March 12, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 50

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Did we check with the other leaders in the Legislature to

ask if we could begin today by making reference and paying tribute to a former

member who has passed away since we last gathered?

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Walter Carter who

passed away on January 20 at seventy-two years of age. Born in Ship Island,

Bonavista Bay, in 1929, Walter Carter represented the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador in all three levels of government. He served the City of St. John's

as a member of council. He served as a Minister of the Crown in several

provincial administrations, and as a federal Member of Parliament for St. John's

West, in the House of Commons. His success in politics, Mr. Speaker, is evidence

of his likeable personality and his astute political mind, which many of us in

this House have witnessed firsthand.

After retiring from politics as the MHA for Twillingate district in 1996, Mr.

Carter began work on an autobiography of his life in politics. Before his death,

he completed and published this book entitled, Never a Dull Moment , in

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join me in expressing

condolences to Mr. Carter's family, and also to recognize the contribution his

work and his individual efforts have made to the Province and to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Premier in offering

condolences to the Carter family. The day of his death was indeed a sad day for

this Province.

I like to remember Walter Carter in a light way, for the manner in which he

was and the type of gentleman that he was. Our firm was fortunate enough to have

him as a client for many, many years; I think at the time, probably, when Jack

Harris was in the firm at the same time.

He was always a delight when he was in the office. He was very pleasant. He

was always a great storyteller, and it was a pleasure to be with him, I must

say. He had, in fact, over the years, actually encouraged me and suggested that

I should get into politics at some point in time, and I followed his direction.

I also had the pleasure of knowing his family. I played hockey with his son,

Roger, and certainly enjoyed, I guess, the experience and the familiarity that I

had with the family. Of course we have seen him, obviously, operate with several

political parties back in the olden days when he was with the Conservative

Party. He was a great politician. He was a pleasure to watch.

I join with the Premier in expressing the condolences to the family, but

thanking the Carter family for his contribution for what he has given to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is truly an icon and the Province is

better by the mere fact that Walter Carter has been part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in

commending to all members of the House the fond memories we have of Walter

Carter, and the contribution that he has made to this House and to politics in

this Province. He had the distinction, as mentioned by the Premier, of serving

in all three levels of representation: municipal, provincial, and federal, and

two of the three political parties that are represented in this House today. He

is a great advertisement - I say this lightly as well - a great advertisement

for public representation and for public life. He loved being elected and

representing people in the Province. He was a great advertisement for democracy,

and his example should be commended to all those who believe that we do have an

important democracy and can offer ourselves to contribute to it.

He is remembered warmly by me, certainly in this House, and from my knowledge

of him and his family before that and since. We are all sorry to see him pass so

quickly after his retirement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today

to congratulate the Burin Peninsula School Board Scholarship winners from my

district.

These students had the first, second and third highest averages from their

graduating classes in the 2001 school year. This year's winner of a $200

scholarship for first place in their schools were: Karen Power of Christ the

King School in Rushoon; Janelle Kenway of Pearce High in Burin; and Heather

Kirby of Marystown Central High School.

Second place winners receiving a scholarship of $150 were: Desiree Leonard of

Christ the King; Steven Maye of Pearce High; and Melissa Brockerville of

Marystown Central High School.

Third place winners receiving $100 scholarships are: Nicole Synard of Christ

the King; Stephanie Lundrigan of Pearce High; and Kyla Brake of Marystown

Central High School.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of those students on their receipt of those

scholarships, and their achievements, and wish them all the best of luck in

their future academic endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to offer congratulations to Krystal Penney and Laura Chislett.

They are both students at Booth Memorial High School and they were awarded first

place at the Science Fair, at the senior level. Their project demonstrated the

effects of different types of footwear on bone development, and it involved a

fair amount of research which they carried out over at the Janeway Hospital. It

involved, as well, a lot of hard work. They are certainly to be commended. That

is a very important project, and very important in the development of children's

feet.

I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating them and offering

them best wishes as they go on to higher regional competitions over the next

couple of weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a man who made a

significant contribution to his community and to the whole Province.

Lewis Gosse passed away on January 7, at the age of seventy years. Mr. Gosse

was a lifelong community volunteer and leader, serving three terms as the Mayor

of Spaniard's Bay. During this time, he maintained an unparalleled level of

service to the community and had a strong work ethic. He served eleven years as

a board member and chairman of the former Avalon North Integrated School Board.

He was also an executive member of the Avalon West School Board.

His devotion to his church culminated in his studies for the Anglican

ministry at Queen's College. He was ordained as a deacon on October 12, 2001.

He was well known for his dedication to his family and to the community of

Spaniard's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in expressing

condolences to Mr. Gosse's family and also to recognize the contribution that

his work and individual efforts have made to the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 6 to March 10, high schools across Labrador held the first ever

Labrador High School Sports Meet. The tournament, according to everyone who

attended, was a tremendous success.

I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to stand here today and congratulate all athletes

who participated in this meet and to recognize two of the young athletes from

Labrador West who were selected as the Most Valuable Player Awards of the

tournament.

Krystal Burt of Menihek High received the Top Female Athlete Award and also

finished second in the Bench Reach. Ryan Turpin, also from Menihek High,

received the Top Male Athlete Award.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues here in this House, and for all

students, coaches and residents of Labrador when I say that while this event was

a first, we hope it is the first of what will become an annual event.

According to Jamie Hunt of Menihek High, who is a teacher and coached the

Labrador West team, the tournament was a total success with all athletes

demonstrating a high level of sportsmanship in a very positive atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, bringing together students from all regions of Labrador is much

more than a sporting event. Young people experience educational benefits from

meeting, first hand, others of different cultures and backgrounds, learning more

than they would learn in a classroom setting.

In closing, I offer congratulations to all athletes and coaches for what has

been referred to as an amazing, successful tournament.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to acknowledge the formation of a new association in my District of

St. John's East, namely the Churchill Park Neighbourhood Association. The

Churchill Park Neighbourhood Association has a mandate to monitor and address

issues concerning the quality of life of its neighbourhood and seeks to preserve

and enhance the social and physical environment of the neighbourhood community.

Issues of concern may include traffic, safety, policing, development within

the area and provide an avenue for interaction with various levels of

government.

The Association has met on several occasions, and as recently as last night

formulated its constitution and by-laws, and elected an interim Board of

Directors.

I congratulate these individuals on their interest in this particular

endeavour, and I wish them well as they continue their work on behalf of the

residents of the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to inform the people of our

Province that government has decided not to appeal the decision of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to pay equity for government

employees in the hospital HS sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The implementation of this final adjustment to pay

equity will see the date for implementing the classes onto scale in accordance

with the arbitrator's original ruling.

Mr. Speaker, government feels this decision is fair and to appeal further

would only be a disservice to our employees. The decision will cost government

approximately $4 million per year. This is a good news announcement today for

these employees and will bring resolution to pay equity issues for these

workers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to add, that if the minister felt it was such a disservice, why

did it get to this point in the first place, I want to ask the minister? The

second thing I want to say is, based on your government's performance in the

courts, I could not think of a better conclusion to draw here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased with the statement of the minister for the benefits

that it will confer on people who were found to be discriminated against by

government in its policies. I look forward to the minister making a similar

announcement with respect to the decision on the home care workers; that the

government is, in fact, the employer of home care workers and starts to deal

with the pay equity issues in relation to home care workers in this Province,

which discriminates against women in our Province, and which is aided by

government's role as employer even though they try to deny it.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance did not deny that her government is

considering taking upwards of $100 million from the Labrador Transportation

Initiative Fund in order to shore up revenues in cash for the presentation of

her Budget next Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal

Affairs, would you support this shameful cash grab, the raiding of funds that

you, yourself, took pride in saying that it was designed to provide reliable

transportation infrastructure for the people of Labrador for many, many years to

come?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year when the Budget is developed, there is always a lot of speculation

as to what is in the Budget, what is not in the Budget, and how the Budget is

developed. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance responded to you yesterday,

that is the exact same response today. We will wait for the Budget next Thursday

and we will see what is in it and what is not in it. Then we will see, Mr.

Speaker, who is right and who is wrong in this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs -

and I think he owes it to the people of Labrador to tell them whether this

matter has been discussed, whether this is something that is in the offing,

whether this is something they should look out for, and whether this is

something they should be concerned about, because I think they have a right to

know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition wants to deal with

speculation, rumor and gossip as the basis of serious questions in this

Legislature. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, even his Finance critic, the

Member for Ferryland, who addressed this issue in a radio interview this

morning, when asked if there was any basis to this, if he could tell whether

this was true or not, because he is an honest man, and that has been his

reputation in Newfoundland and Labrador, he did say: I have no sources to

divulge, and I admit to you that this is only something that may or may not be

happening.

It has been answered by the government twice now, Mr. Speaker, by the

Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs,

that we will disclose proudly everything that is in the Budget next Thursday

when the Minister of Finance reads the Budget for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious from the Premier's interjection that he does not want

to hear what the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs has said. In

fact, it only confirms what I have heard, that there is a gag order on all

Labrador members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister and the Member for Torngat Mountains are not

allowed to speak. This is the open and transparent and accountable government of

Premier Grimes.

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

The Auditor General has stated in her report, as it presently stands, the

Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund will be depleted, for capital, for road

construction and for operating ferry costs, in less than twelve years.

Could the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs comment on the

consequences of taking an additional $100 million from that fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make it clear again, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader

of the Opposition, for the members here in the Legislature, and for everyone in

Newfoundland and Labrador: this government is not interested in playing games,

dealing with speculation, dealing with rumours, spreading rumours and gossip.

Mr. Speaker, next Thursday, one week from tomorrow, all of the plans for the

next fiscal year will be laid out in their entirety by the Minister of Finance.

There will be a full accounting given as to exactly what happened in the final

conclusion for this year, in terms of what the real deficit was and what the

circumstance was, compared to what we budgeted a year ago in March.

Mr. Speaker, no one on this side has any interest in talking about rumours,

gossip, speculation, and so on, about what may or may not happen. What may or

may not happen will all become perfectly clear with a plan that we will lay out

next week in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Labrador provides a great deal to our

provincial coffers through its fishery, through our iron ore, and hopefully in

the future from nickel and hydroelectric power; yet it gets so little in return,

and now our government wants even more.

This question is specifically for the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad

the government members opposite are making light of it, because I consider it to

be a very serious matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a very serious question that only the Minister of

Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs can answer, and not the Premier of the

Province.

I ask the minister: What is he planning to do if government raises this fund?

What will he do? Will he agree with it, stand idly by, or will he oppose it and

stand up for the people of Labrador if this, in fact, happens? I ask you

minister. Give me an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, and everyone in the Legislature,

this: Next week, on Thursday, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board will read and present, for this Legislature and the people of the

Province, the Budget. In that particular Budget, we will lay out the plans for

the whole of the Province, which include very significant plans, obviously, as

the Leader of the Opposition would recognize, for Labrador; because, Labrador

will lead this Province in leading the rest of the country for the next decade.

That will be all laid out next week, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1997, this House passed

an act; it was called,

An Act To Establish The

Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. In that act it said: the board may

authorize that money may be paid out of the fund provided that it is paid out

for three purposes. Those purposes are basically: number one, the marine freight

and passenger service, as a part of that agreement, by taking over the ferry

service in Labrador; number two, the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway;

and, number three, other Labrador initiatives related to transportation, which

the Cabinet may approve. Those were the three purposes.

I ask the minister if she is considering or intends to use funds other than

for purposes intended when this act was set up, and subject to her department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of our responsibilities very seriously.

I will repeat again what I said today, what I said yesterday, what the

Premier said today, and what the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs

said today, and that is that we will bring down our Budget next Thursday. It

will outline our plans for next year, it will summarize our finances for this

year, and we will be only too happy to discuss it then. Just like every other

year, Mr. Speaker, everything in good detail will be read in the Budget and we

will be free to answer any questions about any of those details anytime after

that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) even if $100 million was taken out of this

fund, it would be gone within a couple of years. Now minster, even if nothing is

taken out of this fund, as you may do because of the flack, you may back off

from it, even if nothing is done to take any money from this fund it still would

be depleted within the next ten years. That is based on the rate that is

currently costing and projected for that ferry service.

I want to ask the minister, independent on what she is going to do in this

Budget, separate from the Budget, when this fund is depleted, and it will be in

the near future: Other than what was planned when the money was received, what

commitment is there that the people of Labrador will have access to an adequate

ferry and transportation system in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will commit to the people of this Province that we will

maintain all necessary services. Just like we are doing now, after the end of

the Roads for Rail Agreement ran out. We will continue to provide money for our

roads, and we will continue to provide money for our ferry services, regardless

of where they are. We are committed to the people of the Province and we will

not engage in this fearmongering that the member opposite, and all those others

opposite, are trying to create about how we are going to cut off the people of

Labrador or cut off the people of the South Coast. We are not going there, Mr.

Speaker because our principles will not allow us. We are committed to providing

the ferries, the services and the roads to the people of our Province, and we

stand by that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to investigate and look for the $100 million tells us that there is a

glaring shortfall in this Budget that is coming up next week. That is the

telling tale, I say to the minister.

The faster any fund is depleted, the greater the chance that we are going to

see reduction in service or increase in rates down the road. The Legislature

passed

an act to establish a fund. Now this fund is basically a trust fund that

guarantees a certain service to Labrador for a period of time. When that is gone

there is only a promise, I say to the minister, only a promise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: What guarantee will she give

that Labrador transportation initiatives will continue to be addressed and the

people of Labrador will not have only adequate access but a reasonably priced

transportation system in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee one thing, that the people

of this Province, and that includes Labrador, have nothing to fear from this

government; whether it is now or after the Budget. We commit to stand by those

promises, those commitments that we have made to the people of the Province as

it relates to providing services to the people of our Province and, Mr. Speaker,

I will tell the people of the Province that we will continue to build on the

agenda that this Premier, right here, has set within the last year and we will

continue to grow our economy and grow the confidence of the people in this

Province in the initiatives that we have taken on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development. The 2001 Census data released today by Stats Canada shows that from

1996 to 2001, Newfoundland and Labrador's population dropped from 551,000 to

512,000; a loss of almost 40,000 people.

I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, those people did not fasten their

seat belts because it was not the ride of their lives, let me tell you that, I

say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: But, the more damning statistic, Mr. Speaker, is that

85,000 people have left from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Wouldn't the

minister agree that the people of our rural communities have rendered their

verdict on this government's plan to develop rural Newfoundland and voted with

their feet? Will he also tell us right now, what is he, and his government's

plan, to do something about turning around the population decline in this

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, that nobody more than us on

this side, take serious the fact that there is an out-migration out of this

Province, and that there has been an out-migration for a number of years. What

the hon. gentleman refuses to put on the record is that there has been an

out-migration, and there is an out-migration from all rural parts of the

Province to St. John's, and all rural parts of Canada to urban centres, and

all rural parts of North America to urban centres -

MR. SULLIVAN: Those provinces are (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

- and all rural parts of the world. The fact of the matter is, that the

out-migration from rural Newfoundland in this Province was exasperated by the

shut down of the groundfish industry. What is the evidence that we have, that we

are reversing the trend? I say to him again, as I have said to him a million

times in this House and I will keep repeating it because it is the truth, that

there are certain parts of this Province that have not yet recovered from the

shut down of the groundfish industry. The Northern Peninsula is a prime example

of it. None of us have been able, including the Opposition, to offer any

solutions to what has happened and what to do on the Northern Peninsula of this

Province, and certain other areas.

However, Mr. Speaker, what have we done? Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter

is that last year in this Province, as a result of measures that were put in

place, as a result of the economy picking up in this Province, that we created

in this Province last year, a record number of jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Last year there were 211,000 people working in this Province;

211,000 people. We had the highest growth in employment numbers in the country;

3.3 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously, for all of us, a serious matter.

We should not make light of it, and this government will continue to do the type

of work that is necessary to see that we do the best we can in rural

Newfoundland.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The stats do not lie. They present the facts as they are. Compared to the

rest of the country, we are in a population decline crisis. How can this

minister stand up today and defend this: We are 1.7 per cent of the population

in the country. Yet, out of twenty-five communities who were worse hit by

population decline, we have 25 per cent of them. How can you stand up today and

justify your record of recovery? Minister, wouldn't you agree that recovery

cannot exist where no people exist?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

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

the average, since 1996, is indeed disappointing. Let me just say to him again,

that there are communities in Saskatchewan, and there are communities all over

North America, that are disappearing. We have had no communities in this

Province, I say to him, disappear. Let me also say to him, that there has been

some progress made. In 1996 the total net out-migration from this Province was

7,869. In 1999-2000, that has been cut in half to 3,900. Last year again, that

number was down to 3,500. So there is progress being made but obviously not as

much as we would all like to see. But I say to him, we had a special problem of

recovery in this Province.

He can sit over there and grin, but I say to him, it is a serious problem. It

is a problem that we take serious, and if he asked us: What do people think of

what you do? I will tell him where he should have been. He should have been in a

rural forum last fall where people said: Yes, we know the problem is there. Yes,

government, we know it is a real problem. Yes, government, we also know that you

are on the right track with what you are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grinning at his spinning. That is what I am grinning at.

That is the only thing that I can grin at. The fact of the matter is that there

has been a decline. Do you know why, minister? Because there is no one left to

go, I say to the Minister of Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question. Not only

is it serious because people have left, but let me ask the Minister of Finance

this question. While the loss of a large number of people is devastating from a

rural development prospective, it also means a loss in the direct transfers to

the Province of more than $100 million. Can the minister confirm, that because

of the decline since 1996 in direct transfers under equalization and the Canada

Health and Social Transfer, that more than $100 million has been lost to the

revenues of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows, and everyone in

the Province knows, that our population estimates are recorded as 533,000. What

the member opposite is referring to is the count that was made four years ago

and today, which was a decline, as he pointed out earlier.

We have already reduced our population to 533,000, and no, Mr. Speaker, we

haven't lost that amount of equalization because, in fact, we are getting paid

for more people than we actually had. These numbers, in fact, as everybody knows

in the Province, a census is a count, a point in time. We know that every time

Census Canada will take about eighteen months to reconcile these numbers. They

will do that by the fall of 2003, and we anticipate that there will be a

reduction, sadly, as my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development has said. Things are progressing. But, Mr. Speaker, it is important

to say that in this Province you cannot count on real numbers. We can say,

without any doubt, our personal income tax increased least year, our housing

starts went up last year, and our overall economic growth is clear. So, we are

not going to do the doom and gloom stuff. We recognize the numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We recognize those numbers will be reconciled, but we

are not going there, Mr. Speaker, because we live in hope for fear of dying in

despair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this, that if this government

continues to stay in power, I know where they are going and so do the people of

the Province know where they are going after the next election, with damning

stats like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question, one final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. In addition to the direct transfer losses, there were also transfer

losses from the federal government to individuals, such as child tax benefit

credits that were not there, income tax rebates, EI, CPP, to name a few. Has

your department done any analysis whatsoever to understand or quantify what the

actual loss in direct transfers from Ottawa to these individuals would be on the

provincial economy of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I have just pointed out, regrettably, I

know, for the member opposite, we have seen more people in this Province spend

the money they have. We have seen our own personal income tax increased. We have

seen sales tax increased. We have seen housing starts increased, and we can only

talk about the economy. Now, I know the members opposite would like to think

that the bottom is falling out of it, but we have seen consistent growth. We are

leading the country in GDP, and while that is very much oil-based, we do know

that it speaks to a confidence in our economy, and we have seen it, Mr. Speaker,

in our own numbers. We have not seen the reverberations from September 11.

In this Province, our economy, Mr. Speaker, continues to grow. I know that is

very disturbing news for the members opposite, but that is the fact associated

with our numbers, in that our economy continues to grow and to strengthen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

As the minister is aware, the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games were a

great success this year, with one exception. Athletes from Labrador West

experienced several delays in getting home from the games, due to weather and

other problems. The Labrador West athletes who were supposed to take

part in the

second half of the games were delayed by those same problems in the beginning;

however, a decision was made by those bestowed with the power of decision-making

to cancel their attendance and participation altogether, even when the weather

improved. That decision was reversed by the minister, and I applaud the minister

for his work in that area, but I ask the minister if he has investigated the

whole circumstance concerning what happened to athletes from Labrador West, and

if he has a report ready with a full explanation for athletes, coaches and

parents in Labrador West?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Labrador West

for the question. I want to also thank him for his participation in resolving

the issue that came up due to unfortunate circumstances of weather and aircraft

problems that arose at the games. We did have probably as successful a games as

we have ever had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, we have the best provincial games in

Canada, as far as we are concerned, and they went very well. But, on that issue,

I had an investigation done with my officials. I will be writing a letter which

outlines the situation to a number of people in Labrador West, including the

member. I believe that there was a decision-making process that could have used

some help; but, at the end of the day, we were able to resolve the issue. I

think it was the right decision to get those athletes there, because it is not

just about sports. The games are about unity and they are about a great

experience for the youth of our Province. The right decision was made. I thank

the member for his help in making that decision. We did make the right decision,

and we will have a report.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the minister whether or not he will personally come to Labrador

West to provide that explanation to the parents, the athletes and the coaches.

Also, I would like to ask the minister if, through his department, there will be

a meeting convened of all people who are involved in organizing the Winter

Games, wherever they may be held, to put contingency plans in place so that

situations like this do not arise in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank members of the House:

the Premier, who came to open the games, members of the House of all stripes who

were at the games to support their athletes.

I will just say to the member that we will be providing an explanation of

what occurred, but the bottom line is that the situation was resolved. Those

athletes did get in at a late hour and, as a matter of fact, a number of those

athletes were able to compete the next morning and were also in the parade of

athletes. As a matter of fact, Labrador won the spirit award at the games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: A visit to Labrador West is something that we do on an

ongoing basis and, I tell you, I would welcome the opportunity to speak with

anybody in Labrador West who wants to discuss the issue, because this government

supports Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, last week, reported that he had a

good meeting with his new federal counterpart. Mr. Speaker, if indeed the

minister had a good meeting then surely there must be some good news that he can

report to this House. Would the minister tell us the good news on the 1,500 ton

P.E.I. shrimp allocation from a couple of years ago, and what Minister Thibault's

intentions are for allocations of shrimp off the coast of this Province this

coming year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I thank the member opposite for his question, but I think it

was one that a Mr. Morgan discussed last week on the Open Line show. What I said

last week, Mr. Speaker, was that I had a good meeting with the federal minister,

and I think that we are probably in a better position to work with him than his

predecessor who gave the 1,500 ton allocation to P.E.I., even against the wishes

of the people of this Province.

As for the allocation of the shrimp resource for this year, Mr. Speaker, that

decision has not been made in Ottawa but the federal minister certainly knows

where this Province stands with regard to any shrimp adjacent to our coast going

to any other province or any other country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister has had a discussion

on seals also. I would like to know what the federal minister had to say about a

proposal by DFO to allow large vessels to participate in the hunt this year. I

would like to know what our minister's view is of this proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did talk to my federal counterpart about the

seal quotas and what we would like to see done with them; but with regard to our

stand on vessels over sixty-five feet prosecuting the seals, we have always said

that we do not agree with that, and that resource should be kept for vessels

under sixty-five feet in length.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On behalf of the Resource Legislative Committee, I would like to present a

report with respect to Bill 44,

An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of

Water Resources in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a number of bills that were sent to committee on

December 13, prior to the House closing for the break, and it is one of the

three or four bills that have been dealt with in committee.

I want to thank the Vice-Chair, as well as the committee members who

participated. We have been able, out of the some sixty amendments that were put

forward, to deal successfully with six of those amendments, and I believe some

additional ten or fifteen may have been dealt with since the committee actually

met.

I present this report on behalf of the committee, and thank all those who

made presentations and those who came to participate.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Opposition House Leader asked me a question about a payment

that was made on a transaction that took place within the Department of

Industry, Trade and Rural Development. It was made as a result of some

transaction records that we provided to him under questions that were tabled in

the House before Christmas. I want to say to him, I am going to give him an

answer today and I will give him whatever answers I can. If he has gone through

those, and if there are a number of questions that he would like to have

answered about them, I will gladly provide the staff to give him a further

breakdown of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: No, I just say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I will

provide the answers to him, but I think we can use our time much more profitably

in this House by exploring other things rather than a single transaction. Those

things are left to the deputy minister and his staff - transactions in a

department. The minister is usually responsible for policy, and for what the

government does. Transactions, unless they are of an unusual nature, are handled

by the deputy minister.

In any case, in the particular case that he asked about yesterday, let me

just say to him, the contract and the payment was for the development of a

professionally, high quality, computerized, multi-media presentation for use in

promoting the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a top location for

investment and to promote various industry sectors in the national and

international marketplace. The presentation was to include the insertion of

video and sound-clips, photography and interchangeable texts. As such, the level

of complexity required - because I think one of the questions that he asked was:

Why couldn't you do it in your department?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: As such, the level of complexity required was beyond the

in-house technology capacity and expertise of the department. Let me just say to

him, although Bristol Communications was the agency on record for the Department

of Industry, Trade and Technology at the time, the development of the

presentation was undertaken by the department through a separate request for

proposals processed in an effort to give other companies an opportunity to bid

on the work. It was entered into by the former Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology following a request for proposals, that I have just outlined to him,

and under the legislation a public tender was not required for the type of

services involved. I think the total amount that was paid out on the whole issue

was $105,000.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on

behalf of the residents, not only of Trinity North, but of Bellevue, Terra Nova

and Bonavista South. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its

2001-2002 Budget that there would be a long-term care facility constructed in

Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given

$500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and

WHEREAS in August, 2001, the then Acting Minister of Health and Community

Services further confirmed in a letter to the Town of Clarenville, that

government has committed to a forty-four bed, long-term care facility and it is

expected the design work would start in September.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a significant issue for the people of that area in

the Province for quite some time. In fact, as I look through the signatures on

this petition, I see the names of Musgravetown, Port Blandford, Bunyan's Cove,

Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Clarenville, and all around that area. So it is not

just the residents of Trinity North, but the residents of that entire area.

I ask the hon. members on the opposite side of this House to join with my

colleague from Bonavista South, and myself, in endorsing this petition on behalf

of the residents of that area

I noticed the other day, and read some notes of a taped interview that the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board did with the R&B Papers last year on

March 23. At that time, she confirmed for the editors of the R&B Papers that

government not only was going to commit to $500,000 in this fiscal year, but the

hon. minister made a commitment last year that government would make a

commitment in this upcoming Budget, the one that we are going to hear next week.

She made a commitment last year on March 23, that in the Budget that she is

going to announce next week, that there will be additional money in that budget

for the construction, or the start of the construction of that facility.

I am really looking forward to next week's Budget because I am assuming

that in addition to the $500,000 that is left over from last year, that has

still not yet been spent, the minister will be making a further commitment - as

she had promised last year - for this year that construction will actually start

in this coming year. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to next week and listening to

the minister's Budget as she announces the start of that long awaited

long-term care facility.

Again, I repeat, I ask the members on the opposite side from Bellevue and

Terra Nova to join with my colleague from Bonavista South in endorsing this

petition, and request that this House and this government move quickly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - to spend the money that they committed to in last

year's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

their budgets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I want to present a petition on behalf of a number of

people who are living in the Town of Pouch Cove and it concerns a very important

issue in the area of the Northeast Avalon. It concerns the Torbay bypass, Mr.

Speaker. I will read into the record the petition:

To the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative

Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS the population on the Northeast Avalon in the Towns of Pouch Cove,

Bauline, Flatrock, Torbay, Logy Bay/Middle Cove/Outer Cove is growing rapidly;

and

WHEREAS the traffic on the Torbay Road has increased to significant and

dangerous levels - approximately 12,000 vehicles per day - and is growing daily;

and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass route has been decided and land acquisition has

taken place; and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass was a significant part of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation roads agenda and would alleviate the concerns of

residents in the Northeast Avalon regarding traffic flow;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to make the Torbay bypass a part of the New Road Construction Plan and put

funding in place to start the construction of the Torbay bypass as soon as

possible, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed when I was reading the petition that the Minister of

Finance was making fun, I suppose, or ridiculing, the substance of the petition.

I would say to her, that it is a very serious situation on the Northeast Avalon.

It is a safety issue, Mr. Speaker. Down in the Torbay Road area, with the Holy

Trinity High School, the intersection of Marine Drive and Torbay Road, we have

12,000 people passing by there every day. The people of the Northeast Avalon - I

have been speaking to the mayors and some of the councillors of the five towns

involved and they are very serious, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this petition.

The route has already been depicted on mapping. There has been land

acquisition for this, Mr. Speaker. I have had conversations with various

ministers in the past with respect to the Torbay bypass. Basically, all the

people want is for that to start, for funding to be put in place. If you have to

do it in phases, over one, two, three or four years, so be it, but it is

something that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Last year or the year before last, before the present minister was in place,

I had an agreement with the previous minister to do work on the Pipperstock Hill

in Torbay, pass right through the Torbay school area, down as far as the bank in

Torbay. And what did the present minister do? He cut the amount of funding in

half, which was already agreed upon with the previous minister. While we are

looking to have major work done on Torbay Road presently, it would only be a

temporary alleviation to this very serious safety issue with the traffic flow on

Torbay Road.

Now, I am looking across and seeing the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation smiling. I don't know what he is smiling about, Mr. Speaker. I

really don't understand why he would be smiling about such a serious issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: The people in the Torbay area, Pouch Cove, Flatrock,

Bauline, Logy Bay, Middle Cove and Outer Cove are all very serious about this

situation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I

certainly would expect the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

support it also.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor

condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to pave approximately 1 kilometre of road in Jamestown and approximately 6

kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter

Brook.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a similar petition to petitions - I have stood here in

this House on many times over the past five years, since this particular town

had become part of the District of Bonavista South. It is a growing community

where the people still have to travel over a gravel road in order to get to

their homes, from Jamestown to Winter Brook, I say to the Government House

Leader.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is growing because of the sawmill. I am

glad the member brought up the sawmill, because I am going to use that in

putting forward the need in order to get this particular road paved. I can't

say upgraded and paved, because the road was upgraded about seven years ago, and

paving was promised at that particular time. They are still waiting today for

pavement.

Last year we had the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation down in

the district and, to his credit, paved two kilometres of road through the

community. There are still six kilometres of road leading from Jamestown to

Winter Brook. On that particular stretch of road, I say to the Deputy Premier,

there is a sawmill that he just referred to, employing about eighty-five people.

This is a sawmill that operates twelve months of the year. The owner of that

particular sawmill, known as Jamestown Lumber Company, has had to go out and he

has paved his parking lot in order to get away from the dust that is being

created by the traffic that is generated on the parking lot, and now his problem

is with the dust that comes from the dirt road going by the sawmill. It is the

only particular piece of gravel road that his lumber travels over from the time

it leaves Jamestown Lumber until it gets to his markets in the United States.

You might ask: What does dust have to do with a sawmill operation? Well, it

has a lot to do with it. It has a lot do with the maintenance of the saws and

the knives that are used in order to produce the product from that particular

sawmill.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is not a petition from the people of

Winter Brook and Jamestown asking for water and sewer. It is not a petition

asking that we put in sidewalks. It is a petition that is delivered here in the

year of 2002, asking that their road be paved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a simple plea.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a simple plea, I say to members opposite, and I say

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to ask that their

section

of road be included in this year's capital budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I want

to raise a point of order. The point of order has to do with remarks made in the

debate yesterday by my counterpart, the Opposition House Leader. The remarks to

which I refer, Mr. Speaker, were in debate yesterday, and I think the Premier

brought up the matter. I wanted to read it today in Hansard, to see what it

said. I will just read the appropriate remarks. The hon. member said,

"...when you go to the Supreme Court of the Province and the government is

told that they were criminally wrong...", that is the

part I want to

address. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the member was out of order by using that

description, that the government is told that they were criminally wrong. I

think it is a breach of our Standing Orders.

All hon. members know that remarks we make, statements we make, must be

accurate. Mr. Speaker, this statement is not accurate. It is an imputation of a

falsehood. The hon. member knows the facts, and I do not think this is a matter

of a dispute between two hon. gentlemen, re the facts. The facts are that the

government was not told that by the Supreme Court, that they were criminally

wrong. They were not told that. Criminally, Mr. Speaker, is the operative word.

It is a very serious allegation. It is a very serious accusation. I would also

suggest that it even verges on being unparliamentary, because one cannot list a

group of words as being unparliamentary. It has to do with the tone and the

manner in which it was presented overall.

Mr. Speaker, it has suggestions of being used as unparliamentary because it

is provocative and it did create some disorder here yesterday, and that is the

grounds on which one establishes whether a word is unparliamentary. It is one of

the areas that the speaker explores when he is looking at something being

unparliamentary: whether it was provocative, whether it created disorder. Mr.

Speaker I would suggest that it did create disorder, that the words are

certainly provocative, they are offensive, and the hon. member can easily

correct that. He does not want that to be left for posterity, that he was saying

something that was not accurate.

The hon. gentleman can clear it up very quickly by simply withdrawing the

offensive - not words - the offensive term of being criminally wrong. I do not

even know that the courts said the government was wrong, but even that, Mr.

Speaker, would not have been offensive for mature people, but to be criminally

wrong.

That is against the facts. The Supreme Court did not say that, they did not

rule that, they did not come close to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to offend the

sensibilities of the Government House Leader. To be quite clear about his point

of order, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point of order.

The Premier rose three times in this House yesterday on points of order and the

Government House Leader has failed yet once again to point out for members of

this House that the Chairperson yesterday ruled on this on three separate

occasions, where the Chair of the committee said there is no point of order.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is yet another political

parliamentary stunt by the Government House Leader; to what end, it is beyond

me. If he wants to draw attention to the fact that he and his government spent

an extra $30 million, that the courts of the Province found them liable and they

had to pay extra money out for treating bidders wrong, Sir, you have the floor

as long as you want it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought the hon. member was going to speak to the point of order. I will

take the point of order under advisement and report back to the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products

International Limited Act." (Bill 65)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 65,

An Act to Amend The

Fishery Products International Limited Act. Before I go into the amendments we

are proposing and will discuss later today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important

that we, at least, know the history of FPI and why we are where we are today. To

do this, Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like, first of all, to talk about

the history and how FPI was brought about.

Back in the period immediately following Canada's extension of jurisdiction

to the 200-mile limit, back in 1977, most people in the Province felt that fish

were going to be plentiful and that our processing facilities around the

Province would operate at maximum capacity. It was at that time that a number of

new licences were issued in the processing sector because there was a fear that

if there were fish in excess to our needs, that we could not process, we could

not harvest, that we would have to give them to the foreigners; because under

the NAFO Convention, that is what happens. If there are fish in excess to the

needs of the host state or the host country then those fish would have to go to

other members of NAFO. So, as I said, there were a number of licences given out

at the time but the only problem, Mr .Speaker, is that the bonanza in the

fishery did not happen. The fish stocks were not there that we thought were

there, and, as a result, in the early 1980s there was great concern about the

financial wherewithal, financial position of many of the groundfish oriented

plants in the Province.

The financial deterioration, Mr. Speaker, was most severe amongst those

groundfish processors who were involved in the offshore fishery. Those plants,

in particular, were Fishery Products Limited, National Sea Products Limited, The

Lake Group of Companies, John Penny and Sons, and H. B. Nickerson's. It was at

this time, as well, that there was a report commissioned by the federal

government called, The Report on the Task Force on Atlantic Fisheries, otherwise

known in the Province as the Kirby Report. In that, Mr. Kirby said unless there

was government intervention, there were going to be more bankruptcies in the

offshore sector of our fish processing industry.

Obviously, the government of the day could not allow this to happen because

of the economic and social impact that would have on a number of communities in

our Province, as well as the Province as a whole. So, it was decided at that

time by both governments, both federal and provincial governments, that they

could not allow these bankruptcies to happen. With the aid of some $252 million

in cash and equity, there was a new holding company established called Fishery

Products Limited, and a new operating company called Fishery Products

International Limited. The ownership structure in that new company was that the

Canadian Government held 60 per cent of the company; the Newfoundland and

Labrador Government held 25 per cent; the Bank of Nova Scotia held 12 per cent;

and the employees of that new company, FPI, held 3 per cent. The Canadian

Government put in $168 million; the provincial government put in $66 million;

and the Bank of Nova Scotia contributed $18 million in loans.

From 1984 until 1987, Fishery Products operated well. It appeared that the

company was doing very well with regard to processing and that its financial

situation had improved considerably. At that time FPI came forward to government

and asked if FPI could be returned to the private sector. This was done in 1987

in

an act in this Legislature called the Fishery Products International Limited

Act, and under a public share offering FPI generated $185 million by selling

shares. Publicly they raised $185 million and paid off some of their debts. The

Bank of Nova Scotia recovered its full $18 million. The federal government got

$118 million back, a $50 million shortfall. They left $50 million in the

company. The Province received $49 million. They left $17 million in FPI back in

It should be noted here that the main provision, as the Member for Lewisporte

would know of that act, and I will read it to you. It said: no holder of voting

securities and associates of such holder shall hold in aggregate voting shares

to which are attached in excess of 15 per cent of the total number of votes

attached to all voting securities then issued and outstanding.

Mr. Speaker, that is legalistic wording. Simply put, it would mean that no

one person or company could own any more than 15 per cent of the voting shares

of FPI. Now the interesting thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is from 1987 until

the present, there were no other types of shares issued in FPI, except for

voting shares. There were no common shares or non-voting shares. In every deal

that FPI has done since 1987 it dealt with voting shares, and no one individual

or company could own any more that 15 per cent of those shares.

From 1987 up until the present, Mr. Speaker, FPI was always seen as the

flagship of the processing sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. It demonstrated

a strong sensitivity to the community, the fish harvesters, and its employees.

It is also the largest fish processing company in the Province, employing the

most people. Not only does it harvest, process, and sell its own fish, but it

also markets fish for a number of other companies around the Province,

especially shrimp.

As I said, FPI operated well from 1987 up until the present, within the 15

per cent share restriction. In 1999, a consortium of Clearwater Fine Foods of

Nova Scotia, the Barry Group of Companies from this Province, and a group called

the Icelandic Freezing Plants Corporation, or IFPC out of Iceland, under the

name of NEOS, came forward with a proposal to purchase FPI, but under the share

restriction - that I previously spoke about, the 15 per cent share restriction -

no one could own more than 15 per cent. Obviously, the only way that NEOS could

purchase FPI is if the restriction were lifted.

There was great debate in the Province at the time. I remember some of the

individuals involved with this proposal going from community to community, who

had fish plants owned by FPI, but at the end of the day the government said

basically: No, we are not lifting the 15 per cent share restriction; and thus

the NEOS deal died.

In May of 2001, after a lengthy fight for shareholders vote, a new board of

directors was elected at FPI and a new management team took its place. Mr.

Speaker, there was a great deal of debate at that time, whether or not the

government should be permitted to allow this new board of directors that was

duly elected by its shareholders, if we should allow them to take their place as

the new Board of FPI. But, on legal advice from within the Province, and lawyers

from Ontario, it was told to us that we could not interfere with the selection

of a board of directors that were duly elected by the shareholders of that

company. We did not interfere at that time, but the day after that board was

sworn in a number of my colleagues and I met with the new Board of Directors of

FPI - actually here in this building - and told them that we were going to hold

them to the commitments that they made during this proxy shareholder thing that

they had ongoing.

They made a number of commitments prior to their election in May of that

year. The two main ones were that they would not close any fish plants, and they

would not have any layoffs in those fish plants. Mr. Speaker, we told them at

the time that we were going to hold them to those commitments. In fact, they

made a number of them in writing. In turn, we said publicly at the time that we

would hold FPI to those commitments and when asked: Well, how do you intend to

hold them to their commitments? We said at the time: FPI was created in the

Legislature and if we had to, we could always come back to the Legislature to

amend the FPI act to ensure that those commitments were honored. I guess that is

the reason we are here today.

In recent months, actions taken by the Board of Directors of FPI have been in

direct conflict with the commitments that they made back in May of last year. In

January, with the proposed layoff of 584 people in Marystown, Fortune and

Harbour Breton, government acted by establishing an all-party committee to seek

the views of the people of the Province on what amendments were necessary to the

FPI act to ensure that the public interests of this Province were protected. I

would like to thank the members for participating in that committee. They were:

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for The Straits & White

Bay North, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Cartwright -L'Anse

au Clair, the Member for Bay of Islands, and the Member for Burin-Placentia

West. I would also like to thank my colleague from Humber East, who also filled

in for a couple of meetings. I might add, they were the two coldest days of the

year, I think, that he filled in for us. I thank you for that.

We held nine meetings around the Province, attended by more than 4,000

people. We received thirty-seven written submissions, sixty-three formal

presentations, and seventy-three oral representations. I would like to thank as

well, Mr. Speaker, all those individuals who came out to partake in these

meetings. We certainly heard their views, and their views were taken into

consideration. I am sure that the amendments that we make to the act today are

reflective of what people told us around the Province.

As a result of these meetings, and the deliberations that the committee held

shortly after that, we made five recommendations to government, that government

had reviewed and accepted immediately, and these five recommendations were - I

will just read them.

The committee recommends that the act should be amended to ensure that no

person or corporation shall be permitted to own more than 15 per cent of the

voting and non-voting, preferred or any other class of shares, of FPI Limited or

FPI International Limited.

Ownership must be defined as including all forms of equity such that no one

person or corporation can hold more than 15 per cent of the equity in that

company.

Mr. Speaker, the other recommendation was that government and FPI attempt to

reach an enforceable agreement on the issue of quotas, because that was the

second biggest issue of concern with most of the people we spoke to in these

nine meetings that we had. That is, we wanted to have the quotas attached to

FPI, that were historically attached to FPI, harvested for the benefit of the

people of this Province and processed within the Province.

Having discussed the matter with the committee, we understood that the best

way to proceed with this is, rather than put it in legislation at this time, the

best route to take would be to strike some kind of an enforceable agreement with

FPI - a contract if you might, Mr. Speaker - that would ensure that they would

not attempt to move those quotas to another province, or out of the country for

that matter.

We did not put the quotas in the legislation at that time. Our legal advisors

are working with the Board of Directors of FPI to try and come up with that

enforceable contract, and it was agreed that if we do not come up with that

contract then we can come back at a later date to amend the legislation or amend

the Fishery Products International Act to include the clause that quotas would

not be moved out of the Province.

The other thing that we recommended, Mr. Speaker, is that we include a

privative clause in the FPI Act. What that means basically is that no one person

or group of persons could, I guess, sue the Province for damages that may come

about as a result of the amendments that we are proposing here today.

The final recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is to include a

preamble to the act,

or just at the beginning of the act we would say the purpose of the act. There

are four or five clauses in that, and that was omitted in the original act back

in 1987.

Mr. Speaker, those basically were the recommendations that the committee put

forward to government, that government accepted, and that we will discuss in the

Legislature here this afternoon.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about

FPI, in that FPI is different from any other company in this Province because,

since we started out with these meetings back in early February, we have been

criticized by the mainland media for being intrusive in FPI in that we are not

welcoming investment and that we are doing damages to the investment community

in this Province by amending

an act of a private company.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my opinion, and that of the committee too, I

think, that FPI is certainly a different company than any other in the Province,

not just in the fishing industry but any other company in the Province in that

it was a creature of the Legislature. It was first established back in 1983,

with the help and the aid of both levels of government, financial aid at that

time, and there was money left in FPI when we amended the act in 1987 and

privatized the company. There was money left in FPI by both the federal and the

provincial governments.

To say that we are being intrusive, and trying to say that as a result of

doing this to FPI we are being intrusive to all businesses in the Province, is

not true, Mr. Speaker; because, like I said, FPI is more than just another

company to us. FPI represents what we are. FPI represents the fishery in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are all about. By the fishery I do

not mean simply jobs, albeit the jobs in the fishery are very important. The

fishery is something more to this Province. The fishery is what brought us here

in 1497, Mr. Speaker. It is what keeps us here today, and I am sure that without

it we will not be here tomorrow or down the road, so it is about our history. It

is also about our culture because you cannot divorce the fishery from the

culture in Newfoundland and Labrador. By that culture, Mr. Speaker, I mean that

I am talking about hard work in harsh conditions in this Province.

That is why it is so galling when you hear mainlanders talking about our

culture, and not just mainlanders, Mr. Speaker, because we have some amongst us

here in the Province as well who think and who have said during this whole

debate that our only consideration in this Province is our quest for social

programs, and that is the only reason that people prosecute the fishery in

Newfoundland and Labrador for short periods of time, such that they can qualify

for unemployment insurance. I find that very galling, Mr. Speaker, especially

when it is said by people here in this Province.

I am not going to talk much longer, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that we

do not want to harm FPI. We want to see FPI grow and prosper not only for its

shareholders but more importantly for the people in the communities in which

they operate. I do not think that by placing any of the restrictions or any of

these amendments are going to interfere with the operation of FPI.

We have heard people talk about, oh, if you cannot get investment in FPI - we

restrict their ability to raise investment because of the 15 per cent share

restriction. I do not think that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Exactly. They knew what the intent was. They knew when they

bought shares in FPI, because no one has bought shares other than voting shares

in FPI since its inception back in 1987. Besides that, FPI has been successful,

very successful, in raising money since 1987. They bought Clouston's, which is

a marketing company, for $17 million. They did this through cash and the

issuance of some shares, but those shares were also voting shares. They raised

$40 million to purchase the food service division of National Sea Products back

some years ago, and they spent over $30 million in renovations to the processing

facilities around the Province as well as the investment in boats and new

vessels. I don't think that any restriction, a 15 per cent restriction on

ownership of shares in FPI, will in any way be detrimental to FPI being able to

raise the money that they say is necessary to modernize the processing

facilities on the South Coast. In fact, I think that the company is in great

shape. It showed a profit, I think, in the last twenty-six quarters, and FPI is

still a very strong company and will continue to be so into the future.

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

a few.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to make a few brief comments on Bill 65,

An Act To

Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

To say the least, Mr. Speaker, this issue has been, I believe, one of, if not

the biggest, public policy issues, one that certainly generated the greatest

discussion in this Province in the past couple of months, certainly since the

new year.

There is not a lot to add to what the minister had to say, but I will go back

a number of years. I am not very old, but I am old enough to be able to say now

that I have had a long history with FPI. I have never worked for the company as

such, not directly, but I guess my first involvement was back before FPI

existed, back when the arse fell out of her, so to speak, in the early eighties.

I hope that is not unparliamentary. If it is, I will withdraw it.

MR. TULK: When she reached rock bottom.

MR. TAYLOR: When she reached rock bottom, yes, I will use that phrase, in

the early 1980s. I was working on a wharf in Quirpon at the time, driving a

forklift and icing fish. If my memory serves me correctly when she hit rock

bottom, the Salt Fish Corporation took over the operation in St. Anthony for one

summer. Then in 1983, of course, the industry was restructured and we had

Fishery Products International Limited.

Mr. Speaker, the restructuring of the industry at that time and the

establishment of Fishery Products International Limited, and FPI Limited, had a

great stabilizing effect - I guess is probably the best way of putting it - on

the industry throughout the Province. It created a flagship company that could

market, not only the products that were harvested and processed through FPIs

boats, trawlers, the inshore fishermen who sold to it, the stuff that went

through its plants, but also by companies that were removed from FPI, by some of

the smaller independent operators in the Province.

Those companies, who did not have great access to marketing resources

themselves, had an avenue, a machine, an organization that was big enough to be

able to give them a presence in the marketplace. As I said, it enabled our

industry to move ahead from very difficult times in the early 1980s, through the

late1980s when we hit the wall. We hit rock bottom, I guess, in the early 1980s

from a marketing prospective, debt prospective. Certainly, in the late 1980s and

early 1990s we hit the wall when it comes to the resource. Of course, as we all

know, the groundfish crisis hit us and effectively ripped the whole industry

apart, and had no less effect on FPI. Fortunately, to give credit where credit

is due, because of the balance sheet that FPI maintained during its formative

years and shortly after its privatization, FPI was able to reinvent itself in

the 1990s from a groundfish company to a shellfish company - I guess that is

probably the best way of portraying FPI now, certainly in the context of its

Newfoundland operations - and also developed itself more in marketing, where it

picked up Clouston Foods, the marketing arm in the United States. It developed a

refurbished shrimp plant in Port au Choix and restructured in Port Union from a

groundfish operation to a shrimp operation; developed a crab operation in Triton

and maintained its operation in Bonavista, along with some maintenance of

groundfish operations on the South Coast of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, FPI did that by maintaining a good balance sheet, by

being able to response to a resource crisis. Unfortunately, I think it is only

right to say it now at this time, the detractors of what we have tried to do

over the past couple of months with FPI, in going on the road and carrying out

public consultations, on writing a report to be presented to government on FPI,

and tabling proposed amendments here in this House now to the FPI Act, that

there are detractors out there saying that we are interfering where we should

not be; that if it is private, leave it to private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at what happens in the fishing industry.

The fishing industry - I don't know if it is fortunately or unfortunately - is

not like any other industry. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be, but it

is not. That is the fact of the matter, it is not like any other industry.

Even the loudest advocates of free enterprise and capitalism, when they hit

the wall in the fishery, they very quickly come to government looking for

assistance, which is what we saw in the early 1980s, the late 1980s, the early

1990s, and we have seen it time and time again in this industry, that when the

industry hits troubled waters they come looking for government assistance.

From my own perspective, anyway, and I think from our party's perspective,

we think that we need to ensure - we didn't go into this exercise on FPI to in

any way damage FPI's present circumstances or its future hopes. Our only

reason for participating in this is to ensure that FPI can remain a stabilizing

force in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador and can continue to

be a flagship for the industry in this Province. That is why we participated in

it, that is why we have believed for some time that the FPI Act should be

scrutinized and amended as required, and that is why we participated in the

all-party committee this past winter, and that is why, right now, I am standing

to give general support for the amendments that are proposed. We will get into

the specific amendments and issues around those later in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out, there were five issues - and I will

go briefly through those five issues - that the all-party committee deliberated

on. There were more than those that we deliberated on, but certainly there were

five issues that, after our deliberations, we felt should be addressed in our

report and, to some extent, could be and should be addressed in the Legislature.

The first one, of course, and the biggest one was the 15 per cent share

ownership restriction. You know, it is our belief, given the actions of the

company over the past number of years, given the actions of different

organizations, different groups, different individuals, who have tried to either

take over FPI or make changes to FPI in the past number of year - NEOS for one,

the present board of FPI for another, the former board of FPI for another, have

on a number of occasions over the past few years approached government and

looked for changes to the 15 per cent share ownership restriction.

We believe that supports the view that, I think, is prevalent throughout this

Legislature and throughout the Province, that the spirit and intent of the 15

per cent share ownership restriction in its 1997 form, while it only talks about

voting securities, because those were the only types of securities issued by FPI

at the time - and, by the way, that was the only type of securities, as the

minister pointed out, that have been issued by FPI in the years since. We

believe that the spirit and intent was that it meant all of the company, 15 per

cent of the company, 15 per cent of the various shares that might be issued by

FPI. For that reason, we recommended what we recommended in our report, that the

15 per cent share ownership restriction be expanded or amended, whatever the

word is that is appropriate there, to encompass all of the shares in the

company.

We had deliberations on quotas. It was probably the second biggest issue that

was raised in our public consultations. As everybody knows, it really does not

matter how strong or weak FPI is, it does not matter who operates a fish plant

in Newfoundland, who runs a boat in Newfoundland and Labrador, the bottom line

is at the end of the day if you do not have a quota, if the quotas are not

protected - and this what I was getting at in Question Period today. If quotas

are not protected for the people of this Province then it does not matter who

owns FPI, it does not matter who controls a boat, it does not matter who runs a

fish plant. If you don't have access to quota to put through that facility,

then it is all for not.

That is why we deliberated on it, and that is why we made the recommendations

that we did in our report. Obviously, it is very difficult. When we were

pondering our recommendations, I guess, we were contemplating having an

amendment to the FPI Act requiring that FPI's quotas would be tied to this

Province. In the course of that, I guess, we were approached by FPI. They made

an offer to enter into a binding contractual agreement with the Province, with

the government. We think that is a positive move. We believe it is a positive

move on the part of FPI. If that can be brought to reality, then we think that

would be advisable and certainly preferable to having to do it through

legislation.

The head office; there was - over the past number of months since the new

board of directors came into being last May 2 - some suggestion by the company

that they did not have to maintain their head office here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, in the Province. We believe that it is in the best interest of the

company and the people of this Province if that office would be maintained here

in Newfoundland and Labrador. For that reason, we made that recommendation. We

are pleased that it is showing up in the amendments, and I see that there is a

further amendment to that actually being tabled here some time this afternoon.

We will deal with that in committee. Our intention there, of course, is to see

that the corporate and administrative head offices of FPI are maintained here;

that what we have on O'Leary Avenue right now does not leave the Province.

That is what we are interested in seeing right now. That is why we made those

recommendations.

Of course, as the minister pointed out, we recommended - and I see in Bill 65

that the privative clause is included. I will probably get into this in

committee, but I think everybody in our committee had concerns about making that

recommendation, that a privative clause be included in the legislation. I do not

think anybody took lightly a recommendation that would see shareholders stripped

of their right to seek legal action against the government for these actions.

Like I said, I will probably talk more about it in Committee but it is a

concern. It is not something that we take lightly and it is something that we

wish we did not have to do; but, based on the legal advice that was provided to

us, we felt that it was appropriate at this time.

Of course, to clarify what the FPI Act was all about, why FPI is important to

this Province, and why the FPI Act is there, we thought that it was appropriate

to have a

preamble to point out what this company means to this Province and to

the fishing industry in general. Of course, I am pleased to see that is included

in the amendments also.

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up shortly on second reading. I will say now, in the

House of Assembly - I have said it publicly at our press conference when we

released our report - I would like to say thank you to the committee members for

the co-operation that I think was apparent throughout, that existed throughout

our committee during both our public consultations and our private deliberations

within the committee on our report. I think that certainly all of the committee

took our job seriously, I know we did over here. Myself and the Member for

Bonavista South certainly have had a history in the fishing industry, and both

of us have had a great deal of involvement with FPI over the years; the Member

for Bonavista South as an employee and myself as a fisherman who sold quite a

bit of fish to the company and landed -

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

MR. TAYLOR: I am glad to hear the Member for Bellevue say that we are -

myself and the Member for Bonavista South - were the two best fisheries critics

that this House has ever seen. I certainly thank him for that endorsement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will reiterate a comment that was

made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in his remarks, that we have

been portrayed by some people in this Province and a lot of people throughout

this country as, I guess you might say, welfare bums. That is probably the best

way of putting the light that they have held us in.

Unfortunately, I think that the people who have made these comments have not

looked at the people they are talking about, that they have spoke about. The

people who work in the plants in FPI, especially the South Coast operations, the

groundfish operations which were front and center in the debate this past

winter, those fish plants, as we all know - and I do not need to repeat it here,

but certainly for the benefit of anybody who might be listening in the national

media - certainly the plants on the South Coast of this Province, the groundfish

operations of FPI, have been prior to the demise of the groundfish in the early

1990s year-round operations. Those people are far from what they were portrayed,

and they have had, over the years, very little dependence on the social programs

of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this coming Friday, the House of Commons Standing Committee on

Fisheries and Oceans is coming to this Province, and I am sure that there will a

number of presentations, both from government, the Opposition, and from industry

in this Province to that Committee.

I think it is fair to point out that the reason we have been through this

exercise in the past number of months with FPI is because of the management of

the groundfish stocks around this Province, the management of the groundfish

stocks that companies like FPI have depended on over the years, that the people

who work in these plants have depended on over these years, that if these

resources had been managed differently by the Canadian Government, and if these

resources now were afforded the protection that they should be given, through

NAFO or through some other organization or through extension of jurisdiction so

that we could have custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks, maybe we would not have been forced to go through this exercise over the

past couple of months. Maybe FPI would be able to go on with a modernization

program. Maybe the plants that we are talking about would be year-round

operations, as they were in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now on second reading and I will have

a few more remarks to pass on in committee later. Just to say, in closing, we do

support Bill 65,

An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act,

and we will do whatever we can to make sure that this moves through

expeditiously.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise at second reading, being approval in principle stage of

An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. I want to say,

Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty important piece of legislation, and a very

important step that is being taken by the Legislature today, assuming that we

will pass this legislation.

First of all, I want to say a little bit about the process that led to the

report and the unanimous recommendations of that committee report, and to

comment on the operations of the committee. I want to say that the committee

itself had a valuable task. The initiative that was taken by government with the

consent and co-operation of the other parties was an important initiative, and I

will talk about the politics of it a little later. In keeping with the all-party

nature of the committee and the discussions, I want to say that it was, for me,

having been here ten years, probably the most positive experience of democracy

that I have encountered with a committee traveling around this Province, all

parties represented, chaired by the minister of the Crown who, I have to say, in

his favour, did an excellent job of chairing the committee. The committee

traveled with great dignity. There were no efforts by anybody to make partisan

points out of it. The minister, as Chair of the committee, was obviously in the

best position to do that. Those members who either participated in the

committee, or sat with the committee from time to time when there were

substitutions, all did an excellent job in maintaining the decorum of the

committee, listening very carefully to what we were told by the dozens and

dozens of presenters around the Province, and achieving what I believe was a

remarkable consensus from presenters as to what the nature of this company was,

the importance of this company to the future of the Province and the communities

that depend on it, but also, more importantly, a recognition of the role that

this company played in defining for us, to some extent, what we are as a people

and how important the fishery is to us.

Nothing makes me prouder, Mr. Speaker, than to see in the legislation the

following through of what we heard from the people of this Province at our

committee hearings, and to recognize that FPI means, to the people of

Newfoundland, that we, through our Legislature, have created a company that is

not only a flagship for the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador - and that is

specifically now mentioned in the

preamble to the act - but a company that has

an international reputation and, in fact, is a leading fishing company in the

world.

That is no mean achievement, coming out of the history of the fishery in this

Province, particularly in the early 1980s when, beset by tremendously high

interest rates - I can remember myself the short-term interest rates in the

early 1980s at 21 per cent, 22 per cent and 23 per cent - and fishing companies

in this Province, and many other people, struggling to maintain their existence.

I remember well the difficulties that were being experienced by businesses in

the fishing industry in this Province and other parts of the Atlantic.

I also remember something else, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that

perhaps drove me to get involved in politics. As a young lawyer practicing law

in St. John's, watching what was going on in this Province, in the industry,

crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in Atlantic

Canada. There was the establishment of the Kirby Task Force report, and for two

years Senator Kirby - I think he was named Senator after that - went around

Atlantic Canada listening to people, hearing what people had to say, and writing

a report which resulted in what, Mr. Speaker? An infusion of about $300 million,

provinces, thousands of communities, and 150,000 workers, to try and save that

industry by the creation of two companies, National Sea Products Limited and FPI

Limited, out of the ashes of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada.

What I was struck by was that within a few months of the Kirby task force

report being put down and the decision of the federal government to put in about

$300 million, there was a small problem with the de Havilland aircraft factory

in Montreal. There were 1,200 jobs at stake. Within three weeks the federal

government had a $400 million loan guarantee to support the protection of 1,200

jobs in Montreal. I have no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, with the

the people of Canada, in fact, should have been supporting the aerospace

industry when the Avro Arrow was shut down by the Diefenbaker Government in the

late 1950s.

I have no problem with the support for the aerospace industry. What I do have

a problem with is when you compare the kind of support that certain industries

get in Canada, whether it be the auto industry to the Auto Pact, whether it be

the aerospace industry, their various forms and subsidies, and the kind of

support we get in this country for the fishing industry that is so valuable to

this Province, or for the shipbuilding industry that is so valuable for this

Province in our jobs; that the comparison is awful and, to some extent,

discriminatory. At the very least, it fails to recognize the importance of this

part of the country to the rest of the provinces of Canada and the importance to

the fishing industry as it relates to the survival of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

When I hear people talk about the Newfoundland culture, supposedly a culture

where people do not want to work, I want to ask those very same people: Why is

it that our population is going down? It is going down because people are

leaving Newfoundland and Labrador because they want to work. They will go to

other provinces. They will leave their homeland to do that, against their

wishes, against their desire. They will go and seek work in other provinces,

whether it be Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario or wherever there is work.

The remaining people who are here, as the Deputy Premier said today: there

are more people in raw numbers working today than there were when we had a

population approaching 600,000 people. In raw numbers, there are more people

actually working today than there were when our population was 60,000, 70,000 or

85,000 more. That tells you what the culture of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador is like when it comes to work. If you want to ask anybody who is an

employer in Alberta, or an employer in Ontario, or an employer in British

Columbia, who have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working for them, they want

more. They are looking for more. In fact, that is part of the reason why people

leave this Province, because their friends and relatives from their community

phone them up and say: my employer is looking for more people who can work as

hard as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do. That is why we have a

smaller population, but those who are here are working - more and more are

working, even in raw numbers, despite the small population. So I get more than a

bit exercised when I hear those kinds of comments from people who, not only do

not understand, do not want to understand and would rather take potshots for

whatever purposes they have in mind.

To get back to FPI; when it was created in 1983, with the support of the

federal government and the Province, and the banks offering some of their

security, FPI had a public purpose as a Crown corporation, which was eventually

privatized in 1987. I think it is fair to put on the record that we, as a party,

the New Democratic Party, opposed the privatization of FPI because we were

concerned. We were concerned that the public purposes, which it was serving up

until 1987, would be deteriorated. They would fall by the wayside. They would be

watered down.

It may surprise some hon. members that the person who was leader of the

party, at that time, was Mr. Peter Fenwick. He has recently come out with all

sorts of statements that are absolutely contrary to the things that he said, as

leader of this party, in 1987. The Member for Lewisporte was here in the House

and probably heard some of the questions asked of him as to what was going to

happen to FPI when it was privatized. So we did oppose it, Mr. Speaker, because

we were concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think the Member for Lewisporte even has the quotes. He

will probably give us one later on when he speaks in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, it was the public purposes of that corporation that we wanted to

preserve. We seen that there was a danger of them being eroded. What we did see

then, after the privatization took place, we saw a company gradually emerge.

Although it was a private corporation, although it was broadly held as the

intention was spelled out in the act - no more than 15 per cent ownership - it

did, in fact, develop itself as an international presence in the world market,

as a flagship company for Newfoundland and Labrador. A company which, I have to

say, I was certainly proud of as a resident and person of this Province, as a

proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to know that we had under management in

this Province a company which - although it may not have been owned directly by

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in fact, the shareholdings were

widely dispersed - was managed by people who were born in this Province, who

grew up in this Province, who received their training in this Province, and who

were showing leadership in the corporate world, leadership in the fishing

industry, leadership internationally in the development of a corporation that

was playing a role in this Province in terms of its job of keeping stability in

our workforce, of making the fishery modernized and profitable, of involving its

employees in the management of the company.

It is one of the few companies who had a representative nominated by the

employees, by the union on its board of directors in the presence of Father Des

McGrath; a company which had a pretty good track record when it came to labour

relations. They were not there in negotiations with its union without

recognizing the validity and the value of the process of collective bargaining

and negotiating in good faith. They were there to ensure, to a maximum extent,

in keeping with his obligations to his shareholders, that the employees would be

treated well and fairly. Within the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, the standards

were set by FPI in terms of its relationship with its employees in terms of

wages and benefits that were made available through collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, that company did emerge as a flagship for the industry, as a

model for other fishing companies and as a company of which we could all be

proud for the role that it played in the international market. I know the

Minister of Fisheries - I am not sure if he mentioned it here today, but he has

on previous occasions, as have others, that at the Boston Seafood Show, one of

the prime international seafood shows in the world, Fishery Products

International has always been one of the largest exhibitors, one which has the

greatest presence in the show, and one which people look to as being a leader in

the industry in terms of what it does.

We have seen this company grow and prosper, and play an important role. Then

we saw something happen, Mr. Speaker. We saw something happen because somebody

realized or somebody recognized that this company was probably a lot more

valuable than the stock market investors realized, that the trading value of the

company was a lot less than its actual asset value, than the book value, than

the real underlying true value of the company.

What we saw then, Mr. Speaker, was a proposal by a group known as the NEOS

Group to take over that company. They wanted to take over that company because

they saw a value in it that the market was not recognizing, and the only way

they could effectively take over the control of that was to get rid of the 15

per cent share. So what did they do, Mr. Speaker? They came to the government -

not this government, the previous government, the same political stripe - and

asked the government, would they remove the 15 per cent share to allow this

takeover. Mr. Speaker, when this became public my immediate response and

reaction was to say: no, we oppose the NEOS bid. We believe that the NEOS bid

would change the nature of the corporation. It would take control of the

corporation outside of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would mean

that the company would no longer operate under the rubrics of the 1987 act and

its intention. It would now be just another company controlled by foreign

interests and foreign capital and operated to suit their interests, not to serve

the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What did the government of the day say, Mr. Speaker? Eventually we know what

they did. Eventually they said: no, we are not going to change it. What they

said, and the statement of the Premier of the day, Brian Tobin, was: we will do

it or we will only do it if it is in the best interest of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Now there is a nice, good mealy-mouth statement, Mr.

Speaker, that allows you to do whatever it is you want, but it sends a message.

It sends a clear message. What the message that it sent then, and continued to

send until this committee made its report and the government adopted it, the

message that it sent was that FPI was for sale, that FPI was available for the

right deal, for the right buyer, for the right group, for the right interests to

take over that company. That was the message that it sent, Mr. Speaker, that if

the right deal came along, if the right group of people took it over or wanted

to take it over, then the government would consider it.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, that was the wrong message to send; the wrong

message to send to the NEOS group, to Mr. Barry, to Mr. Risley, to the New

Zealanders, to the Icelandic Freezing Group, to all of those people who had an

interest in cutting up and carving up the pie of FPI for their own interests.

That was the wrong message to send. All it did, Mr. Speaker, was encourage plan

B. In fact, it was even called plan B at one time.

Plan A was the NEOS takeover. Plan B - and, as I say, it was referred to as

plan B by the salesman for the NEOS group - if this does not work, we will come

back with plan B. Well, we say plan B, last spring. We say plan B when Mr.

Risley nominated a slate of directors to take over FPI, and we saw what

happened. What happened was that, under the law of corporate operation, the

existing directors of FPI were forced to take certain actions under the existing

legislation and under their corporate fiduciary duties. They allowed a vote to

go ahead, despite the belief of many of them that this was contrary to the act,

contrary to the spirit and intention of the act, and that there were directors

and shareholders acting in concert. Despite their strong belief that that had

taken place, they felt obliged to allow the vote to proceed and we know the

result.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there?

MR. HARRIS: I was there at the Delta Hotel at the shareholders meeting,

not the first one I was at, Mr. Speaker, because I went to three or four of them

because I was interested in watching the fortunes of this company for a number

of years, not as a shareholder, although I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker,

if a mutual fund that I own had shares in it, but that is alright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: That is not why I was there. I was there as a member of this

House who had been invited to come and see how FPI was doing. I went and watched

the fortunes of that company. I saw them doing very well and acting as what I

believed to be within the public purpose and intentions of the act. I was there

last spring because I wanted to see what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, it was like a wake for many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who were there, people who had been in the fishing business in this

Province for decades and decades and decades, who saw what they thought and what

they believed to be the control of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador at last going out of the hands of the people of this Province. I saw

senior business leaders of this Province with tears in their eyes as they heard

the results of the vote that put in the new Board of Directors of FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, that was a very important day because that was

the second approach, the second issue with respect to what was happening to FPI,

and an attempt to change and transform FPI from we thought it was, what we

believed it represented, to what somebody else's idea for FPI was.

Then we saw, not a few months later, a proposal by FPI to buy Clearwater.

That is what it was called, but the business press called it something else.

What did they call it? They called it a reverse takeover. It was called a

reverse takeover of FPI by Clearwater Foods, a privately held company, not even

publicly traded, whose finances are a mystery - at least they are not public -

and who planned to take over FPI through this reverse takeover. We saw, Mr.

Speaker, gradually, one step at a time, plan A, plan B, plan C, which resulted

punitively in the transformation of FPI from what we thought it was to what

somebody else wanted it to become.

What has happened as a result of the committee coming into force, after they

had made further plans to transform the political culture of Newfoundland by

laying off one-half of the groundfish workforce without any consultation,

without any plan, without any consensus as to what was happening, without any

forewarning, that was the change in the culture, that FPI, this flagship

company, would try to do something like that in the face of the history of this

company in this Province. That was the attempt to transform the culture. The

response was predictable, if anybody had any sense. The response was: No, you

are not going to change that culture. You are not going to take and transform

this company into something that we never, ever intended it to be.

Mr. Speaker, when we sat down as a committee and went around to hear from the

people of this Province what they wanted, or what they saw FPI as, what we heard

again, again and again, was that the spirit and intention and expectation of FPI

back in 1987 was that we were going to have a widely held company, not a company

that was going to be subject to reverse takeovers, fancy takeovers, or whatever

other new corporate ways can be found to take control of a company, but rather a

company that was widely held so that it could be managed in the interests of

shareholders, yes, but to be a public purpose private corporation, and that we,

the people of this Province, wanted to see it defined in a more tight way with

respect to the shareholding, and in a more precise way with respect to the

provision of a

preamble which sets out now what people expect. I do not think

anybody who bought shares in FPI were under any illusions, frankly, Mr. Speaker,

as to what this company was all about. They were not under any illusions. They

knew that the 15 per cent shareholding restriction was there. In fact, the

previous board, not the one elected last night, they themselves had passed a

motion at their annual meeting to change the share restriction, to eliminate the

15 per cent share restriction subject to the approval of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, which, of course, was not forthcoming. They knew what

they were buying. They knew they wanted to change it, but they knew what they

were buying, and nobody who is a shareholder of that company, Mr. Speaker, who

had bought shares in that company can say, if they had done their due diligence,

if they had done their proper activity in buying shares, large amounts or small

amounts, that they were under any illusions. They might have wanted it to

change. They might have thought it would be advantageous for them to have it

changed, but they should have been under no illusion as to what the purpose of

this company was and what the people of Newfoundland expected from it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the purpose clause of this act, it is

recommended, in fact, word for word by the committee, we see that it is very

clear. If there was ever any doubt, there will be no room for doubt in the

future that this is a public purpose private corporation that has its purposes

spelled out in the new

section of the act, which will spell them out as

recommended by the committee. That is a very important provision, Mr. Speaker.

The head office provision is something that I think many people believed was

there and expected it was there but was not, in fact, there. The head office has

always been in St. John's, and there has always been a requirement of majority

resident directors in the Province. The Newfoundland and Labrador nature of the

company was never let go by some of the provisions, and this makes it even more

definite.

The other provision of the 15 per cent, I think, is a reflection of what

people expected in this Province in terms of whether the company should be

widely held or not, that the shareholding in FPI broadly held all types of

shares, not just one type of share. I think that is important, that it be

passed. That is what we heard. That was what we expected. We heard, very late in

the day, some arguments from FPI in relation to how accounting systems work. We

did not hear that until long after the Risley reverse takeover, the Clearwater

deal had been announced as being gone. They did not try to convince anybody

around the Province that this was a good provision to have, 20 per cent or 25

per cent. Late in the day they asked the committee to look at it, but at this

point the intention was clear. The committee's deliberations on the issue were

almost complete. The public hearings were over. The company passed up every

opportunity, except one, to participate in the hearings, and the arguments that

they had to make were too little, too late, and certainly were not convincing to

the committee. If they were, they would have been contained in the report.

We do have a clarification and a specification that all securities are

covered by this. This is something that is reflective of what we heard and

reflective of what we believe was always the intention of the FPI Act, to ensure

that there was a widely held company headquartered in Newfoundland and Labrador

with purposes as set forth to recognize the fundamental role of the fishery in

this Province; to continue the company as a widely held company with the

objective of growth and strengthening of the fishery of the Province,

recognizing that we have a private company operating on sound business and

commercial decisions, but also recognizing the historical context in which that

operates; and also to ensure maximum employment stability and productivity

within the Province through employee participation.

That is a reference, oblique though it is, to the collective bargaining

history and the working with its employees, whether in terms of profit-sharing

plans, or in terms of consultation, or in terms of collective bargaining, or in

terms of having representation on the board. That is the nature of the kind of

corporate culture that we have come to see in FPI. Now you cannot legislate

corporate culture, Mr. Speaker. You cannot legislate it, but you can give some

indication in the purpose clause of this act, of the kind of corporate culture

that we have experienced in FPI and the kind of corporate culture that the

government and the Legislature hopes for in passing this legislation.

I want to thank all the members of the committee who worked so hard to

achieve a unanimous result and a unanimous report. I think that is enormously

important, Mr. Speaker. It is enormously important that the message which comes

out from this Legislature today - while we are passing and considering this act

- is that this is not something that is the product of partisan or ideological

gamesmanship or positioning or anything like that, but rather, in fact, is the

unanimous will of this Legislature of an all-party committee. Indeed, I can't

say it is the unanimous will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I

can say with some certainty that it is the political will of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we have a company, called FPI, with public

purposes that operates in the private capital world, but can cross both of those

borders and do a proper job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the

fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the shareholders of that company.

I want to say that I wholeheartedly support and endorse our committee's

efforts; the process; the work that the minister did as Chair of the committee;

the commitment of the Premier in advance to clarify the 15 per cent rule; the

full cooperation of the Opposition members on the committee: the Fisheries

critic and the Member for Bonavista South, all of whom - along with the Member

for Marystown, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for

Bay of Islands -did an excellent job in representing, not only their parties and

their districts, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole, in

carrying out this committee's work.

I wholeheartedly endorse Bill 65, in all of the principles that it contained.

I haven't said anything about the issue of quotas, but it is an important part

of our committee's work and deliberations. It is not in the act yet, and I

hope it does not have to be because I hope that FPI will follow through on its

word and its commitment to enter into a binding agreement that protects the

interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the

potential transfer of quotas; and I fully expect that they will. I fully expect

them to abide by their word. I hope we don't have to have legislation here to

deal with that.

This legislation, the four pieces of legislation or the four principles that

are contained in our report - that the needed legislation right now are here.