpose, they would suggest that is what they said in September, when the reality is that they said something completely different.

Mr. Speaker, we went on again to a couple of others because the Leader of the Opposition could not resist getting all of his political points into one speech. He talked about Friede Goldman again, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind the Legislature, and the people of the Province, this: the union and the workers in Marystown and on the Burin Peninsula, the community leaders are continuing to work with this government, not to try to collect on a penalty but to try to make sure that the yard opens and the people work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is why the minister, very proudly by the way, led a delegation that the Leader of the Opposition pooh-poohed and made fun of and condemned and criticized, because we not only took members of the Legislature; we took community leaders from the Burin Peninsula, we took union leaders from the Burin Peninsula, who were delighted to be asked to join the government in Mississippi, to go to the front offices of the company and talk about the concerns and to say: We want action on this yard being opened.

Not that we are down there demanding that you pass over the $10 million in penalties, demanding to know what the plan was so that those workers could have a future in a yard that they had worked in for years. Now, the Opposition wants to get up and, for political purposes, criticize the fact that government decided to include the union representatives and the community leaders in a very important meeting about their future. Every one of them agreed, by the way, that the best way to do it, if it could be arranged, and if the government could facilitate it, was to get together on the one plane, go down and back so they all could save time, get to the meeting, get back out of it, rather than spend two or three days travelling, and in the long term save money on the trip and have an effective trip on behalf of the people of the district and the people of the area.

The Leader of the Opposition, I guess he will go down now, because last year he was down promising to open the yard. Now, in the Legislature tonight, he is up saying: Wasn't that awful, that those people went down to a meeting in Pascagoula? So, I guess he will explain that. The next time he speaks on the Burin Peninsula, he will explain his difference.

With respect to the bulk water, two things of note, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister of the country has acknowledged that the legal opinions that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the fact that there is no impact in one province to another province, that the federal legal opinions concur with that, that any one province has a right to make a decision of and by itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member for Kilbride, the Opposition House Leader, is not here tonight to protect the Opposition Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: I am sorry; I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: I understand that he didn't jump up tonight, as he usually does, to protect the Leader of the Opposition, but I tell you that he is on the record. Maybe he should check in their caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe I did hear the Premier say that he apologized for making that statement.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is easier to beg forgiveness than to look for permission in the first place. He knows what he did. It was deliberate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me finish this particular point, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bulk water issue. I understand again that the Progressive Conservative, the Official Opposition, caucus meets regularly, has full debate, and all come to common conclusions about what their positions are on every issue. That is pretty obvious in how they present themselves in here. Tongue in cheek, of course, for those who didn't quite get that.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. He talked about the Premier not having checked out the value of bulk water. The point is this: if he looks to his right and talks to his predecessor, the former leader, and checks in Hansard, he will see a very articulate speech from the Member for Kilbride, who stated in this Legislature that he acknowledged and that everyone knew that water was going to be the oil or the gold of the next decade, it was so valuable. It wasn't me who made that statement. I said we were going to check it out, and we checked it out and found that today it is not; but the former Leader of the Opposition, check Hansard. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else to check Hansard. I guess he didn't do a very good job of checking it either, because he is on the record as saying, I can tell you - and he tried to speak for all of us - and he said, I am sure everyone agrees, that water is the oil or the gold of the next decade because it is so valuable.

Maybe he should have gotten some research done, like we did, before he made that particular speech. I am sure, though, that you share information so freely and constantly inside your caucus that you all understand that in any event.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish by saying this, one last issue with respect to accountability. The Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately, is establishing quite a reputation for taking a word or a phrase and then using it completely out of context and bringing in some other words to try to justify what he is saying. The Auditor General has said this. The Auditor General has said that she does feel, in certain instances, that we are probably one of the least accountable governments in Canada, for this reason -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me finish the sentence. For this reason, because we do not insist that the departments of the government table annual reports in the Legislature, that is the basis on which she has made that comment every time.

Guess what she said in the Auditor General's Report, this year, when she was referring to the financial circumstance - because the Leader of the Opposition would have you think that she made that statement with respect to the finances of the Province. What she said about the finances again, and she signed her name to it, is that in Newfoundland and Labrador we have one of the best set of books in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what she said about the finances. It is hard to imagine how a leader of an Opposition would get so desperate as to try to link two totally unrelated issues and try to make believe that the Auditor General - trying to give some authenticity to his statement by dragging in the name of someone credible and reputable like the Auditor General, and then using the quote completely out of context.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it again, she did say that she believes on one level we are probably one of the least accountable governments in the country because we do not have the departments submit a report and lay it on the Table of the Legislature, but she also said that she knows where every single cent, that has been spent, where it is accounted for; that she knows the state of the finances of the Province and that we have one of the best set of books in the whole country.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, at a conference on accountability, which is coming up later in March, at the Delta in Ottawa, practice case studies - and this is result-based accountability. This is going to happen in the nation's capital, at the Delta in Ottawa, after the long weekend, next week. This practice case studies on result-based accountability and expert commentary from - guess what the first commentary is coming from?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

PREMIER GRIMES: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been invited because of our reputation, because of what we do, because we do follow on the traditions that were there by the former, former, former, former Premier. We do keep good books. We do not insist -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you for saying that, because I am sure you will keep saying that and you will always want to try to mix two different messages. I have explained that already and you should read Hansard tomorrow. I can understand that he wants to continue trying to make that particular point.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish by saying this. I really do, sincerely appreciate the effort put in by the committee members. I compliment every single one of them for putting in the time and providing for an opportunity for a real exercise in democracy. I absolutely and totally appreciate the debate that was held here today at second reading; even the presentation made by the Leader of the Opposition because it is very telling for all of us. I am sure, I am absolutely convinced, that everyone of the members of the PC caucus were extremely proud of their leader tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain they were very proud of their leader tonight, and I am sure they would like for him to make that speech at every single public function that he speaks at in Newfoundland and Labrador for the next year-and-a-half or so leading up to the election.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I assume that because there was unanimous consent in the committee - unless that has changed now because the caucus did not check with each other as they always do - that we will vote to approve this at second reading and that we will go through an examination, that I know the Leader of the Opposition must want to participate in because he took all weekend and then he took all last night to look at the words to make sure they reflected that he did not know if he believed in it yesterday or not. He could not tell -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: I understand that, but you had them overnight so I am assuming now that you will - and we do at the next phase, examine the words. In the debate that I just participated in, there was no examination of the actual words in the bill. I do not believe I actually referenced a single word that is in the bill. That is for the next phase of debate, but I do believe that people know, from what I said in my particular intervention in this debate, where the government stands and where I stand on this particular issue and this piece of legislation. That is what second reading is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we are debating a very important act. In fact, we are here making amendments to a very important act that was brought in 1987. In fact, there was a forerunner of this in 1983, the Fisheries Restructuring Act, that looked at thirty-one fishing companies in this Province and went through a restructuring. There was a combination of companies that went together in the restructuring of the fishing industry with considerable input of dollars from governmental sources, and in 1987 - this act has served us well for a lengthy period of time, and I would like to preface by saying we are debating this act today in this House. Actually, we are prepared to give third reading to this bill here in this House today and finish it tonight, I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have been nothing but cooperative -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is an opportunity, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Normally, this bill would not be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Under normal rules of this House this bill would not get third reading until next Tuesday at the earliest. Notice was given on Monday, first reading would have normally occurred on Tuesday, Private Members' Day on Wednesday, second reading on Thursday and third reading next Tuesday. We are prepared to facilitate and move that in one day.

I was not prepared, as a member of this House, to debate a bill that I had not seen. I am sure many members felt the same way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I was. I am here ten years. I say to the minister: I was. Ten years ago I got elected here. I got elected about ten years ago, and I was in this House. What someone did prior to that I do not accept responsibility for. I really don't care to comment positively or negatively on that aspect, but what I will say, Madam Speaker, is that I am not prepared to stand here and speak on a bill when I have not seen it. That is pretty fair game because nobody anticipated in 1987 that the voting versus non-voting shares might occur, but we did know on May 3 of last year, when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North stood in this House on May 3 of last year and asked the Minister of Fisheries: would he review the FPI Act, with reference to bringing in amendments, and have a comprehensive review of that act? Had we looked at that act, in light of the changing climate after fourteen years, I can tell you, as a person -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, I would like the courtesy - up trying to speak. I cannot even hear what I am saying with the shouting from members on the opposite side of the House. I would like an opportunity to make a few brief points, just a few brief points. If I am going to have to baffle interruptions I might be here and use my full time. I am not intending to; I am intending to make it brief and make some points if I am given permission to do that. I would like for you to give me that opportunity.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. the Member for Ferryland to continue.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, my time is limited on this. It is only twenty minutes. I hope I do not have to use it, but I want to make the points I want to make. I will make them now. If I am not allowed, I will make them in Committee. If I am interrupted, it will go beyond today, if we do not get a chance to make the points. We are willing to put up the committee on this, and two other speakers on this. On this day I am probably the last speaker on this, possibly, and I want to make a few basic points.

I believe this act was brought in initially and amended with the intent to serve the best interests of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry and the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people served by the company under which this act is enacted.

I sincerely believe that we are here today because we did not show the foresight and act at the time to prevent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, as a government. They did not act when they should have to get the necessary response to avoid this.

I have concerns, as the Member for Lewisporte said today, with a privative clause. Had we acted last May, would it have been necessary? The longer you go without doing something, the greater you enhance your chances of a liability or a suit against it, the longer you wait. That increases. Every day the clock ticks increases that chance. When you know that - that is why, to close the door early would have eliminated that. It is unfair in the process. If Newfoundland and Labrador shareholders in FPI , if this is the case in this legislation, if that is what comes out under NAFTA, if Newfoundland and Labrador shareholders cannot get any regrets, cannot get compensation for their loss of valuable shares, but other shareholders of the company can get that, then we have treated the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who invested their money in FPI, grossly unfairly if that is the case. That is a concern of mine. That is a concern.

I feel that, had we moved earlier, May 3, had we reviewed it, as the Fisheries critic said, had we reviewed that, a thorough review of that act by people far more wise than I am in the law, and some of the best people had to look at it, who could come back and could have recommended, let's tighten up this, then we could have picked up those loopholes that in 1987 were never an issue there.

It was passed in good faith, and I would assume - I was not here then, but I would assume - supported by the Legislature in general, quite possible. I cannot speak for that, but the record may show that. That could have happened. Basically, we did not do that and the clock ticked on and went on for the summer and into the fall; and when the government did have a legal opinion, I understand, back as far as May, we did not act on it.

In January, we called a news conference. We asked that we come to the Legislature and do something immediately. Because the faster you do something, the better, and the less chance you have of being exposed to any particular suit, and it increases the protection you have. Because, when you are aware that something is progressing and you do not signal an intent to do something, or clarify an original intent, then it casts doubt out there in the public of what the real intentions were in the first place, whether that is what you have in your mind now, or whether you are bringing in legislation to cover our backs basically so we do not be faced with another lawsuit. That is the concern. That is the basic concern.

Now, ask yourselves this question: Could this have been prevented last fall, last spring, at any time? Would we have to be here with this privative clause here? We still would have had to deal with the change of the15 per cent. Could it have been done in a much better environment? Because what has happened since, I think, we went to a point in Newfoundland - and I am a little bit familiar with the Newfoundland fishing industry. I spent twenty years in it and got out of it when I entered politics, within a year, when I had an opportunity to dispose of my assets within a year. I got out of the industry, but I know a little bit about it. I am dealing with a fishing district. I am dealing with numerous people and companies within my district, and living in the district all my life. I have a feel for some of the sensitivities and some of the concerns of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We allowed this to get to the point now where fishing communities rose up in arms. They took aggressive action with companies. They went at each others throats. We have to live in communities where companies are trying to create work and workers are trying to maximize benefits in a business like environment where we can maximize the benefits for the people in those communities.

It is not healthy, I can tell you. It is not healthy, the situation with Marystown, wherever it is, in Ferryland or anywhere, taking on companies, and companies coming out with statements and things. You want to work in a proper environment, and we did not do our job as a government to nurture that environment, an environment of co-operation, an environment of more reconciliation in dealing with this issue, and an environment where we could act quicker on this particular issue. I think we waited because we did not want to intervene, and nobody ever believed, government did not believe, and we did not believe - I can certainly speak for me, and the Leader indicated that, as referenced here tonight - nobody believed that we should go into boardrooms and tell them who they should vote for, if they have shares in a corporation. That is an intrusion into internal affairs. Our leader articulated that, and we have indicated that. That has been our position, I might add.

MR. REID: Get the Hansard (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Fisheries Minister, they believed the same thing as our Leader did on that issue. We are not going to keep opposing things, because we believe that no one has the right - if you had 5 per cent or 2 per cent of shares, you have a right to vote for what board you so desire. That is a right, and beyond that is intrusion. We have never advocated that, as a party.

Basically what we have now, we have created a very difficult situation in the Province. We have created a climate that does not foster good business relationships. We have a climate that does not foster good worker relationships with an employer. We have poisoned an atmosphere that is going to be detrimental to us in the long term. There is a reason for that. I sat back and listened to everything on this and said nothing, to this degree. I think it is the first time I probably spoke on the issue in the public since the start - that is a fact on this issue - outside my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you voting (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: You will see how I will vote, when the time comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am going to support it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I am going to support it. I am going to support it, even though I feel we should never have had to (inaudible) a clause in here. I believe we allowed the clock to run too long to have to leave it out. Leaving it out now could be fairly difficult. We might have compromised a bit; we may have on this issue. I do not know. I am not the legal expert on this, but it is a concern of mine.

I want to see governments play a part in fostering positive business relationships in this Province. I do not want us to be bandied across national media, national television, national newspapers. It is not a good place to do business. Look at the type of response that this government takes to legislation. It is not what you say; it is what you do that determines what you stand for, whether you are conducive to business investing. It is what you do, not what you say.

Basically what we have done is allowed it to get to the point where it never should have gotten, at this point. It is regrettable, to be honest with you, that we had to get to this point. There are problems in the fishing industry and FPI has an enviable task - an unenviable task, I might add - of trying to consolidate or minimize layoffs, create long-term jobs, with a resource that has been shifting for a number of years. That is a challenge to any company and any business in the Province, and not only in groundfish. There are problems being experienced in numerous other species within this Province from a harvesting and from a processing aspect, important issues that have to be addressed.

I am going to close with just a very brief point and say that a letter - and the Premier made reference to this. The Premier said he has a letter from the company. To me, a letter from a company is not a binding legal agreement. It tells what the company's intent is at that time. The only thing that is binding and guaranteed is legislation in this Province. Legislation that can go unchallenged, legislation that sets out what government wants, is something to me that is far greater than a piece of paper written by a CEO of a company telling you what their intentions are. We need legislation that would have stopped that back earlier, not the intent.

Look, when you are dealing on behalf of the people of this Province, you might want to deal in good faith because companies are in business - I spent twenty years in the business, the fishing business and other businesses besides - companies are there to make money. If there were not, they should not be there. They should try to promote and further the best interests of their company. Who wouldn't want to maximize profit? It is crazy. If you do not want to maximize profit, we are living under a wrong type of government. It is under the wrong type of government, but government has a responsibility, I might add, to put checks and balances in place so that the people of the Province do not become an unfair target for business practice and unfair target of legislation, or a lack thereof, that might jeopardize or compromise or affect the future stability of an industry in our Province. They are fundamental parts, I think, a role, that we, as a government, have to play; and I honestly feel, as a government, we did not go the full nine yards on this one. We stopped short of that. We did not get a touchdown. In fact, we did not even get a convert. We did not even get a field goal. We did not get a point on the play and it has cost us, I think, and we are back here today after stirring up the climate of business relations and employee relations in this Province to a level that is going to take some while to subside, and hopefully we are all not going to pay a price, the people working out here in Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the inaction of a government on this issue.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the members of this all-party committee for the work that they have done on this piece of legislation. I would also like to thank the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their kind words that they gave me this afternoon. Also, like the member opposite, the Leader of the NDP said this afternoon that this was democracy at its finest that we practiced as we traveled through nine communities around the Province and met with all of these people. We understood that the issue was very important to the people who lived and worked in FPI towns. We also know that the issue, Madam Speaker, is very important to all the people of this Province, and we made a conscious decision, right from day one, that we were not going to play politics with this issue. Madam Speaker, we did not play politics with this issue, as you know; you were with us.

We travelled around to the nine communities in the middle of the winter, and politics never entered it. We met afterwards, in our deliberations here in St. John's, and politics did not enter the issue. Madam Speaker, we have made five recommendations to government, unanimously accepted by the committee, and we did it without involving politics. Six people from all parties in this House Assembly this afternoon spoke about this bill, praised the actions of what the party had done, all did it without bringing politics into the issue. But, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition could not let that pass. He could not refrain from his cheap political tricks and his flip. He could not do it. All the members of the panel spoke here today leaving politics aside. I have been sitting in this House of Assembly for six years and never have I seen anyone behave in such a low manner, such a despicable manner, as the Leader of the Opposition did here tonight.

I am not going to demean myself like he did today by going into any more on that issue. What I would like to say is: I think the amendments that we are putting forward here tonight clarify the spirit and the intent of the act that was put forward by the Member for Lewisporte back in 1987. I realize, and I agree with him today, that in 1987 he felt that the act was sufficient to safeguard the interests of that company. All we did today was clarify the purpose, or the spirit and the intent, of the act as he so delivered in 1987.

I do not think the amendments will unduly restrict FPI in continuing to be a profitable company. It has been a profitable company for the past fifteen years, living within the spirit and the intent of the 15 per cent restriction even though the restriction was only on the voting shares. I hope that FPI will continue to be profitable for its shareholders, but most of all for the people employed at FPI and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move that we move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of 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 presently, by leave. (Bill 65)

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, Bill 65.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: I would like to move an amendment to clause 2 of the bill, by deleting the proposed subsection -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hesitate to interrupt the minister. The minister is right, he has an amendment proposed to clause 2. I think what escapes us is that 2.1, the purpose clause, has not been called. The Chair called clause 1, which is the title of the act. The Fishery Products International Limited Act is amended by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) misunderstanding.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is a misunderstanding. We did want to have a few words to say on 2.1, Mr. Chairman. That is the bottom line, 2.1, yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was under the same impression, that clause 1, when you mentioned it, that was a short title. I also hope to say something on clause 1. With the consent of the member speaking, could we revert to clause 1?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We will do that. I just hope that sometime when a vote is called and they get defeated, that the hon. members will be so generous.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Government House Leader that if by some chance the twenty of us on this side of the House can defeat twenty-eight, you do not deserve any further consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know how many were in the House when a former member, Acting House Leader on the government side, called for a vote when he should have called Division. I tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: It wasn't you, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was in the same chair, though.

MR. RIDEOUT: It was in the same chair. It wasn't the Deputy Premier. I tell you, they had an awful job to get the government back, Mr. Chairman. There wasn't as many of us over here then as there are now. Anyway, I digress.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, so am I.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: These are the flexibilities you have if you are lucky at the lotto, Mr. Chairman. Some of us have to toil away for a living.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word about this purpose clause. I made some reference to it this afternoon in second reading debate but I do not think I did justice in the sense that I do not believe I said enough. A purpose clause in legislation is not something that you see a lot of. For the life of me, I do not know why. I do not know why every piece of legislation does not have a purpose clause in it. It sets out, and I think it is a great interpretation guide for courts, if it ever gets to court, for example. What was the purpose and intent of the Legislature when they wrapped their minds around this piece of legislation? I am so delighted this evening, Mr. Chairman, to be able to commend whoever it is that was responsible for this purpose clause; because this purpose clause, I think, has a vision to it. This purpose clause really articulates, I believe, a vision of what we believe FPI should be to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It says, "The purpose of this Act is (a) to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador...". That is the heart and soul of this place, Mr. Chairman. It was the reason why people came here 500 years ago, and I hope it will be the reason why people will want to stay here 500 years from now.

It couldn't be said with clearer vision or in any clearer way under the auspices of the English language than this particular clause says about Newfoundland and Labrador and what the fishing industry means to it. It says, under 2.1, "The purpose of this Act is... (b) to continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the province...". What a tremendous mission statement, Mr. Chairman. What a tremendous mission statement attached to the most important fishing company in Newfoundland and Labrador, and attached to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. A tremendous vision. A tremendous mission statement. It is so right and proper that we should include it in the legislation.

I understand that my friend, the Leader of the NDP, perhaps can take some responsibility and credit for the language that has gone on, the wonderful language that has been crafted into this particular clause. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I give him full marks. I did not know my hon. friend could articulate a vision using the English language so well as this particular clause does. I didn't know he was as learned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I missed that, I am sorry.

In fact, I believe he should be Clerk. He would be an ideal candidate if we could ever route him out down in the East End of St. John's to consider as Clerk, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, maybe it is the hour but I -

AN HON. MEMBER: He would have made a good mayor.

MR. RIDEOUT: He would have made a wonderful mayor. Yes, I agree with that. I supported him, as a matter of fact. I voted for him. I don't mind saying so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: It didn't go that far.

Mr. Chairman, it must be the witching hour because we are all getting close to senility, I believe.

There are two more parts of this purpose clause that I wanted to make reference to. Section 2.1, "The purpose of this Act is...(c) to recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the province...". I think that is pretty sound, sensible vision to have for this company. Obviously it has to operate on a sound business practice. It is not right and proper that the government or the Legislature try to micro-manage the company, Mr. Chairman. It is not right at all; and I think we make it clear, as a Legislature, in this particular clause, that is not our intention. What we want is a sound business and a business-operated company.

The final paragraph here in the purpose clause says, "The purpose of this Act is...(d) to ensure maximum employment stability and productivity through employee participation in the company."

Again, that goes back to the very foundation of this company, Mr. Chairman. First when we had the restructuring back in 1985 and 1986, and then when we had the privatization of this company in 1987, at the very heart and foundation of FPI was the fact that we wanted to create a climate of economic stability, productivity, and we wanted employee participation in the company.

I do not know who is advising this company from a public relations perspective, but whoever their public relations advisers are, they should be ashamed to cash the cheque.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: It has nothing to do with Ray, let me tell you. It goes a lot deeper than Ray. Ray, being Ray Andrews, I assume, is what the minister is talking about.

I understand that this company has a corporation. I understand they have the same PR people as the government, actually; that they have a corporation that advises them on public relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: Bristol, I am told. They advised your department of some things, didn't you say today?

I understand that Bristol advises FPI on public relations. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case - I mean, the whole public relations starting last Christmas, going right back to last Christmas, when this company, for the first time since it was privatized, gave a measly few cents and a few dollars in form of a dividend to their employees in the form of a bonus. That was the first signal, I think, Mr. Chairman, to the employees of FPI that this company, the present directors of this company, were not serious when it came to their commitments. They were not serious about their employees and they were not serious about the commitments that they made to their employees.

In closing, I want to say that I believe that this is a wonderful piece of legislative draftsmanship. Whoever is responsible for it, I give them full marks. This is a great purpose clause that deserves to be in the legislation because it articulates the vision that I believe all of us can share in for this company. It articulates the mission statement that we believe we can all share in for this company. I only hope that the company, the people who run the company, the board of directors, will take this mission statement and learn it off by heart. Learn it off by heart, like we had to do when we were going to school back in the 1950s and 1960s, and stand up every morning and repeat it in front of a mirror, word for word, because that is the mission; that is what we want this company to do, and that is what this company is capable of doing for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am only going to take a couple of minutes to follow up on some of the comments made by our colleague from Lewisporte. That is the aspect of section 2.1(b) being a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry.

Mr. Chair, it is quite obvious that even under the pressure of its own board of directors over the last number of months, the current board of directors have been unable to drive the shares down. They have, in their own right, used whatever means available to them to create media protests across this country about the viability of doing business in this Province. Those stories, those newspaper articles, have been generated by individuals who are directly involved either with the board or related to members of the board or members who are part of the Clearwater organization. No other intent than to drive down the value of the shares.

What is really amazing, Mr. Chair, is that they have been not able to bring the shares down to the $6 level that they were at less than three-and-a-half years ago. They have not even been able to bring the shares down to the $7 level, which is the low for the last twelve months. Today, even with the operation that they have been running, the shares still hold at $8.45, closing yesterday, and I am not sure what they are today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: They were $8.45 but not to their annual low of $7.

Here is a group of people who, for their own reasons, have tried to capture this company, as was said earlier today by my colleague, and could not get it through the front door when they organized four companies who made a frontal attack under the name and the guise of one name being NEOS. Turned around, separated themselves, and now suddenly began to think as individuals and guess what? Started to buy up all the shares, no complicity, no conversation, nothing that the Securities and Exchange Commission should be concerned about; but the irony of it is that twelve months later the same four individuals now have enough to make a run at the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: No collusion.

MR. WALSH: No collusion, nothing underhanded, nothing to think about. Make a run at the company and grab it. Make public statements, as were reported to you by the Premier today, listing off the things that they would do; and the very first action that we had a chance to see was that they actually put the Grinch to shame. They put the Grinch to shame when they reached into the pockets of the very individuals who made the profit for the company, to pay their own bills. One of their first actions was to sign a cheque to pay off the cost of acquiring. Then they wrote another cheque to write off other costs that they have entered into.

This statement, whoever is behind writing it, says what is really meant for this company, Mr. Chair, to continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry. Fifteen percent was 15 per cent in 1987 and 1988 when colleagues from the other side of the House drafted this legislation. No one thought of anything different until someone sat in a back room with cigar smoke and, I suppose, the heavy booze, and decided there is a loophole here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Couldn't see the loophole.

MR. WALSH: The immunity of the House is wonderful. Yes, they probably wouldn't see the loophole. But, we are able to find what they believe to be a loophole to snatch, not just from Newfoundlanders, to snatch a corporation from the other shareholders as well. This is a company which, for nineteen months in a row, showed a profit. It stumbled last year because of the bills that had to be paid -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) quarters.

MR. WALSH: Quarters? I think you are right, nineteen quarters. You are right.

But, suddenly, to pay the bills that were incurred in the actions that they have taken themselves, they take it from the pockets of the people who actually made the money for them.

This bill will make the company strong. This bill will make the shareholders, the widely held shareholders, a lot more protected than they were two months ago, simply because those shareholders will not wake up one morning and find they have just assumed another $500 million in debt; not assume the debt of an individual and throw it on the backs and the burdens of this widely held company.

Let's make sure that we keep this company strong. Let's make sure we keep it as an example of a company that can work for the betterment, not just of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but for the shareholders en masse.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say a few words on the purpose. I think it was called the preamble when we were out holding public hearings, I say to the members present. It is strange that it would come up at a meeting, because sometimes when you go out to public meetings you feel that people are unaware of what happens in the House of Assembly; unaware of what a bill means, or how it is written.

I remember quite clearly, I say to members who were on the committee, I am not so sure if it was in Marystown or Bonavista, and it might have been in other places, but if I recall it was one of the first couple of meetings, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who is nodding his head down there, when somebody came and made a presentation. I think it was in one of their written presentations, I say to the minister, that the bill that we would put forward here in the House of Assembly would include a preamble. I remember making a remark to somebody who was sitting next to me, it might have been the member for Marystown, and I said, there are not too many bills which include a preamble. Most bills are straightforward and they are dealing with the facts. There are clear sentences, clear clauses. I said, it is strange that somebody would mention a preamble in a piece of legislation that needs to be brought before the House of Assembly as law, because that is what it is; it is a law. It is the law of the land.

I think the Member for Lewisporte made some comments towards the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and not to single out members of the committee and what they did or what they did not do, I have to concur that I will give full credit to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for being responsible for this purpose clause. In fact, he had great trouble with the way it was written. He wanted to have a comma moved here, and a period moved somewhere else, and an exclamation mark moved somewhere else. It reminded me of somebody who sat over here at one time, and we were kind of getting a little bit fed up with it, but I must say that he has brought forward a purpose clause in this piece of legislation which is certainly meaningful.

If you go down, Mr. Chairman, to section 2.1(c) it says, "...to recognize the need for a company which operates on the basis of sound business and commercial decisions without undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the province...".

If there is one thing that comes through loud and clear when you talk about Fishery Products International, and you talk about the fishing industry, even from people in communities outside the industry, fishermen, harvesters who have never sold to Fishery Products International, they have always put forward the need to have a company like Fishery Products International involved in the fishing business in this Province. Fishery Products International has been the flagship of the fishing industry when other companies, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, would do shady things, would go out and compete in an unfair way, some companies would go out and try to get the industry shut down at certain times of the year so that they could get the price they pay to harvesters at a reduced level, Mr .Chairman. Fishery Products International, the flagship company of Newfoundland and Labrador, was always there to provide some guidance and a fair playing field, a level playing field, to the fish harvesters in this Province.

You look at the hourly wages that they are paying their employees. You look at the people working in this industry today. One time, if you went to work in the fishing industry, the fishing boat or the fish plant was the last place that somebody wanted to go to work. It was a place for people who had dropped out of school. It was the place where people went, Mr. Chairman, because they had nowhere else to go. They had no ambition. People were almost looked down on. People were almost looked down on because they went to work in the fishing industry, whether it be in a boat, or whether it would be in the fish plant. Then, all of a sudden, the industry changed. The industry did a complete change. It changed not only in how it harvested fish but how it processed fish.

I remember working at a fish processing plant and the last thing that you would want to hear, the last thing that you would consider, would be buying a meal of fish from that particular plant to take home to eat. That would be the last thing; it wouldn't even enter your mind. You would go out to the store and buy fish rather than buy it at the local fish plant, because you saw the way some things were happening there that should not be happening. There was no pride, very little quality. Then, all of a sudden, people started to get interested. When they started to show an interest, when they realized the value of what it was they were producing, when the quality initiative was brought forward in order to put out a good product, the initiative was put forward in order to harvest, process a good quality product, and that in return was shown as compensation that would show up on an employee's paycheque. The industry did a complete turnaround.

I have related stories here many times of what I have seen happening within the processing sector of the fishing industry. I will not go back to that tonight. Mr. Chairman, the people today, the people who work in this industry today, are proud people. They make a good wage. They are educated. Fishery Products International, Beothic Fish Processors, down in Valleyfield, Quinlans, the Daley Brothers, the Barry Group, National Sea, they all pay decent wages today in order to get good people, in order to get skilled people, because this is a highly-skilled industry today. Gone are the days when you can go and leave school, not knowing how to read or write, or leave school at an early age and feel you can go to work in the fish plant and be accepted because there is nobody else coming looking. Today it is a very competitive industry, not only for marketing but also for employees as well. It is not uncommon today, in fact it is very common -

AN HON. MEMBER: Very technical.

MR. FITZGERALD: Very technical, I say to the member opposite.

Only the other day I saw an advertisement in the local paper where the fish plant in his district, in Arnold's Cove, was looking for an electrician.

AN HON. MEMBER: I figured you were going to apply.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I did not apply. In fact, I doubt if I could even meet the qualifications.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. FITZGERALD: The qualifications that were put there were almost equivalent to somebody who would have to be an electrical engineer or at least have a degree in electrical technology, because you are into programable controllers, you are into all kinds of technical machinery. In order to be able to operate that machinery, know how it works, and know how to repair it, then you have to be very knowledgeable about the profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That would never happen, I say to the minister.

I do not know what is going to happen to the plant in Arnold's Cove. I think National Sea, who has been a good employer, has made a commitment to continue to operate the plant, but here again we do not see a lot of people coming forward to buy that particular plant. It is a situation where again, Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry, because of the lack of product to process, because of the cost of buying product in the Barents Sea and in other places, the cost of getting it here and processing it here - the profits are so marginal it is certainly a job to run a fishing industry today without getting involved in streamlining it and reducing your labour costs. Labour costs today, you are talking about - I guess the average wage in a modern fish plant today is probably $14 an hour. I think that it would be approximately $14 an hour. I do not know any other industry or any other business that is going to come to rural areas and employ people and pay that kind of money.

In fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago that myself and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North went down to Harbour Breton, prior to going down with the Committee. We went down there and it was a dirty old day, a miserable day, and we were going to have a meeting there to allow for public consultation, to allow people to come forward and let us know their views of what they want to see happen in this industry and the direction that they would like to see it go in, Mr. Chairman, and because it was a dirty day nobody showed up. So what we did was go down to the fish plant. The fish plant was in operation there and many of the things that I seen there was quite familiar to me because I had worked in that particular plant. I recognized some to the people who worked there and they recognized me as being somebody who was an employee of Fishery Products International who worked in Harbour Breton.

Mr. Chairman, we went down and the manager took us around the plant. We looked at what was happening there on the floors of this fish plant in Harbour Breton. My comment to my colleagues and to the plant manager was: show me another industry where you will be able to see so many employees per square foot as you see in this fish plant today? Show me another industry were you would see so many employees employed and working per square foot as you would see in that particular industry? I do not know of any other one around. I have worked in the factories up in Toronto, Mr. Chairman, a lot of them were labour intensive places but I have never seen so many people working per square foot in any other place as you would in a fish plant.

The other good thing about it is that most of the people who worked there were female. Most of the people who work in fish plants today are female employees. That is the good part about it, I say to people. It has been shown, Mr. Chairman. It is common knowledge that women, females, can do certain things when it comes to fish processing and the handling of fish - I have to be careful of what I say here now - much better than males. They are much more productive than males. When you look at the ladies who are trimming fish and the ladies who are deboning fish - because a lot of this stuff is still done manually. It is done on a table with a knife, where the bones are taken out of the fish, and where it is trimmed and graded. The female species can certainly do a much better and a much quicker job than males.

When they reopened the plant down in Port Union, a few short months ago - when the groundfish plant there was refurbished and turned into a shellfish plant, one of the concerns that the manager had, in my conversation with him, is that most of the employees who were coming to work - because it was done by seniority. One of his concerns was the ability of the male species to maintain production levels. He would have much sooner and would have felt much more comfortable in having females being the major employees in his particular plant. It is something that, another reason I guess -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I am putting forward some good points here. It is too bad we are not on television because a lot of people would learn a lot from what I have to say. That is the only thing I regret. I say to the Member for St. John's North, he should get interested because I doubt if he knows much about the fishing industry. I doubt if he knows much about fish plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I can him tell him what? That if you take the fishing industry out of this Province and take the income that goes into people's pockets from the industry, then your store or your family's store at the O'Leary Industrial Park would probably see a big drop. Your blind trust store that sells hardwoods and building supplies, I would say, would be in for a tremendous downturn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I have no doubt, he has lots to declare.

Mr. Chairman, having said that, I have to the say, the minister's daughter travelled with us on this Committee. I would say that she probably learned a whole lot; a great deal about the fishing industry from the pleas that she heard and from the people who came forward. I know she did because she made reference to it, of how sincere people were. (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: She probably did.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know she did.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not going to get into that.

Mr. Chairman, this is an industry, unlike any other industry. I do not know of any other industry that you could attempt for somebody to take over, or you could attempt to bring about layoffs, or to bring about a reduction in, or to remove from a certain community. I do not know of any other industry that would raise the ire of people, or would raise the concern of people. I do not know of any other industry where people would be so concerned as they are with Fishery Products International. It is a creature of this Legislature, there is no doubt about that.

There are still many people out there, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, there are still many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out there who are stakeholders in this industry. They may not hold shares in Fishery Products International, like the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, or they may not know the workings of the stock market and the business community, like the Minister of Mines and Energy, but I can tell you what, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are still owed $17 million from this particular company. There is still a $17 million fee unpaid, that was put forward by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador that have not been returned to the coffers of this Province. There is still $52 million that was put forward by the whole of Canada, by the federal government, in restructuring Fishery Products International that has not been paid. So there is still a fair amount of money outstanding, and it all comes from the same pockets. It might be federal money and it might be provincial money, but it is all money from the same taxpayers and from the same residents of this country and of this Province. That is why, when we talk about Fishery Products International, that is one of the reasons - I say to members opposite and I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, that is one of the reasons why people are so concerned. That is the reason why we need -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, just a second now.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I will not take advantage, I say to my member. The Member for Terra Nova, my member, is taking away leave from me. How dare you!

Mr. Chairman, I say to people, that is the reason why people feel so concerned. That is the reason why people came out in the thousands to listen, to hear, to participate in this particular bill, and that is the reason why a preamble and a purpose clause was so important, to clearly put forward the intent. I commend the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I would not do it if we were being televised, but since we are on closed circuit television I will, tonight, commend him for the job that he did with that purpose clause.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am rising to speak on clause 1, the preamble to the act, to the purpose clause of the act. I want to thank the previous speakers for recognizing that I had some role in the preamble itself. I want to say why it was that I thought the preamble was important, and important that we try to craft for the act something that better sets out the public purposes for which FPI was created.

I have been talking, Mr. Chairman, ever since this whole debate about FPI started in late 1999, about FPI and the role that FPI plays in the Province, and started to describe it in the spring of last year as a public purpose private corporation. We started talking in the public debates, a few months ago, about what it was that was the true spirit and intent of the act. I remember distinctly Mr. Crosbie saying: Well, there is no trouble to figure out what the spirit and intent of the act is, and what the purpose of the act is, because it is said in the title to the act. It is spelled out directly in the title to the act that I just left on the Clerk's desk, if I can get my hands on it. I wonder if I could have the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the debate. If the members to my left and to my right would like to tone it down or take it outside.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was just wondering if I could have, from the Table, the title to the previous act, the FPI Act. I left it on the Table there when we were discussing it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Jack, you have had so much praise heaped upon you, you are at a loss for words.

MR. HARRIS: I have to say that one of the reasons why we need to have a preamble, I say to the Member for Bonavista South, is that Mr. Crosbie, the former federal Minister of Fisheries, said it is pretty easy to figure out the purpose of the act because it says it in the title. The title in Chapter F-15 is called An Act Respecting The Return Of The Business Of Fishery Products International Limited To Private Investors. That was the beginning and the end of it. That was what he said. That was what he said was the purpose of the act, and I have to disagree with him. I think that all members of the committee disagreed that was the sole purpose of the FPI Act that was presented by the current Member for Lewisporte in the House of Assembly in 1987, because what we said, what I said and what many others said, was that this was - there were various terms used - a public purpose private corporation or a special purpose corporation. We started talking about some of the other ones. We talked about the Bank Act. We talked about Canadian National. We talked about the other pieces of legislation which have a public purpose even though they are private corporations and have some sort of special restrictions on shareholding and that nature. So, one of the things that I was calling for early this year, early 2002, was to have some changes to the act so that the act itself better reflected and spelled out the public purposes for which the act existed.

When we went to our committee, one of the objects under consideration was whether or not we should have a preamble. I was particularly interested in the preamble, Mr. Chairman, because I wanted to see the legislation spell out, so that we would not have a debate - and I do not mean a legalistic debate; it is sort of a political debate - if the purpose clause here sets out the purposes of the act indicating what the intentions are in terms of what we want.

I did have a little hand in the drafting, I have to admit that, and I thank members for recognizing that, because I wanted it to be a little more elegant, I guess, in the kind of things that were set forth in the title to the Fishery Products International Act which talks about the return of the business of Fishery Products International Limited to private investors, or the previous act, the 1983 act, which in the short title is called the Fisheries Restructuring Act. That is called An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And The Government of Canada Respecting The Restructuring Of The Newfoundland Fishery. That was called the Fisheries Restructuring Act and I suppose that probably sets out its intention in the title as well.

In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, we wanted to make sure, the committee wanted to make sure and the Legislature wants to make sure, that the purposes set out - and I think it is done in a rather special way. The first part says, "to recognize the fundamental role that the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador...". It is very clear that this is about the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry. (b) "to continue the company as a widely held company that can act as a flagship for the industry whose objective is the growth and strengthening of the fishery of the province...". That is what we have, Mr. Chairman, a flagship for the industry of the Province and the fishing industry as a whole. And, (c) "to recognize the need for a company..." and this is where the business aspects of it, the privatization aspects of it, are specifically recognized, operating on a business model, on a commercial and business model, but recognizing the context in which it operates so there would not be undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the province, and to ensure stability, employment stability and productivity, through employee participation.

These are words sometimes referred to by judges in interpreting purpose clauses as words of hope or words of expression.

Mr. Chairman, the clause that was contained or the recommendation that was contained in the committee report has been included wholly in the legislation before the House; and, in reviewing it closely from a legalistic as opposed to a literary perspective - and I say to hon. members that when the committee was making its report it was looking at it more in a literary context as opposed to a legalistic context and how it might fit in exactly word for word with the legislation. The Legislative Counsel had a look at it but, in reviewing it here this evening, I recognize that the purpose clause that we have here refers to a company or the company, a widely held company, et cetera, but I have to recognize that the legislation which we are amending, the actual clause 2 of the legislation that we are amending, actually refers to two companies. They are FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited, one of which was formed by amalgamation under the laws of Newfoundland in 1984, and the other one was the corporation continued under the laws of the Province on December 19. It is actually two companies, one of which is the holding company, one of which is an operating company.

Without getting into a long explanation as to what the relationship is, it is both companies that are referred to in the legislation. Both companies are referred to in the Schedule, and both companies need to be treated the same way by the legislation. In order to accomplish that objective, we need to make a change in clause 1 of the act currently before the House.

We are amending the clause by renumbering the clause as 2.1(1) and by adding immediately after the following: "(2) In this section "the company" means FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited."

That would satisfy the reference to both companies as being included in the new preamble that we have included there. That is a technical amendment, and I understand the Minister of Fisheries will second that amendment. So clause 2.1 would really be clause 2.1(1). So there is a change (inaudible) be renumbered and adding the following subclause (2):

"(2) In this section "the company" means FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited."

AN HON. MEMBER: Fishery?

MR. HARRIS: F i s h e r y. Correct, singular.

Will we vote on that amendment now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Clause 2 of the Bill is amended by deleting the proposed subsection 5.1(2) and substituting the following:

"(2) In subsection (1), "head office" means the corporate and administrative head offices of FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited."

The amendment will clarify the scope of the term "head office" as used in the proposed section 5.1(1).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: I will speak briefly on this clause because it is one that has given rise to some discussion, both inside and outside the House, and also here today. Some people have expressed some reluctance about a clause such as this, and I have to say that the Committee had internally a fair bit of discussion about whether or not we should include a clause. There was some feeling certainly that it was sending a message that somehow we were doing something wrong. I think the other argument was recognition of the fact that we live in a pretty litigious society. We have a lot of lawyers around. In fact, I remember when I was in law school one of the law professors produced an article from the Atlantic Monthly called a Plague of Lawyers. He referred to as a Plague of Lawyers. The purpose of the article was to talk about how we have so many lawyers - this was in the United States - that people are prepared to take anything to court. They go to court for anything. Anything you can sue on, they will go to court for. You can always find a lawyer to take your case to court and all that kind of stuff. Those are kinds of sentiments that are around, Mr. Chairman.

Naturally speaking, we see (inaudible) issue of access to justice, on a serious note, is a very important point. This House has recognized that by passing legislation in the past session providing for class action suits so that people can, in fact, go to court to pursue matters that, as a class, people would be able to bring, or better able to bring, what they might not be able to bring as an individual. We had that debate last fall. I know the Member for Lewisporte made a significant contribution to the debate, talking about the kind of things that might be brought to court under class action legislation and some of the concerns that he had about what we were doing in terms of opening up to litigation all sorts of things that we might not have contemplated.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it was kind of in that spirit that the Committee considered the privative clause and said: Look, we did have advice from legal council and the Department of Justice saying that this is desirable, from a public policy perspective. We recognize the political side of it in the sense that we may be sending a message to people, but we also recognize that we live in a litigious society and that, not only to avoid compensation awards but also to avoid litigation, to avoid - whether it be a nuisance suit, whether it be a suit for someone who wants to embarrass the government, whether it be a suit that would be brought for the purposes of trying to prove a point, for whatever reason, that it was thought desirable by the advice we were receiving from the department, from a public policy perspective, for the protection of the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that a privative clause should be included.

I do not see anything particularly abhorrent about it. If it is within the constitutional matter, I suppose somebody could still challenge the legislation. Someone can still go to court and say that we think that the legislation is unconstitutional. If they can convince the court that the legislation is unconstitutional, is beyond the powers of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, beyond the powers of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, somehow in violation of the Charter of Rights, then despite the privative clause, Mr. Chairman, I am sure a court would be happy to overturn the legislation if they find that it was beyond our jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are not taking away the right of access to the courts here, but if somebody thinks that somehow or other they have had their property expropriated and want to claim for damages, that right is taken away but the legislation itself can still be challenged in the court as to whether or not we have exceeded the jurisdiction of the Legislature by passing legislation. That power is still there. Privative clauses cannot take that away. Even the cases mentioned by the Member for Lewisporte involving privative clauses against tribunal decision-making or privative clauses of the Workers' Compensation Board or the Labour Relations Board, are still there. Their access to the court is there because it is still open to argue that a board has exceeded its jurisdiction, the same way as it can be argued that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has passed legislation that is beyond its legislative competence. That, in fact, was the principle way that legislation was challenged prior to the Charter of Rights by saying that this was not unconstitutional for the provincial Legislature, it was something that had to be passed by the Legislature of the Government of Canada.

This is a clause that was recommended to the Committee, one that the Committee unanimously endorsed. I do not think we should apologize for it. I think we should recognize that this is something that we have an obligation, in pursuit of the public interest, to ensure that we do not have a series of litigation, whether it be to make political points or whether it be under the genuine belief that somehow people have been deprived of their rightful property, interest and shares of FPI, or the value of those shares. Farfetched as such an argument might be, under our current law it is open to anybody to make such a claim. In fact, it is open under this law, even with the privative clause, to claim that the legislation is beyond the competence of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think it would have much success, Mr. Chairman, but certainly it is open for someone to go to court to make that argument.

I think that it is a clause that has a solid foundation in public policy and one that we should endorse and accept.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to be very brief. Just a point of clarification, just so that we all understand what we are saying in Schedule "B", I hope it is clear because this is the crux of the matter right here, the 15 per cent share ownership restriction. I just want the minister, whether it is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture or the Minister of Justice, to clarify for my own benefit, and the benefit of everybody here, to make sure that we are all absolutely clear that when 13.(a) says, "... no person shall, together with the associates of such person, beneficially own, in the aggregate, in excess of 15% of the total number of the issued and outstanding Securities of any class of Securities of the Company.", it means that nobody can own more than 15 per cent of the voting securities, and nobody can own more than 15 per cent of the non-voting securities. If that is what we are saying, then I have no problem with it. I would just like to hear, for the record, whether that is the case or not.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will keep it very brief too.

To the best of my knowledge, that is exactly what it means. As was said on the road, 15 per cent means 15 per cent. That is what it means.

CHAIR: Order please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No offence to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but just to be absolutely certain - and no offence - maybe the Minister of Justice could answer it also. I don't think we can take the chance on saying: to the best of our knowledge. There is no slight meant by that. Is the 15 per cent in aggregate and of any class mean that you can only own 15 per cent of the voting securities and 15 per cent of the non-voting securities?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will try and explain it this way: 15 per cent of A plus 15 per cent of B is 15 per cent of A plus B. Do you accept that? The Member for Ferryland is good at math and he will understand this formula. I will try it again: 15 per cent of A plus 15 per cent of B is not 30 per cent of A plus B, but is actually 15 per cent of A plus B. So the answer to your question is: Yes. That is what it says in the act. In my reading of the act, that is what it says. That is the whole point of the discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Before the clause is carried, yes, the Member for Lewisporte is right. I would not bring it up today when he was speaking, but that is exactly what he told me when I said: if four people get together and buy out 15 per cent of FPI, will they then have control of FPI? The hon. gentleman rose in his seat and said: No, that is not what the legislation is intended to do.

Unfortunately, somebody found a loophole to make 15 per cent ownership not control as part of it, and therefore we felt - all of us felt - we had control of the company; but it was very, very clear from the start. Anybody who went in - and I want to go on the record as saying this, Mr. Chair because there are a number of people out there who say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Thank you.

There are a number of people who have been quoted in the media as saying, really, you are doing something that you should not do. Well, the truth of the matter is that anybody who bought shares in FPI ever since 1987 knew exactly what the intent of the legislation was; and if you went in and bought shares on that basis, then I do not see how you could look at either the government, or the government of the day, or the legislation, and say that the government was now changing the ground rules. As a matter of fact, the intent of the legislation was clear from the start, ever since I asked the hon. gentleman the question in 1987.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

On motion, clause 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have asked me to report the passage of Bill 65, with amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.(Bill 65)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, seeing that it is fifteen minutes before closing time, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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