May 2, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 19

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a

building in my district that has been designated as a Registered Heritage

Structure by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

NaGeira House in Carbonear, known historically as Pinehurst, was built

between 1922 and 1931 for William Charles Moores, a local merchant. Mr. Speaker,

this home, which now serves as a bed and breakfast, owned by Peggy Norman and

Gerry Rogers, has been described as one of the most preserved merchant homes of

its era and features one of the most unique interiors of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate NaGeira House on this designation, which will

benefit by giving this beautiful building provincial recognition, eligibility

for grants, and installation of a plaque to indicate the building's historical

significance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador West will be holding its first ever Come Home Year celebrations in

2002, from July 20 to July 27. A committee was established last fall to look at

the possibility of holding such an event, and received overwhelming response

from the community.

Mr. Speaker, a Web page was established in mid-March of this year and to date

has almost 2,500 visits. People from as far away as New Zealand, Europe, New

York, Houston, Washington and every province in Canada have left messages

stating they cannot wait to return.

We expect this event to be the biggest celebration ever to be held in

Labrador. The Iron Ore Company of Canada, since it started in Labrador West,

alone has hired a total of over 60,000 people. Add to that the number of people

employed with Wabush Mines, the towns, the hospitals and other places of work,

and the numbers are incredible.

Many, who are adults today, were born in Labrador West and left at an early

age and are expressing a desire to come back and visit their birthplace. Many

who spent their formative years and attended high school and graduated there are

very excited about renewing old acquaintances.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Labrador West was a very transient community

during the 1960s and 1970s, and when families moved away not many of them had

relatives there who would cause them to return for visits. However, this Come

Home Year appears to be the thing they were waiting for, according to many of

the comments received to date.

I certainly wish to thank the organizing committee for their efforts in the

planning of events, and I am certain the Come Home Year will be an astounding

success.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update my colleagues on a meeting which just took place

between myself, the Deputy Premier, other members of Cabinet and caucus, and the

new board of directors of Fishery Products International, where we advised the

board of government's intent to hold them accountable for the commitments

which they made to the people of this Province.

Government recognizes the significant role played by FPI in this Province's

fishing industry, and when a new board of directors was elected yesterday, we

immediately requested a meeting with the new board to discuss the future

direction of FPI and the rural communities which will be affected by their

corporate actions.

In the weeks leading up to yesterday's meeting, the dissident slate, which

ultimately formed the new board, made commitments to this government and to the

people of the Province regarding the future of FPI, and specifically the future

of FPI plants and plant workers in this Province.

The purpose of our meeting was to remind them of the commitments they have

made and to advise them that this government intends to hold them fully

accountable for delivering on those commitments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: We advised the new board that we expect them to state their

intentions and provide government and the people of the Province with an outline

of their corporate strategy and details of an action plan by which they will

fulfill the commitments which have been made to the people of the Province and

to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These decisions and plans must be - and, I say, must be - consistent with the

promises that have been made to government, the unions, the communities, and,

most importantly, to FPI employees in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government will continue to hold FPI accountable to the people of this

Province, and we will be convening another meeting with the board within the

next couple of weeks to discuss these issues further.

Fishery Products International was created by the Legislature of this

Province, and the FPI legislation can be modified at any time to ensure that the

provisions of the act reflect current circumstances and address contemporary

concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 would like to say to the minister that we welcome his words, and I am sure

the Province is eager to hear words that say that the government will stand up

and ensure the commitments that were made by the dissident slate for the Board

of Directors of FPI made over the past number of weeks, that this government

will ensure that they adhere to those commitments.

While we welcome his words, Mr. Speaker, we are anxiously awaiting the

government's actions, some action that we have not seen in the past number of

weeks on this issue. We have not seen the action, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: I will just point out why we have not seen action, Mr.

Speaker. We have not seen the action -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ( Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.

In the past couple of the weeks when the Atlantic Fisheries policy review was

on, when a key element of the FPI takeover -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, agree that it is very important to the well-being of this Province

that FPI carries on its traditional way of operating within the Province,

particularly as the communities around are affected.

I would like to point out something that the former Minister of Fisheries

stated yesterday when he talked about the fishing industry being a $1 billion

industry in this Province, compared to the mining industry, another very

important industry in the Province that has a $1 billion export value. The

difference, as the former minister pointed out, is the number of people who are

dependent upon the fishing industry is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the number of people who are affected by the fishing

industry in this Province reaches right around the entire perimeters of the

Province and to all regions. It is important that FPI, the new board of

directors, understands that if it is not acting in accordance with the

legislation that is there today than the power of this Legislature can be used

again to make sure that it does work.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Library Week, April 29

to May 5, and the important role of community libraries in our Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Library Association chose as their theme,

"Let Libraries Carry You Away"- a very appropriate theme which speaks

to the world of possibilities reading opens up to us. Reading can transport us

back in time, to a far away place or into the future. We read to enhance our

education, for work-related research, or simply for the pleasure of it.

Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Library Week and the joys of reading, we must

also recognize the importance of being able to read. The Department of Education

has identified the teaching of reading and writing, particularly in the early

grades, as a priority and has undertaken a comprehensive strategy to focus on

literacy in the primary classroom and provide our youngest students with a solid

foundation in literacy skills.

In addition, the Department of Education has invested an additional $2

million, over the past two years, to allow the Provincial Information and

Library Resources Board to increase the inventory of books and resources in our

ninety-six provincial public libraries.

It is recognized that the availability of reading materials is a significant

factor in improving public literacy and that there is a direct correlation

between a population's literacy levels and its economic prosperity.

This Library Week, I commend the staff, volunteers and all those who help

operate our public libraries for the valuable work they do and I encourage all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to drop by their local library, pick out a book

and allow themselves to be carried away for the joy of reading.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement. I certainly will join with

her in recognizing the importance of Library Week, the importance of reading, of

writing, of literacy in general, and the importance of having these community

libraries in our Province supported. It is good to see that additional money is

being invested.

I say to the minister that there are other resources that need to be looked

at in our libraries beside books, especially with regard to our CAP sites. As

recently as February we had our CAP sites hours cut back in one of the libraries

in my district from twenty-five to ten. This has happened in twenty-eight

libraries.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I hope that the minister is indicating that these

additional resources will address that type of problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, want to recognize the importance of Library Week and the role that

libraries play in our communities. The ability to read and write is fundamental

to everything else that we have to do in our lives. Even mathematics is

problematic if a person cannot read to understand what is being asked. I would

like to say, and I cannot help but wonder, the monies that were used for the

relocation of the Library Resources Board, the thirty-one positions, how much

benefit that could have been to the libraries of the Province if that money was

allocated to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: It is something that in ninety-one communities hardly needs

to be decentralized.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Fisheries. Obviously, as a result

of yesterday's news and outcome of the shareholders meeting of FPI, there are

many questions that people have and many questions that need to be posed. I am

glad to see this morning that the minister, I suppose, and Cabinet and caucus,

met with the current board, but I would like to ask some questions today,

particularly in view of the fact that former competitors of FPI are now

competitors-owners of FPI.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker: In view of the current legislation which,

if we enforce it in its entirety as it now stands, how does the minister plan to

defend the interests of the Province when domestic competitors, former domestic

competitors, former domestic foreign competitors which are now directors and

management of the company now have a say in the management of the company,

determine its policies and have full access to vital information about its

finances, business operations, acquisitions and competitive strategies? Could

the minister inform us how he plans to enforce the current act on the one hand,

and how he plans to deal with this situation on the other?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to let the hon. leader across the floor know that we had a very

good meeting, our first, and we will be having many, many more. In fact, over

the years I think maybe his party and ours have been a little lax in holding

regular meetings with the board of directors of FPI. It is only in recent

months, Mr. Speaker, it has come to the forefront in that FPI has received the

notice maybe that we should have been paying to it over the years; but, having

said that, the board this morning, the new board, gave us a full commitment that

they would live up to the commitments that they have made to the people of the

Province and to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they fully

intend to comply with the act and the legislation governing FPI. As for what we

can do about the - he talked about the competitive interest in FPI. In a

circular that was distributed - an open letter to shareholders by the dissident

group - it outlines what they intend to do there, and we will hold them to that.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and I have said time and time in this House

and outside the House, we will do everything in our power and the power of the

Legislature to protect the interests of FPI and the assets of FPI to the benefit

of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: As a result of yesterday, it is clear that a concentration

of ownership in the industry has occurred. For anyone to deny that, Mr. Speaker,

would be denying the nose that is clearly on your face.

I would like to ask the minister: What strategy or plan does government,

through the Department of Fisheries, have to deal with the concentration of

ownership, have to deal with how that may affect rural communities, how that may

affect the price of fish, how that may affect the numbers of people who are

employed in the processing sector? I would like to ask the minister: Could he

elaborate and tell us the strategy and plan that the Department of Fisheries has

to deal with the obvious - I repeat, the obvious - concerns and questions raised

with the concentration of ownership that has just occurred?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman raises some interesting questions and I will address some

of them now. He talked about the price of fish. As you know, and everybody in

the House knows, we put a piece of legislation in the House last year that

governs the price of fish in this Province. It is called the final offer

selection, and it is doing a good job. It did a good job last year and it is

doing a good one this year.

All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that the minister and the Department

of Fisheries controls all of the licencing of fish plants in this Province and

we will be very diligent in the responsibilities that the minister holds; and we

will, as I continue to say, do everything in our power, if something unfolds as

it should not, to make sure that is corrected and that we protect the assets of

not only FPI for the Province but every other fish plant as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are obvious questions and I will pose

some more right now. For example, now that the former competitors are now both

competitors and owners of FPI, because that is the case - for example, a

question needs to be asked and I would like to ask the minister, has he asked

it? If a new quota, for example, becomes available in the Canadian zone, will

FPI be able to compete for the quota on a level playing field, say, if

Clearwater or any of its other domestic competitors are also competing for it,

while at the same time they are on the board? Will it be able to compete on even

terms, I ask, Mr. Speaker? Furthermore, will FPI have as much information about

its competitors and its strategy on how they will get that quota, as its

competitors will have about FPI? There is an obvious concern here. It is an

obvious question. The question that I pose to you again, to answer those: What

type of strategy do you have in place to ensure that such a situation does not

exist?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He raises questions about quotas. He knows the stand of this Province and he

knows the stand of this government, and it has been since 1989, that we should

have more control over the say of our fishery that the federal government holds.

We started that in 1989 and we have continued to press the federal government to

have more control over the allocations of fish in this Province.

I have written the federal minister, asking him to ensure that the quotas

that FPI had, and will have in the future, will remain for the benefit of the

plants that are now in operation and for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister what his position

was vis--vis quotas staying in the Province and urging the federal government.

I asked him this question, and I will ask him again: What is the department's

strategy now that the former competitors are now competitor-owners of FPI? Will

FPI be able to compete on a even basis if a new quota becomes available, when

some of the very board of directors of the company may also be competing for

that? Will there be a level playing field? Will FPI, for example, have as much

information accessible to it about its competitors' strategy as obviously the

competitor owners have about its strategy? What is the minister's plan and the

government's strategy to deal with this very legitimate question and this very

legitimate concern on behalf of the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that this government could have

done to say that you are allowed to buy shares in FPI and you are not. The fact

remains that there were competitors out there prior to any of this rising in the

Legislature and in the public of Newfoundland in the last month or so. There

were competitors out there with substantial shares in FPI. Sanford, for example,

in New Zealand, had 15 per cent of FPI for a number of years. I have never heard

that raised in the House of Assembly before, in the last seventeen years that

FPI was in existence. I have not heard any of this. We cannot stop someone from

buying shares in FPI. All I can say is: Yes, I do believe, and I am firmly

convinced, that we will ensure that FPI knows of what quotas are going to be

offered up by the federal government. I think that any business would know that.

We will certainly do everything, and it is government's obligation to ensure

that they do it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about yesterday. I am talking

about what this government's plan is for tomorrow, next week, next month, next

year, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, for the backbone of the industry of

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery. That is what we are talking about.

I would like to ask him this question. Again, these are legitimate, bonafide

questions that deserve to be answered, and answered frankly and forthrightly, I

submit to you, Mr. Speaker. The question is this: In view of the fact that

former competitors, for example, are now competitor/owners/operators/directors

of FPI, did you ask this morning if Icelandic Fisheries and Sanford, for

example, which were FPIs competitors in cold water shrimp, that if FPI wants to

spread into a new market or expand existing products in the U.S., Europe, or

Asia, will they be able to do it even though they are in direct competition with

some of its board of directors or shareholders?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, he keeps talking about FPI as if the whole

structure, everything in the whole system of FPI, changed this morning. The only

thing that changed with FPI is the board of directors. As we have debated here

in this House, as I said on a number of occasions, and the Leader of the

Progressive Conservative Party said, there is nothing we could have done short

of nationalizing the company to prohibit the shareholders of that company from

electing a new board of directors.

You talk about the competition. There is a Competition Act, or a competitors

act of Canada. There is also the corporations act of Newfoundland and Labrador

that regulates what a competitor or a conflicting interest that a director might

have in a company that he owns and one in which he is a shareholder on a board

of another company. That is in legislation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I am doing here today is

performing the role that I constituently have to perform, and that is to ask the

questions that the people of the Province want asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are advocating one thing and one thing only, and that is

holding government accountable for its actions and a plan for the fishery of

Newfoundland and Labrador. If the minister is saying, and I would like to ask

him: Is he saying that there are no questions being asked as a result of

yesterdays decision? Is he saying that the questions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

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

I am asking the minister: What is the plan and strategy that government has

for what is obvious -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Johnny (inaudible) is going to be mad at you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I could care less who is mad at me,

if we are on the right side of the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Frankly, I could care less.

The questions I am asking deserve to be answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the questions I have asked to the minister are

clear. They are questions and concerns that have been raised outside this

Legislature. He knows that, and if his staff have not briefed him on these

concerns then he should do something with his staff. These questions are

legitimate. They are bonafide.

In informing the new competitor/owners of FPI about the FPI act, I would like

to ask him this question: Can the act - we believe it can - but how do we hold

shareholders to account? Because as a result of yesterday's decision

shareholders have decided what is in collusion or not, not boards of directors.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Has he informed the board this

morning that the act - not shareholders deciding, not the board of directors I

say, that is clear. Has he informed the new board that the Fishery Products

International Act, on the basis of collusion and acting in concert, that this

government will enforce that act to the letter of the law?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I respect the hon. member's right to ask the question, Mr.

Speaker, and I have been trying to answer the questions. Now if he does not like

the answers there is no need for him to get hostile at me. I have not said

anything to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I read a ministerial statement here yesterday afternoon that

stated what this government was going to do and how we were going to hold the

new board of directors accountable to this government and to the people of this

Province. The hon. member actually clapped for me, along with the rest of his

colleagues.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is we will do everything in our power. You

have to also remember that eight of the board members that were elected

yesterday were very prominent business people in this Province. That is

something that has been missing in this whole conversation; eight individuals,

and most of them are in that room today. They said anything that would damage

FPI would be to damage the community and damage the Province in which they live.

They are also very community minded individuals, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Many of whom rely on the people of those communities to earn a

living themselves. They have no desire to hurt these communities in any way

because not only would it be hurting these communities it would also be hurting

their chances of increasing their business in those communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Final Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister this question. The FPI Act, as it currently

exists, indicates in clause 7 that the company cannot sell all or substantially

all of its marketing, processing, or harvesting operations. I would like to ask

him this question: Have you specifically talked to the new board regarding the

current marketing arm of FPI, formally known as Clouston Foods? Have you

indicated to the new board that you, as Minister of Fisheries representing the

government, representing the Crown, and ultimately the people of the Province,

will not stand by if they choose to sell or get rid of that marketing arm?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that question is simple. The answer is, yes. Not only that, but

I told him that FPI was created under legislation in this House and if there was

not sufficient legislation to do with that board of directors or the company in

general what we wanted done to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians we would come back into this House and (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education. Minister, basically it is a good time during Libraries Week to go

back to the issue of language arts in the primary grades. We need some

clarification, minister, as to where you are going with this. I have a letter to

the parents from the Avalon West School Board which states that the board will

not reduce instructional time in music, art, physical education, or other

subjects next year. If the board is not going to decrease time in other subject

areas how will it be able to carry out the minister's instruction to increase

instruction time in math, 20 per cent to 25 per cent, and from 25 per cent to 40

per cent in language arts? Minister, please.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate what I said in the answer to

the same question a couple of weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: The same question. Maybe different words but the same question.

Let me say again, what we are attempting to do here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more questions.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in our school system is

utilizing that 10 per cent of the time, which is now optional in the system, so

that will see the 25 per cent increase to 35 per cent. What we have said as well

is that we would like to see an additional 5 per cent of the time to focus on

literacy, so we have asked the schools and the school boards and everyone

concerned - and we have been involved. This is not an initiative of the

department alone. This is certainly something that has been done, in

consultation with the boards - to get that 5 per cent by focusing on literacy in

other subject areas as well, so that when they are teaching music, or when they

are teaching math, or whatever subject they are teaching, that they spread the

whole issue with respect to literacy across all of the curriculum. That is how

we have suggested they can get the 40 per cent, and we have been told by the

boards and by schools that we have been working with, that this is not a

problem. In fact, the10 per cent optional is used in most cases now for the

teaching of literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I find this funny: for the minister to get in

her place today, after creating a crisis for the last two or three months, in

saying that she is going to take away from music, and now she is saying that

nothing is changing. Because this is what has been going on in the school

system, language across the curriculum, for as long as I can remember. So,

Minister, you are getting up and saying nothing has changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but what I did ask is: Can the

minister get up and tell the House now that nothing has changed with regard to

time allocation in the primary grades?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the only crisis that has been created out there is

what the hon. member has been promulgating, and that is: there has been a major

change with respect to literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time the members opposite

recognize that we have a problem in our Province with respect to literacy, and

that what we are attempting to do is to try and improve the lot for our people,

starting with our youngest students. We would like to do more, but at this point

in time we are looking at K-3. Let me repeat, it is K-3. We are not talking

elementary, we are not talking junior high, we are not talking high school. We

are talking in the Grades K-3. Let me say again: We are not reducing time on

music; we are not reducing time on art; we are not reducing time on phys. ed. I

guess I will repeat it again: There is 25 per cent of the time that is allocated

now for language arts. There is a 10 per cent optional in the school day, which

is being used now by the majority of schools for language arts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: What we are saying is, let's look at all subject areas and

focus on literacy so we can bring the added attention that is so desperately

needed to the area of literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I take from what the minister has said that

there will be no changes next year in the primary from K-3, and that what she

has said in the past, and she has stated in her press releases or whatever, that

it is going up to 40 per cent, that is not going to happen. Also, you indicated

that there would be a 5 per cent in math. Are you saying now, that will not

happen either?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I would ask the hon. member opposite

is that when he puts out his press release today after his question, which he

does every time he asks a question, that he get the answers right this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I will do everything I can to increase the focus

on literacy. If that means asking teachers, which they normally do now, to focus

on literacy across all subject areas, then we will ask them to do that, because

that is in the best interest of the students of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Minister, I am sure you will recall a couple of days ago I mentioned and asked

questions concerning the money that is going to be for infrastructure in the

year 2001.

Minister, as you are very much aware, there are more than 200 communities

that have contaminated water supplies in this Province. As many, or more,

communities also have problems with sewerage and waste management. What emphasis

is the department giving to these needs in approving infrastructure projects?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to thank the hon. member for the question. There is no doubt about it,

that in this Province we do have problems with water supplies, where we would

like to improve the number of them that are already there, and we are working at

that. I want to say to him that this year the infrastructure program and the

capital works program that we are going to bring forth is going to be a green

infrastructure program. We want to put major emphasis, in fact most of the

emphasis, on the communities that have some problems with the water supply, and

we will continue to do that. In fact, last fall my predecessor announced up to

$100,000 per municipality, 100 per cent funded by the provincial government, if

these people came forward to improve chlorination systems or to install new

chlorination systems. Also in the budget was $10.1 million to improve water

quality for the communities; and I would think that later on, when we release

the infrastructure program, that the hon. member will see that the vast majority

of the dollars from the infrastructure program and capital works will be to

address the water quality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I can only say that I wait for that announcement and I will be very

interested to see exactly where this money goes.

Mr. Minister, as you are well aware, the communities most in need cannot

afford to pay their municipal share to quality for provincial and federal

funding. Does this Province have any plan in place to help those communities

that cannot come up with their share of the infrastructure cost or any cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that is a major problem for many of the rural

municipalities in this Province. In fact the smaller towns, towns that are less

than probably 5,000, you could categorize them in two or three different

categories. Up to now we have had a 50/50 cost sharing basis with many of the

smaller municipalities; and I realize, and this government realizes, that

formula had to change. In consultation with my caucus colleagues and Cabinet

colleagues, we are presently looking at that, with the hope that we can address

that particular problem. By doing that, then we can improve on the water quality

within the smaller communities that are there and be able, at the same time, to

address the regional problems that exists.

I would also want to say to him, as far as waste management - because he did

ask me that question earlier - we do have a major problem here in the Province

with waste management; but I can say to him that the number of municipalities

that have come to me, and I have tried to see as many of them as I can over the

last number of days, the culture is beginning to change. People are beginning to

realize that we have to work together as a region. We have to work together as a

group. We have to get rid of many of those landfill sites that are out there. We

have more than 250 of them. They are eyesores. We do not know what is going in

many of them. What I can say is that I have worked with the Member for

Windsor-Springdale and his is one of the areas out around King's Point,

Springdale and around Triton, Brighton, where they are coming together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: There are many, many other communities on the Burin

Peninsula, down around the area of the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the hon.

the Minister of Environment, to work together to improve that for the whole

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. On March

19, 2001, a decision was rendered by the adjudicator of the board of inquiry

into a Human Rights complaint involving the dismissal of a health care worker.

This decision established that the Department of Health and Community Services

is an employer where a person is hired to provide home support services with

funding provided by the department. This, Mr. Speaker, is a significant

decision. It confirms what we have said all along. I ask the minister: When will

the department fulfill its duty, as an employer, and provide workers'

compensation coverage to home care workers employed through the self-managed

care program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for the question. There is no doubt that the question

raises a serious issue and a matter that has been brought before this House

previously, and it is a matter that has been actively considered by this

government.

We are all aware that a short time ago a report from the home support

advisory committee was tabled in this House, calling for a number of changes

that, in fact, in total, would cost the taxpayers of this Province some $70

million. The matter that hon. member refers to is one of these.

Government is actively pursuing this. We recognize that our home support

workers are very valuable employees. They perform a very important service to

the citizens of this Province. We also recognize that they are among the lowest

paid of our health care workers. Certainly, as a government, we want to do

everything we can to support them.

In this year's Budget, as the hon. members would be aware, there is a

provision contained within the Budget to provide in the area of some $5 million

to increase the wages to these home support workers; as a matter of fact, to

increase the basic wage. The lowest wage will go from $5.84 to $7.01. That, I

think, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize as an important first step towards

dealing with that issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: The other matter that the hon. member raises is under active

review and certainly is something that government recognizes that we have to do.

As soon as we are able to identify the funds to do it, we certainly will do

that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the department must pay compensation for

lost wages plus interest, as well as $2,000 for emotional damages as a result of

discrimination against the complainant. I ask the minister: When will this

government stop abdicating its responsibility as an employer to these workers

and ensure that they are covered under a no-fault insurance, as recommended by

the task force on workers' compensation, or would this government rather take

the option of running the risk of being sued each and every time there is an

injury in the home care sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this

government certainly does take seriously the issue at hand. It is not a matter

that we are waiting to be forced by any quasi-judicial body or the courts to act

on issues that we think are of relevance and of importance to the citizens of

this Province. As I have indicated to him, this is a matter that is being

actively pursued by government and will be dealt with in due time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition on the bulk water export from the Province proposed by the

Premier. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of

Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of

water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in

Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going

outside the Province.

It is time we demand our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the

opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spin-off from secondary

processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled

and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we started a petition campaign just two weeks ago, and we are

starting to get petitions come in now already. Mostly, so far, from St. John's,

but we are getting some from rural areas as well. The last time we presented

petitions on this issue, we had literally thousands of petitions to ban the bulk

export of water from this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. The Premier, himself, has admitted

that we do not know what the clawback federally will be from bulk water exports.

We do not yet have a comprehensive royalty regime put in place in this Province,

and already the Premier is talking again about exploring the idea of exporting

water in bulk. That is not to mention the possible implications under NAFTA,

which every other province and the federal government, I may add, have said are

very serious. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. Even if there were no

implications under NAFTA the fact of the matter is this, that this is a resource

that is growing more valuable each and every day. This is a resource that is far

less expensive to process than oil and is, in actual fact, as the former

Minister of Fisheries said yesterday, worth more than oil, and will continue to

grow that way.

Water is in growing demand around the world and we cannot allow this resource

to be treated the way other resources have been treated in this Province in the

past. We have to demand our full and fair share. We have to process this

resource, bottle it in this Province and demand maximum benefits from this

resource right here for the people who own it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave of the House to report on the

Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking leave to revert back to Presenting Reports.

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered

the matter to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates

of Expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Municipal and

Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment;

Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission; and

Governments Services and Lands.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank members on both sides of the

House for their cooperation and assistance, to the staff of the House of

Assembly for their assistance, and to all the members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we are debating a motion by the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise today to debate the resolution that we put forward

yesterday, which essentially calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the House of Assembly to inform the new board of directors of FPI

of their firm resolve - of this House's firm resolve and the government's

firm resolve - to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required

of it in the Fishery Products International Act.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly talk about the history of this important

issue. First of all, we have to put it in the context of what happened eighteen

months ago, when there was a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the problem with the minister? Eighteen years to

start with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back eighteen years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a politically and economically

sensitive, important issue to the people of the Province. Eighteen month ago, in

1999, there was a group of Canadian companies that made a takeover bid. At that

time this House was asked to consider, and government was asked to consider,

lifting the 15 per cent share restriction on FPI to allow such a takeover to

occur, or potentially occur. There was an offer made by the company, which was

called NEOS at the time, to the FPI shareholders. There was a response to that

offer by FPI. While that occurred, there was a commitment in this House, taken

by both side of the Legislature, and enforced by both sides of the Legislature,

I am pleased to say, that if there were to be any changes whatsoever in the

current act, that those changes would have to be okayed by the people in the

communities who are affected. Ultimately, history tells what happened. This

Legislature indicated at that time that the evidence was not clear enough for

us, as elected politicians representing the entire Province, that we were

satisfied that we would move in that direction to lift the share restriction.

Now we wonder why the debate is occurring. I point this out as a matter of fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you do. You know why it is occurring.

Since that time we have seen a group of people who wanted to actually buy out

the company, privatize it, in terms of a share offer. What they could not do and

was said no to them, they began - which was their legitimate right - to purchase

shares in Fishery Products International up to the ceiling. The limitations

imposed upon by the Legislature and imposed upon by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, people began to question in the Province, legitimately, what was

at stake here. The question was asked by many people, and I asked it in this

Legislature. Was a group, or that group, trying to accomplish through the

backdoor what they could not through the front? A legitimate question. The

Deputy Premier and former fisheries critics, and Opposition, would have asked

the same questions that anybody would have asked because it was the right set of

questions to ask. Since that time government sought legal advice, which they

promised, and legal opinion from the Department of Justice which they made a

commitment on March 26 - the Deputy Premier did - and yesterday the Minister of

Justice and the Minister of Fisheries said that they would table in the House

what the legal advice was surrounding this issue, at that time. What was

government advised to do? Which would lead from our opinion and give some more

information out to the public through this Legislature on what advice government

was given, why they acted the way they acted, and eventually what transpired

yesterday.

The spirit and intent of this private member's resolution is very clear -

and it was summarized yesterday by the former Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture - that there are many concerns surrounding what transpired

yesterday. No one can dispute that former competitors of FPI, in certain markets

and certain species all over the world, are now competitors still but yet are

also directors of the company. Now that raises many questions. Some of them I

asked today and some we will ask tomorrow, and we will continue to ask questions

as they arise. Forgetting all of that for the moment, the issue that is at stake

is: How will the development of rural Newfoundland and Labrador continue to

occur? How do we, in our roles as members of this House, how do we as people who

have been elected to serve, ultimately, and protect that resource, protect it

for the people so that maximum benefits can be gained from it? More importantly,

how we use that resource to continue to grow the economies of rural Newfoundland

and Labrador? That is what is at stake. Will we continue to grow operations in

terms of numbers of jobs associated in the processing sector? Will we continue

to enjoy forever and a day the existing quota and add to quotas as time goes on?

Will outside interests, outside of the place we call home of Newfoundland and

Labrador, have access to fish quotas, our quotas, to be used elsewhere? No one

can say that that is not a concern or that we are fearmongering because it has

happened. It happened in shrimp. It has happened in other species, many other

species. We know that. It happened in Northern Cod. The question is: How do we

now, in view of the change and changes that have occurred, fulfill our

obligations, which is first and foremost to the people of the Province? That is

the question.

Within the FPI Act; I believe that the act is very strong. Now, how do we

enforce it? There are legitimate questions I asked today that government needs

to answer on. For example, the questions related to the notion of in concert and

in collusion. What was substantial yesterday, critical yesterday and very

telling yesterday is that the act says: empowers the board of directors - not

this Legislature - alone to determine if a group or a number of individuals, or

a number of companies, are acting in concert. That did not happen yesterday.

Shareholders determined that. Shareholders determined if that was true. Now if

the full provisions of the act were applied, I do not know what would have

happened yesterday. That remains open to speculation but no one can dispute the

fact that shareholders of the company decided the collusion and in concert

issue, not the board of directors. The act does not say that. The act is very

clear on that issue. So there is a legitimate question that deserves to be

asked. The provisions within the act are clear. The provisions in proviso, if it

were enforced in law and in body, who knows what may have happened yesterday? I

certainly do not, but speculation and the question deserve to be answered on one

side.

On the notion of the protection of this Legislature, what power do we have?

We have a lot of power, if we choose to exercise it. Clause 7 of the Fishery

Products International Limited Act is very clear. It say that the company, as it

now exists, cannot sell all or substantially all of its harvesting, its

processing or marketing aspects or operations of the company.

Mr. Speaker, there are questions that deserve to be answered, and I am

pleased to see today that the minister met with the company. In his statement he

has asked, I assume, for a written strategic plan to be presented to government

- Is that the case? Is that what has been requested? - certainly, that

demonstrates how the company plans to do two things: How it plans to fulfill the

promises it has made to the people of the Province; and, secondly, and at the

same time, how it plans to fulfill its commitments and promises to the

shareholders that FPI, as it used to exist yesterday, was not a company that

took advantage of new opportunities or emerging opportunities, and that the

share value was much lower than it should be.

I am interested to see that plan. I am interested to see how two things and

two promises to two separate groups are going to be fulfilled at the same time.

Can it be done? Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of conjecture. It sure can.

Innovation, entrepreneurship, anything is possible; however, this company,

unlike others, is

an act of this Legislature. So we have a legitimate stake in

this issue, we have a legitimate role in asking the questions that should be

asked, and we have a legitimate role in demanding of the company to demonstrate

to the people of the Province, through this Legislature, how they plan to do

exactly that. I will wait and see what comes forward, and we will judge it then

upon it merits. It is the only thing we can do.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns that surround the Province today are ones that

again are legitimate, are ones that many people are asking, and it is about the

future. What does the future hold for rural communities? What does the future

hold for FPI in its role in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the issue

that we are debating today. That is the spirit and intent of our private members'

resolution, that we are asking this House and we are asking this government,

with any change in directors that has occurred - and it has occurred - that we

express in the strongest possible terms, and hopefully in one voice from this

Legislature, that it is our clear intention, and our only intention, to say to

the company that operates, that this House, because you are

an act of this

Legislature, or a creation of this Legislature, because we have a say in what

you will do, beware and understand clearly that whatever we have to do, whatever

must be done to ensure that this company - and the protection of rural jobs, the

protection for rural Newfoundland, from our point of view, how we economically

grow rural communities as vital parts of this Province, that in this instance

and on this act we will move and do whatever is necessary to do.

That is the hub of, that is the spirit of, that is the intent of, this

private members' resolution. I ask all hon. members, when it comes time to

vote on this resolution, that we do so in unison, that we do so together, and

that we send a strong and clear message to anybody and everybody that, in the

final analysis, when it comes to

an act of this Legislature, its laws and its

bodies, that we will do whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that yesterday

evening - I think he heard me across the House - when he presented this

resolution, I think I looked at him, and the resolution read, and I will read

it: that the Government and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador

inform the new board of directors of Fishery Products International Limited of

their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and limitations

required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

In order words, he is saying to us, or what the resolution says, is: hold the

board of directors to the Fishery Products International Act. What I said to him

was, unless we want to lay out our positions very clearly, and we do, and in

terms of support, let me say to the hon. gentleman, as I said to him yesterday

evening across the House, that he will find no objection to this resolution on

this side of the House. Let that be clear to everybody; because we in this

House, as I said yesterday evening, all of us in this House, are concerned with

what is happening and what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador; not only,

I say to him, in the last three or four weeks, but what has happened here since

1982, since 1981, what happened in 1991, what happened in 1987, and the effect

that it has on the social and economic fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let

there be no doubt in anybody's mind that every person in this House is a good

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, because that is what is required and that is

what people come to this Legislature for.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made a number of points about the

shareholders being the people who decided on whether people were acting in

concert or not. That was a piece of legislation that was put in place in 1987.

Without being critical, but just to point out to the hon. gentleman how things

change, I want to read to him what the Minister of Fisheries of that day said

about that act, about Fishery Products International. The hon. gentleman on the

other side says, will the government consider, at this point in time, changing

that act? Let me read to him what his own colleague, who now sits as the Member

for Lewisporte, said. I have no doubt that the Member for Lewisporte meant it

when he said it: We think that we have built into a privatized FPI the

legitimate protection that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve from

the operations of this company. He made that statement.

Mr. Speaker, if the legislation has failed, then I have to say to the hon.

gentleman that it is a failure of the act that was passed in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can I ask a question (inaudible)?

MR. TULK: No, you can ask a question after. You will get the chance to

speak last anyway. I want to finish my thoughts, if you don't mind.

We support the resolution. This morning, however, I do not think you can have

it both ways. I do not think you can have it the way, I have to say to you, that

the president of Fishery Products International has had it for the last month,

when he walked into my office, called me at 8:00 a.m. and asked me if he could

come and see me. I said, by all means, come on now. He arrived in the office at

8:30 a.m. and we had a discussion about the possibilities of this, because

somebody had told him that probably one of the greatest supporters, and one of

the greatest people who was a supporter against the NEOS deal was Beaton Tulk.

He came into the office and he asked me the question: Do you have concerns? I

said: Of course I do. I looked him straight in the face and said: Vic, what do

you want done? Nothing, he said, stay out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TULK: Nothing! Stay out of it!

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is not true.

MR. TULK: That is absolutely what was said. It was also said to the

Minister of Fisheries. It was also said to the Premier of this Province: Stay

out of it. Let matters proceed as they should.

Not only that, but I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I think it was on

Monday afternoon - the vote was Tuesday, wasn't it? On Monday afternoon, at

4:00 p.m., I talked to the gentleman out there and obviously he was feeling

somewhat down. He had expected it, because at that point the share proxies were

in anyway. The score was pretty well known. I said to him: Vic, do you remember

the conversation we had? Yes. Then he comes back and says: Well, you could have

nationalized it. Basically, he said, you could have nationalized the company.

Now, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot come to a minister of the Crown

and say that you do not want them to intercede, that you do not want them to get

involved, and then, when you have lost the battle, come back and say: Oh,

government could have done something. That is what I understand the hon.

gentleman said yesterday. I find that somewhat disturbing; because, as I said to

Vic Young that morning in my office, I have a fish plant called Beothuck Fish,

the best fish company in this Province, run by the best management in this

Province - I don't care whether it is FPI or who it is - and I want to make

sure they are protected, and there is no stone that I will leave unturned to do

so.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. gentleman placed a resolution on the Order

Paper, and it says that we basically confine ourselves to the Fishery Products

International (inaudible). I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to

confine myself only to that act; because, in the process of what has gone on in

the last three or four weeks, the people who are now the shareholders, no longer

the dissident shareholders but were the dissident shareholders, have become the

shareholders, and they made commitments to this Province, and they have to be

held accountable for those commitments. I have to say to you that the day we met

with them, the people concerned about plants in their districts on this side,

the minister concerned, and myself, we put it to them: You made the commitments.

We want to see you live up to those commitments, and we will do whatever the

legislation is, and if the legislation needs to be changed to do it, we will do

that as well.

We are waiting for them, to be frank with you, to come back to us with their

statement of where they intend to take this company in future meetings. We also

told them that we will monitor them rather closely. Mr. Speaker, we will do what

is required to be done, but let me say to the hon. gentleman on the other side

that I think there is another important question here other than just

processing, and where processing goes on in the Province. I think there is

another important question, and I think this is the key issue. If you asked me

today what the key issue is in terms of the survival of outport Newfoundland,

what I call outport Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland, if you asked me what I

think is the key to the survival of rural Newfoundland, I don't believe it is

anything that this Legislature can do. I don't believe it is anything that you

can put into legislation in this Province, and I don't think it has the same

value as processing, and that is the control of quotas. The one big danger that

is here is quota. Where does it go and where does it go for processing? That is

the underlying fundamental question in Newfoundland and Labrador today. If you

have a social conscience, that we have heard, that everybody suddenly wakes up

now and has, if you hear that - five years ago I was hearing: let private

enterprise take care of the works. It will all be taken care of by private

enterprise. The fishery is not like that. That is not the fishery. There may be

industries in this Province that should be solely run by private enterprise. The

fishery is not one of them. The fishery is the soul and the culture and the

fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the area that I represent, the area that

the Member for Bonavista South represents, the area that my colleague from

Burin-Placentia West represents, that the Member for Grand Bank represents, that

the Member for Terra Nova represents, that practically everybody in this House

represents, if they are to survive then you have to have control and some say in

the resource, and the resource here is represented by quotas.

Mr. Speaker, what I have done - this does not take away from your resolution.

I say to you today, it does not take away from your resolution because I have

left it in there totally. You will get a copy immediately. I would ask the

Speaker, if you want time to consider it, to do it. I have left your resolution

in completely but I have amended it; but I think it is a positive amendment, I

say to the hon. gentleman. I think it is. It says:

BE IT RESOLVED that the government and House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador inform the new board of directors of Fishery Products International

Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and

limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

That is the hon. gentleman's resolution, right there. Then I have gone on

and added:

And their intention to hold the company's board of directors accountable

for the public commitments it has made to the residents of this Province to

maintain and enhance employment levels and continue to operate all of its

existing plants.

That is what I have added to the resolution. I think I have made it stronger,

I say to the hon. gentleman. I think he will agree that probably makes it much

more specific. I have then gone on because I think it represents the core

question. This party believes that it represents the core question. If you look

at the Jobs and Growth report - I don't know if the hon. gentleman had a

chance to read it yet or not, but if he does, he will see that it is reflected

in there as well.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government and House of Assembly call upon

the federal government, as trustee of the fisheries resources adjacent to our

Province, to ensure that all current and future quotas held by this company be

harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of the residents of this

Province.

I have added that to the resolution. I say to the hon. gentleman, what I have

done here - I am not going to vote against your resolution. I have no intention

of doing it. What I have done is clearly spelled out to the company and to the

people who, today, control the fisheries resources of this Province, the quotas

of this Province, the resources itself, is that we, as a Province, want to have

some say and we want to ensure that the fisheries resources adjacent to our

Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The last: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government and the House of Assembly call

upon the federal government, as trustee of the fisheries resources adjacent to

our Province, to ensure that all current and future quotas held by this company

be harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of residents of this

Province.

What we are saying to the federal government is we want you to ensure -

because we have no control of it here, none at all. We are saying to the federal

government that in order to ensure what happened yesterday, that in order to do

away with the uncertainty that is out there - like the Minister of Fisheries

said this evening: There are eight good Newfoundlanders on that board. Nobody is

going to convince me that a fellow like Rex Anthony or a fellow like Frank

Coleman, who has a great deal of interest in this Province - there is nobody

going to convince me that Peter Woodward; Derek Rowe - even Derek Rowe, even

though he is (inaudible) company, Vic Young was - John Crosbie; Brendan Paddick

of cable television. It depends directly, that his company depends directly -

take in Bonavista, for example, the people of Bonavista being able to prosper

because he owns a cable company.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I know. I hope not.

There is nobody who is going to convince me that those eight or nine

Newfoundlanders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am going to say what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker.

- that those eight or nine Newfoundlanders, who sat on that board, are

somehow out to put the blocks to Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nobody

going to convince me of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: You cannot have it both ways. Nobody can convince me of that. I

think those people have the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. I

believe that in the final analysis - in the same way everybody in this House

would - that they will vote in what they consider to be the best interest of

their Province. So it is time to do away with this idea that there are some

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have a hidden agendas, who want to somehow

put us all down, that somehow or another FPI cannot survive unless there are a

certain board of directors and a certain CEO there. That says you are

indispensable. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I came awful close to

asking the question: Do certain people feel themselves to be indispensable?

There is obviously nobody in this Province who is dispensable.

There is a problem with quotas. There is a problem with resource. The Member

for The Straits & White Bay North would know it better than anybody, and I

said it yesterday in my speech. The town of Englee cannot survive unless

somebody finds a resource for it. The town of Twillingate is in trouble unless

somebody finds a resource for it. You can have all the laws and all the say you

like about processing but if you do not say that the resources that are adjacent

to our coast have to processed in Newfoundland and Labrador and if you do not

have a voice in saying that then you do not feel (inaudible). I think that is

the greatest thing that can do away, to be frank with you, about the uncertainty

that is in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I think the biggest concern that the

people, who are afraid of what happened yesterday, who are concerned about what

happened yesterday - I think that is the biggest concern that they have, that

somehow or another that resource will be gone. That it will be taken to Nova

Scotia, to New Brunswick and maybe taken off to Iceland. That is the fear that

we have. It has been inbred into our conscience because we have seen so much of

it in our past history.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is what I said, it is in our past history. It is almost

part of our conscience. We are almost scared to get up in the morning afraid

that somebody is going to take something from us, and it is perfectly

understandable that that is the case. So I have strengthened the resolution to

say exactly that. The people who are stewards, trustees, for this resource will

ensure that that resource is processed in this Province.

Madam Speaker, having said that, I will invite other people - I will not take

any more time because there are other people in this House who want to make a

statement on the resource. I suspect there are other people who are going to be

there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, just on a point of order. I wonder if we

could take about five to ten minutes for myself and my colleagues to review the

amendments. This is standard. We have oftentimes introduced amendments to

private member's resolutions where we have recessed the House just for a few

moments; because this is the first time we have had a look at it, the first time

I have heard it. So I would like to have a brief look at it for ten or fifteen

minutes, if that would be okay, Madam Speaker? We will come back and let others,

who want to participate in the debate, to do so.

MR. TULK: I have no problem with that, Madam Speaker.

For the clarity of the speaker, I would like to say that I have amended the

motion by adding the words to the original motion.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand that.

MADAM SPEAKER: This House will now recess for ten minutes.

Recess

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I think it was by agreement that - basically, we

broke for a period of time to allow the Opposition to take a look, as they

should, at the amendments that we put forward. The point is: Are we okay with

the resolution? If we are, we can go on and debate it without any further

hassle.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

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

The resolution, as proposed, and the amendments, as proposed - it is one of

those times, which has occurred on private members' day in the past, where

both the government and the Opposition are in complete agreement on the private

member's resolution, as amended, if I can put it that way. There are other

members, certainly on our side - I understand there are members on the other

side who would like to speak to the amended resolution as it now exists.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will just speak for a few minutes on this resolution, in support of it, of

course. This resolution and FPI in Newfoundland and Labrador is important to

more than just the eight communities that FPI operates plants in. As I said a

couple of days ago, I spent the last three years as a skipper on a fifty-five

footer, fishing shrimp and crab. Pretty well every pound of what we landed, in

those three years, was sold to and processed by FPI. I guess once you look

around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - I had calls today from

fishermen, fisherwomen in Daniels Harbour, who have no direct involvement in

Fishery Products International through sales. There is no fish plant in the

area. The closest one, I guess, is Port au Choix, which basically processes

shrimp. They are groundfish fishermen. Even though they have no direct

involvement in FPI, no direct connection to them, they are obviously very

concerned about potential fallout from the actions of yesterday.

I spoke a little earlier in response to the minister's statement on FPI. I

would like to get back to it because I did not have leave to carry on. I am not

going to get anybody's blood pressure up today. I will try not to anyway

because I think we are all in agreement with what we are saying here.

Madam Speaker, as we go on here we keep coming back to the harvesting. The

Deputy Premier, a few minutes ago, spoke about the harvesting sector and FPIs

quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador, the waters around Newfoundland and

Labrador, and concerned about how we protect these quotas for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, we all know that the federal government has sole control over

allocations and harvesting of fish in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. I

hesitate to use Canadian waters. I guess this is where we come into the problem,

in that this Legislature really is in a bit of a difficult situation when

dealing with those issues. I was going to get to it in my response to the

minister's statement that it is fine today - and I agree with the amendments

as proposed. The amendment: "...that all current and future quotas held by

this company be harvested and processed for the maximum benefit of residents of

this province." As I said the Deputy Premier spoke about -

MR. TULK: Note the word maximum (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I know. The word maximum, yes.

There was a suggestion, I believe, that we should write a letter or

correspond with the federal government on the matters of making sure - and

looking for reassurance from the federal government that these quotas will

remain the property, so to speak, of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am getting to my point. My point is, I guess, that in recent weeks the

Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review has been ongoing. That is something that does

not happen every other day. However effective it might be at the end of the day,

it is going on and we have, I guess, to give it the benefit of the doubt, and

give the people who are conducting the review the benefit of the doubt. I am not

sure but I think what I am going to say is right, and somebody on the government

side can certainly correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that this

government did not submit to the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review panel when it

was going around.

We are looking for some kind of co-management. I know that we have been

getting lip service from the federal government on this issue for years, and I

know that is something that is going to be difficult to attain, but when we have

an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review ongoing that deals with so many issues in

the fishery - every issue, basically, in the fishery, whether it is allocations

to some extent, management, certainly, of the fishery, issues like vessel

replacement - the Member for Port de Grave and I had a little to and fro on that

the other day about who got control over it. Ultimately, whether Richard Cashin

has his mouth going about it or not, the federal government are the people who

control that department, and control harvesting, and control quota allocations

and so on. So we should have been at that Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review, and

we should have put a position forward to the federal government at that time on

how we think -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) put forward four weeks ago.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, it was my understanding that it was not. As I said, I

look for -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, but I think the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review is the

panel; and while it is good to correspond with the minister, ultimately the

panel is also there.

Anyway, moving on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't mind him too much.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't mind him too much.

Anyway, I will got back to some of the Deputy Premier's statements also. He

spoke about several weeks ago when Vic Young called him at 8:00 in the morning

and asked for a meeting, and he came in and met with him. I guess this is why

this is here today, saying:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the government and House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador inform the new board of directors of

Fishery Products International Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company

to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products

International Limited Act.

I guess there are a lot of people, myself included, who question whether or

not the previous board actually upheld the act, as it is, on collusion and

acting in concert under the 15 per cent ownership rule. The reason I brought up

the Deputy Premier's meeting with Mr. Young is that he asked: What can I do?

What do you want me to do? As I understand him to say it, Mr. Young said:

Nothing. Stay out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay out of it, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I asked a question to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture a couple of days ago: What is the government doing to ensure that

the board of directors of FPI are upholding the Fishery Products International

Limited Act? I do not know what you told me. I could not get an answer out of

it. I am not sure that you answered my question. You told me that you had been

aware of the meeting that happened over the weekend.

I will get back to my point about Mr. Young, and the government's response

to Mr. Young. If you would just listen for second, what you said was that he

said: Don't do anything. You said: Fine, we won't do anything.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I am going to.

I know that the hon. gentleman is new here. I know that, and I appreciate

that, but let me just say to him that what I said to Vic Young was quite clear.

It was in the best interest of - at the time, I thought - FPI as they existed.

Is there anything we can do? The answer was: No, stay out of it.

It does not reflect anything that we have or have not done, but that was the

advice we received from the CEO who presumably represented the board of

directors. That is all there is to it. You cannot put any more than that to it.

If the man had asked for help, he would have gotten it, but he did not ask.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my point, if the minister would settle down and

listen to what I have to say, he will understand that my question was not

whether the government did anything as a result of Mr. Young's request or not.

The question is, and the question to the Minister of Fisheries a couple of days

ago was: Did the board of directors uphold the act?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, whose opinion is that? Is that a legal opinion? Is it

your opinion, or whose opinion is it?

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: Just to try to clear up the matter, Mr. Speaker, you have asked

a question and you asked it last week. Last week when you asked the question, I

told you that it was up to the board, the current or the past board of directors

of FPI, to determine whether or not the dissident board was acting in concert.

It says that in the legislation. It does not say that the minister or the

government determines whether or not the board was acting in concert. What it

says is that the board determines that. Mr. Young never once looked at me and

said: We don't have the ability to determine that. He did not say anything in

that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am tempted to go back and agree with the Minister of Education's

suggestion that we need to get more language arts education in the schools,

because some people are not very good listeners or something.

What I am saying is: Are we satisfied that the board of directors carried out

the act? I am not saying that you should have carried out the act. The board did

not rule. Let's face it, Mr. Minister, the board did not rule whether there

was collusion or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I guess the question is, then, in debating - and

that is the reason this resolution is here today - is that we hope that the

government, in the future -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Anyway, it was not any individual's decision, I don't

think, to decide on whether or not there should be interference from the

government. The board of directors were responsible to uphold the act on that

clause on whether or not collusion existed, and there are questions. We asked

questions the other day and we haven't gotten answers, I suggest to the

minister, to the members opposite, on that. Maybe when we get the legal advice

that the Department of Justice sought, we will get a satisfactory answer to

that; but, as of to date, we do not have a satisfactory answer.

I guess why I went down that road on the acting in collusion, and whether the

board upheld the act as it presently exists, is that we still have clause 7. I

guess the reason why everybody in this Province, or the majority of the people

in this Province, are paranoid about what is going on here today, and the

minister spoke about it a few minutes ago, is how it has been our history that

we have seen resources taken from here. We have seen the benefits from the

resources taken from here and carted off.

I suggest to the minister and to the House that it is not just the past. It

is the present. We still have those types of things; not to the extent,

probably, that we had them in the past, but it is still there and that is why

people are paranoid about it today.

The minister brings up St. Anthony from time to time, and Englee from time to

time, and I know that Fishery Products International -

MR. SPEAKER: And Twillingate -

MR. TAYLOR: And Twillingate, right.

MR. TULK: And Ramea, and Burgeo (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I know. I know where the plants were.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I know that Fishery Products International closed down

St. Anthony plant in 1992, and I know it did not reopen until Clearwater started

to build a plant there in - what is this? 2001. In 1998, I guess it was, three

years ago, they built a plant there and reopened it in 1999, I believe it was.

Yes, some time in 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I know that, and the concern in Newfoundland and Labrador today

is about who is going to operate the plants best, I think. That is some of the

concern that you see there in the public, but this is not about who is going to

operate St. Anthony plant best. It is not about who is going to operate the

Bonavista plant, or Catalina plant, or Port Union plant best, I guess; any of

the eight plants, or the twenty-odd plants, or thirty-odd plants, or however

many plants we have operating in Newfoundland today. It is about control of the

industry, it is about consolidation of ownership of the industry, and it is

about competition. I understand the minister's comments earlier about changes

to the Collective Bargaining Act and binding arbitration, final offer selection,

and all of that. I understand all of that, but we all know that in the fishery

today there is the price and then there is the price. We all know that. If you

don't, I do. Like I said, I spent the last number of years at it.

MR. TULK: How did you do with it?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you still pay taxes on it. Now, some fellows might not.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Oh, we did alright.

I heard somebody - I believe it was the Minister of Transportation, the other

day - say that he threw away more fish that I caught.

MR. TULK: How did the crew do with it?

MR. TAYLOR: The crew did good, Sir. I was one of the crew, actually. I

was the skipper and crew. I wasn't the owner.

This is where the concern is amongst the fish harvesters. The fishermen in

Newfoundland and Labrador today are concerned about how the control of this

industry now is resting in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and how that is

going to affect the competition on the wharf. It is a legitimate concern, a very

legitimate concern, and I suggest that in the fishery, although the Collective

Bargaining Act has been improved, although final offer selection is an

improvement over the past, that in large part the industry has not advanced and

the collective bargaining within the industry has not advanced to the stage yet

where all this under the table money can be cleaned up and we can really deal

with it through contract negotiations in the absence of competition. There is

that concern.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the major concern of everybody here

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief now.

I guess the major concern of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

the concern certainly of myself and the reason that this resolution is here

today, is concern about what happened eighteen months ago with the NEOS bid.

Some of the same proponents today came back and have now taken control, I guess,

of the board of directors. The industry is very concerned about what will happen

with the marketing arm of FPI, and what impact that will have on the day to day

operations of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the future of the

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly share those concerns and

hope, in the days and months to come, that the governments sees fit to keep the

current board of directors of FPI to their commitments to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador over the past number of weeks and to hold them to

their responsibilities under the Fishery Products International Act and ensure

that not all, not substantially all, not even a little bit all, of the assets of

FPI, particularly its marketing arm in the United States, are sold to

competitors or otherwise, and that we maintain control of the very important

market that we have in the United States for the benefit of the Newfoundland and

Labrador fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have an extremely sore throat, so I don't know if I will speak very long.

If I get lost at some juncture, it is because, as my hon. colleague, the

Minister of Finance, said: sometimes my brain gets ahead of my mouth.

As the leader said earlier, he wants to go back eighteen months ago to when

NEOS came in here and asked the government if they would lift the 15 per cent

restriction at the time. We said we would only do if the communities affected

agreed to it, and it did not happen. Shortly after being sworn in as Minister of

Fisheries, back some fifty or sixty days ago, I had the occasion of Mr. Young,

the president of FPI, or the CEO and president of FPI, call up and say: We would

like to give you and your staff a briefing on the structure and on FPI in

general. So, myself and the assistant deputy minister went to Mr. Young's

office and he and a couple of his vice-presidents gave us a briefing on the

company. It is a very impressive company, as you people know, especially some of

you who have FPI plants in your town. We spent about two-and-a-half hours there

that afternoon, and at the end of it Mr. Young said to me, that there appeared

to be some movement afoot, on behalf of Mr. Risley, to again take a run at the

board. I asked him what his concerns were at the time and he said that he was

concerned that, with the Legislature opening, they might be coming back to ask

if we would have the 15 per cent clause removed. I told him at the time: There

are no intentions, on my behalf, to have the 15 per cent share restriction

removed, and no one in our government. Basically, that was the end of the

conversation.

He said there was something afoot, and about a week after that Mr. Risley

came in - and I was privy to the meeting that he had with the Premier - and

said: We are just here, basically, on a social call, to tell government that we

are putting forward a slate for the upcoming board of directors' election. We

asked, at the time: Are you asking us to remove the 15 per cent share

restriction? The answer was a categoric no. Are you asking us to do anything at

this time? No. Well, thank you very much, we will see you later.

They entertained a discussion, I know, in the House of Assembly since then,

while I was at the International Boston Seafood Show. This is when it all broke,

the following week. The Leader of the Opposition got up and said: Why didn't

you grill them on this, grill them on that, grill them on something else? But,

to have done so - eighteen months ago, or twelve months ago, we went through all

of this with NEOS and the takeover. At that time, for us to grill him on what

they were going to be doing and this, that, and the other thing with FPI would

have been to assume that they were going to win.

We knew they were putting forward a slate. Mr. Young had told me that all he

was interested in, at that time, was that we not remove the 15 per cent share

restriction. Okay. So, when it all broke, and at the time I was at the Boston

Seafood Show - I wish for all of you, if you have the opportunity, to go to the

Boston Seafood Show. I do not know if my critic has been there, but it is

definitely worth taking in, because you realize the role that Newfoundland plays

in the fishing industry of the world. The first time I went there I was

absolutely amazed, because I was always taught growing up in school that

Newfoundland was the fishing capital of the world. I figured that we produced 95

per cent of the fish that was consumed in the world. To my surprise, when I went

to work with the Department of Fisheries in 1989, I realized that we produced

one-half of 1 per cent of the fish that is consumed in the world. Having said

that, if you go to the Boston Seafood Show you would realize very quickly that

even though we are only a small part of the entire fishing industry of the world

we have a great presence there. The companies that are taking

part in the

fishery of this Province are doing a tremendous job in marketing their product

and having a presence.

Anyway, it all broke, and I can remember I actually listened from Boston to

the comments that were being made by the Opposition that day and the general

drift of the comments. I have spoken to members opposite since I got back. The

general drift that I got from it was that you people, on the opposite side,

wanted us, basically, to interfere in the selection of the board of directors,

and, from what I was hearing on the phone, and heard later, that basically you

wanted us to nationalize the company.

I have talked to a member opposite and I told him that is the impression I

got all the way from Boston. He said: Boy, if you got that impression, you got

the right one, because that is the same one that I had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Never mind now, boys. Listen now. I wasn't too bad with my

colleague across the floor.

We sought legal advice, not only from our own legal experts in the Department

of Justice, but we also went outside the Province. The reason we did that is

because we thought that a number of the law firms would somehow be involved in

representing different individuals and companies in the Province who were taking

part in this takeover, or bid for the board. Everyone who has come back to us

from that point on said: Basically, the only thing that you can do to interfere

is come out and say, no, the shareholders of a publically traded company are not

permitted to select a new board of directors.

Basically, to summarize what that means, is that the only way we could have

prevented that under out legislation is to draft an anti-Risley act and bring it

into this House of Assembly, or to nationalize the company, whereby, forever and

a day, what you would be asking us to do would be, either me or the government

would have to determine who was going to be the next board of directors for FPI.

If we wanted to get into that, then you know what would happen, what would

happen to the share price in FPI, what would happen to Newfoundland's image in

the world. You have a company up and running and all of a sudden it becomes a

very profitable company, then you want to take it over and tell these people who

own this company they are not allowed to vote for a bunch of directors.

From that point on, Mr. Speaker, I had a number of discussions with Mr. young

and some of the vice-presidents from FPI. In fact, I had one or two in Boston

when I was there at the time. When I said, what do you want us to do, what can

we do, the answer was: Don't know, or nothing at this time. I have had

numerous conversations with Vic Young on this. The Premier has had numerous

conversations with him, because I have been privy to those conversations. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, last weekend, not this one past but the weekend before, I had

a call from Mr. Young or his vice-president saying: We need to talk to the

Premier today. It is a Saturday. Can you get in touch with him and have him call

us? I did that on a Saturday, and I did it on Sunday. I know that he talked to

them.

I was in my office on St. George's Day. No one else was in the office, it

was a holiday. I had a call from Mr. Young. He was very upset over the comments

that Mr. Crosbie made in the national papers in this country and he wanted to

talk to the Premier again. I got the Premier to call him back. The Premier came

on the Fisheries Broadcast that afternoon and said what Mr. Crosbie was

saying was not right and it was not doing the Province any good. We have done

everything that Mr. Young has asked us to do. So I do not know.

As I said, I was getting the impression from the Opposition over there that

they wanted us to nationalize the company, and then last Monday or the Monday

before last I hear the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party on the

air saying exactly what we had been saying, that you can't - you shake your

head. Give me the quote there. I heard him on the Fisheries Broadcast . I

have this here and I can table it if you do not believe me. It says: I think it

is an internal corporate battle. You cannot get involved in exactly what goes on

in the board of directors. Mr. Williams says that. But to my dismay -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MR. TULK: What is the point of order? He did say it.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He obviously said it, but I want to be clear to the

Minister of Fisheries. At no time in this Legislature, in Question Period, or

outside this Legislature in public commentary, or anywhere, did anybody on this

side of the House, ever suggest, ever intimate or leave an impression, that we

wanted this government to nationalize FPI. To suggest that is the case is

complete and utter rubbish, minister. No one has done it. Any sober, sound

reflection, or look at Hansard in this House, would not lead you or anybody else

in the Province to reach that conclusion. If you did, all I can tell you that

you grasp of quantum physics is much better than ours, because it just did not

happen.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I was interrupted, I said that - and I will stand by what I said, by

the way, Madam Speaker, because one of the members of his own caucus said:

Gerry, if that was the impression that you had, that we wanted to nationalize

the company, boy, that was the impression that I had. Now that was one of your

own members and I do not want to name him here today, because I have some

respect for his views at times.

Well, if you did not say, nationalize the company, what have you been saying

for the past month? The government has to get involved, the government cannot

let this happen, the government cannot let this dissident slate be elected.

Alright. So what are we to do?

The only thing that our experts in the Justice Department, and our legal

experts outside the Justice Department, say is: The only way that you can stop

it is to nationalize the company. You tell me what you meant, because we do not

know and I have been asking that question.

Mr. Williams, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, says: You

cannot get involved in what goes on with the board of directors. I do not know

exactly what he said, but I can tell you how it was interpreted on an Open Line

show, that all of a sudden this is changed and government should have acted. I

am asking the question here, like I have been asking it for a month: How should

we have acted? It is easy to go out there and say: You should not do this, you

should do that. All I can say to some of you is that some of you change your

minds more often than some of us change our underwear.

The other thing: All through this debate we have constantly asked the

Opposition, we have constantly asked our legal experts, and we have constantly

asked the previous board of directors of FPI what should we do. The answer has

always come back: Nothing.

MR. TULK: Stay out of it.

MR. REID: Stay out of it.

Then, yesterday afternoon- and I was just asked the question outside the

House of Assembly by a reporter - Mr. Young made reference yesterday that the

government could have done something, and had Brian Peckford been Premier today,

he would have done something. But, Brian Peckford and the Member for Lewisporte

drafted, crafted and pushed that legislation through the House of Assembly and

bragged, to this day, that it was a good piece of legislation, and it was not a

bad piece of legislation. I have asked -

AN HON. MEMBER: Supported by (inaudible).

MR. REID: That is what I said: And it was not a bad piece of legislation.

All I am saying is that for three, four or five weeks we have been constantly

hearing: You have to do something; you have to do something; you have to do

something. We asked the question, what should we do, and no one has the answer.

The legal advice to us is that we could not act unless we were ready to

nationalize the company. So we didn't. Mr. Young said yesterday that we should

have acted, and Mr. Peckford would have. Well, if he had told me what he wanted

us 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.

The reporter also asked me outside the House of Assembly: That Mr. Young

suggested - and this is very important, because it answers my hon. critic's

question, if he would listen. She asked me: Mr. Young said yesterday that he did

not have the wherewithal - this goes back to the question from the Member for

the Straits - or he gave the impression that he did not have the wherewithal, to

determine whether or not people were acting in concert. Mr. Speaker, I can tell

you right now that if Mr. Young did not have the wherewithal to determine if

they were acting in concert, and if he thought that they were acting in concert

and did not do something about it, then all I can say is he was negligent in his

duties to the board of directors, to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and, furthermore, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because if he did not have the wherewithal to determine if they

were acting in concert - had he told the government that he was extremely

concerned about this, that he did not have the wherewithal to determine if they

were acting in concert - then he should have let all of us know that. Because,

the legislative right was in the board's hands. It was the board's hands ,

and not the government's hands, that were given the responsibility to

determine if this dissident board were acting in concert. You said there was

nothing done about it, but there appears to have been something done about it

over the weekend.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could I remind the hon. Minister that his time is up.

MR. REID: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. REID: Over the weekend here is what happened. There was a deal

struck. I do not know who did it. I know that the lawyer for the past board of

directors of FPI came to an agreement that they would back out those they

thought were acting in concert. They would not vote. One, Mr. John Risley, 15

per cent of the shares; Icelandic Freezing Plants Limited owns roughly 15 per

cent of the shares; and Derrick Rowe who owns less than 1 per cent. What they

did is they said: Here are the people we think could be acting in concert. We

will take them out and lay them over here. They are not going to vote on

Tuesday. So that leaves us with roughly 70 per cent of the shares left. The

agreement was that if the past board, led by Mr. Young, got 50 per cent, plus 1

per cent, of the remaining shares in that company to vote on their behalf

yesterday at the board meeting, then that would be as far as it would go

yesterday. They would withdraw from the meeting and they would have until May 29

to determine whether or not the three that were cast aside as acting in concert,

were actually acting in concert. But, if 50 per cent plus 1 per cent of the

shares voted in favour of Mr. Risley and his group, then Mr. Young would step

down and say that the vote was final. In actual fact, the vote came in at 82 per

cent. So if you are talking about acting in concert, how can you say that 82 per

cent of the shareholders in FPI were acting in concert? How do you do that? How

do you tell the Ontario teachers' pension fund, who has invested in this

company, that they were acting in concert?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You wanted to talk about it.

What I am saying is: Had Mr. Young thought and determined that these people

were acting in concert and that he did not have the wherewithal to challenge

this, he made no indication to us that he had a problem because the legislation

gives him and his board the power to determine whether they were acting in

concert. We would not have even had a vote yesterday -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has had time now to conclude.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I will clue up by saying that I believe we were

very diligent in examining what happened to FPI and the board of directors

selection in the past five or six weeks. We have done everything in our power.

We will continue to do everything in our power to make sure that the new board

of directors live up to the commitments that they made to us and the people of

this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this private member's resolution that is

brought forward here today and make a quick comment on what the minister talked

about, how people were saying that the government should have done more; and the

government did enough. I say to the minister, the only person I heard that from

was somebody on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true. I know what I heard, I say to the minister.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: He is misleading the House when he said that the comment only

came from that one person. I know who he is talking about. I am telling you it

came from more than that one person. It came from this House when you were

calling on us (inaudible) to do something that you would not identify. Mr. Young

said it yesterday, that the government could have stopped this from happening.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the people in the

House. I am not talking about Mr. Young. I am talking about the people in the

House here.

I say to people opposite that I understand the government, the minister, and

the deputy minister met with the new board of directors for Fishery Products

International. That is welcome news because there are many fears out there.

There are many concerns out there. I have initiated a call to meet with the new

chief executive officer of Fishery Products International. I have initiated a

call and I expect to get a meeting to express my views and to express the people's

opinions in the district that I represent, which includes two major fish plants;

probably a district that is more concerned about this particular takeover of

this Newfoundland fishing company than any other district in the House of

Assembly here today. I am talking about -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I have to do this because I know that you cannot

rise and do it yourself; but the Madam Speaker, in the chair right here, has

three FPI plants in her district, I will have you to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I do not know how much the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture knows about the fishery, but if you have three fish

plants that Fishery Products International owns in your district, I say to Madam

Speaker -

MADAM SPEAKER: Baine Harbour, Marystown and Burin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then: How

many fish plants are owned by Fishery Products International and if you will

name them? He talks about eight or nine plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Anyway, sit down.

MR. REID: We are operating nine in the Province right now, Madam Speaker.

Do you want me to name them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, name them for us.

MR. FITZGERALD: If he is going to name nine, Madam Speaker, he is not

going to include Baine Harbour, I say to you. If he does not include Baine

Harbour I do not know where the three is that would be in your district because

they would not be included.

MR. H. HODDER: Baine Harbour is not included.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it is

right that you have two but I am not so certain about three.

Madam Speaker, I compliment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question (inaudible) Madam Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was you. It was not hers at all.

Madam Speaker, I say to members opposite that I attended the shareholders

meeting yesterday down at the Delta Hotel, as well as two other members: the

member from Green Bay and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor-Springdale.

MR. FITZGERALD: Windsor-Springdale.

MS S. OSBORNE: And the Minister of Fisheries was not there.

MR. FITZGERALD: I was not certain what was happening when I went into the

meeting there. In fact, I did not have any idea what was happening. I thought it

might have been a situation where the people who were allowed to vote were going

to support and vote for the present board of directors. Then I was concerned

about a court case unfolding where Fishery Products International, as we know

it, would get all tied up in a court battle rather than dealing with the

fishery, rather than dealing with economic activities within the fish plants in

our districts, and I feared of how the whole thing would unfold. I met Mr. Young

at the door and he indicated to me that the votes were tracked, and the vote was

over as far as he was concerned. It was obvious what was going to happen. The

dissident board had been -

MR. REID: When was that? Before the vote?

MR. FITZGERALD: That was before the vote was counted or disclosed, I say

to the minister.

MR. REID: Before it was counted or before it was taken?

MR. FITZGERALD: Before it was disclosed. There were some proxy votes

because the tracking was done at the time and he had known they were going to

lose by quite a margin, Madam Speaker. When the Leader of the Opposition -

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

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

point of order.

MR. REID: I have to clarify something because the Member for St. John's

West just indicated that the Member for Bonavista South was there and that I was

not. The reason I was not there yesterday is because Mr. Young told me the day

before basically what the outcome of that meeting was going to be so I did not

see why I should there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to stop taking orders from

Mr. Young.

I say to members opposite, when the Leader of the Opposition got up and

talked about what happened eighteen months ago, members on the opposite side

said: Never mind eighteen months ago, go back eighteen years ago; which the

member could have but everybody knew what he was talking about. He was talking

about the NEOS bid eighteen months ago and we should have been prepared for what

was happening here.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) just put the current debate in context.

MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly. I say to members opposite that I can go back

eighteen years myself because I was involved and working in the fishery at the

particular time when Fishery Products International had been, I suppose, born by

this Legislature and was put in place by the Bank of Montreal, the federal

government and the provincial government in order to look after the affairs of

seven or eight fish plants that were in trouble.

Madam Speaker, at that particular time, in 1992 when the moratorium was

announced, I lost my job. I worked in a fish plant that Fishery Products

International owned and closed down, and when this whole debate started about a

new dissident slate of directors taking over Fishery Products International, I

wondered to myself if it was going to be the people on the inside saying: Don't

allow this to happen; and the people on the outside saying: Come on, come on,

because now a new beginning, a new chance, a new board of directors, than it

might include me because I have been left out of this. Maybe I will get a job. I

was surprised that that did not happen, not to a great extent. There was some of

it but not a lot, and it did not happen because of the fact that people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador trusted and had respect for people who had earned

their trust.

Madam Speaker, there is no argument over here on this side as to, I suppose,

the intent, to the personalities or to the ability of the thirteen members who

are now making up Fishery Products International. There is nobody over here on

this side -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not, I say to the member. I will tell you what,

I say to the Member for Bell Island, that you were not there to see it but there

were lots of sharks around the Delta Hotel yesterday. There were lots of sharks

around the Delta Hotel yesterday, I say to the member opposite. Lots of them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You would not know if it hit you in the eyes.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an argument about Vic Young, John Risley, Mr. Sobey

or Mr. Hickman. This is much greater than that. This is about a company that

affects not only the nine communities where they have a physical presence but it

is about a company that pretty well affects the whole of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Sometimes when a change is brought about, a change is welcome. A

change is exciting. A change is new; but other times, like this change, then it

is not comforting.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many plants did the FPI organization close down over

the last ten years?

MR. FITZGERALD: How many plants did they close down? I am not too sure of

the number of plants but I think it was something like eight other companies

that came to form Fishery Products International as we know it today. There was

a fair number of plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. A lot, you are right. That is why I

wanted to say that I thought it might be a situation where people who were

involved and lost their jobs, and communities that had lost their plants, would

come and rally behind this but I have not seen a lot of evidence of that. As I

said, I was one of the people who lost my job back at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ended up on your feet though.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ended up on my feet and a lot of other people ended up

on their feet but there are some ruins left out there as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not going to stand here today and heap praise on the

former CEO of Fishery Products International, but I tell you what, he was a very

capable, reputable man who had a social conscience. I tell you what, every time

that I made a telephone call to his office I was accommodated. I tell you what,

every time I wanted a delegation to come in and talk about opening a plant, or

every time I had a delegation come in looking for extra work we were

accommodated. When we left, we left knowing the truth.

It is not about Vic Young. Myself and Mr. Young had a lot of disagreements as

well. I remember when I was trying to get the plant down in Port Union open. The

biggest plant - and this could be another argument that somebody might shout

out. I know Marystown is by far the biggest plant now, but I think at that

particular time Port Union was the biggest plant in all of the Fishery Products

International operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you try to get him to run for the leadership?

MR. FITZGERALD: Did I try to get him to run for the leadership? That is

something you will have to ask him. You have to ask him those questions. I

cannot go answering those type of questions today.

MR. SHELLEY: We know who you got.

MR. FITZGERALD: We know who you tried to get to run and we know that

there has been no honeymoon with your leader. We know that you made a mistake.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, there are lots of people involved in our

party who are capable of being leaders. That is one thing, there is no shortage

of people who are capable within our party.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely, all leaders.

I have never agreed with the amount of production that has been happening in

Bonavista. I have never agreed with the plant in Port Union, which employed

1,400 people, being closed down; the flagship of the Fishery Products

International operation, and nothing being done there. It was something that

included a lot of meetings. It included a lot of delegations coming from our

communities in to meet with the present board. At that particular time when we

left we would have an answer. With the new board, with the new group of people -

and I refer back to the NEOS bid eighteen months ago. I remember meeting with

them. At that particular time those people were going from one community to the

other making up a business plan as they went. People who thought they were going

to be offered some opportunity, all of a sudden said: We had better stop and

look at what is happening here. We might just lose the little bit that we have.

We have gone through enough turmoil in this industry. We have gone through

enough hardship. We are not so sure that we believe what we are being told, and

because of that, that particular bid failed. So it is no surprise to see a group

of people come back again to try to take over this fishing company which means

so much to this Province.

I remember a few weeks ago; we met with Mr. Risley and some of the people on

the board. We raised a question, and I raised a question: I am not so sure how

we can go and make up our mind, or how I can make